How worthy is beauty?

<p><strong>Simple-seeming question: </strong></p>

<p>How does easily-appreciated "beauty" relate to your photography?</p>

<p>To show my own hand: I rarely photograph conventionally beautiful phenomena. No sunsets, surf, unknown young lovelies. Few, but some, idylic situations. I'm not a "nature photographer," but having identified potential in nature I admit having waited months, on a few occasions, for the clouds that will eventually jazz things up...wanting that dose of beauty.</p>

<p>I do want the prints I make to be seen secondarily as "beautiful," but that's not the sort of beauty I'm asking about.</p>

<p>Beauty without grace is like the hook without the bait. That's what Emerson said... : ) I like women, <em>God knows I do</em>. And a sunset or two. Lot's of pictures of *beautiful* women around here on photo.net which leave me completely bored. Big fat *Yawn*. And then I can see something like a completely random pic... like a portrait like a trash-can, <em>or,</em> a red dirty Egglestonian ceiling perhaps, which leaves me amazed & flabbergasted by grace...<em>That's</em>. Beauty.</p>

<p><em>I believe that beauty is its own reward</em>.......and I look for it wherever I might be. I find it mostly in humans and in animals......can't see why anyone would get up in the morning if they had no expectation of beauty.<br>

There is certainly no lack of ugliness in the world.....so see beauty where and when you can! Robert</p>

<p>I would say that it's only through beauty that we may decipher ugliness. No ugliness without beauty.</p>

<p>I've never consciously looked for "beauty" per se in the scenes I shoot. I look for something that grabs me emotionally, almost like a strong sense of deja vu that invokes that "Wow! I've gotta shoot this!" reaction. It could be a landscape, old building or just a window - doesn't matter. Sometimes, someone will look at one of my prints and say, "That's beautiful", and my reaction is mild surprise.</p><div></div>

<p>The key part of the question is "easily-appreciated". It can mean kitsch, familiar, iconic, high monetary value, or corresponding to the values of a group. Snobbishly, it can mean being liked by the uninitiated/unwashed. </p>

<p>If something appeals to me, I photograph it. If someone who's judgment I respect considers it beautiful, I'm happy.</p>

<p>Just seeing the title of the thread, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' immediately came up, and even while the question in the opening avoids that perfectly, it doesn't leave my mind.<br /> It is true there is this conventional beauty, something that all of us by default seem to appreciate, or for which it is indeed convention to sigh and admire it. Terms Jon adds, familiar and iconic, make sense.<br /> Where do we get this idea that it is beautiful from? We're still the same individual beholders, then why do all our eyes initially judge it that way? In a way, I'd say it is cultural embedded, but some of these seem culture-less phenomena too. Sorry to take the original question in another direction here, but I'm just curious about these 'humanity shared' things.</p>

<p>More on topic. I've shot, and will shoot, numerous sunsets. Even put some up here in my portofolio, more to see if they would provoke reactions or not (but I think I need to dive in the critique circus more seriously to get that). I have little joy in making these photos, photographically they are easy. But I do enjoy those moments, and for that reason capture them, because I love the play and rich colours of the light. I also know that in photographically lower-standard web environments than p.net (let's call it facebook), they get lots of praise. Do I make them because of these easily won compliments? No, not that I'm aware at least.</p>

<p>If there is conventional beauty in my photos, it's because it struck me somehow. My photos, in the end, are my own impressions on something I saw, the way I saw it and what struck me in one way or another. So what I see in them is, to me, beautiful in a way. Regardless if that's ugly for somebody else, or utterly conventional.</p>

<p>I can't answer your question right away (if ever), John. I can't even define "beauty."</p>

<p>I can give examples of it, though:</p>

<p>http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Bridal/Romantic-Light/12171174_saJQ9#866106801_9tyWn-X2-LB</p>

<p>I will also quote here (from Proverbs, chapter thirty) what I quoted on Richard Snow's thread, "When is photography no longer photography?"</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://bible.cc/proverbs/30-18.htm" target="_blank"><strong>18</strong></a> Three things are too wonderful for me;<br /> four I do not understand:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://bible.cc/proverbs/30-19.htm" target="_blank"><strong>19</strong></a> the way of an eagle in the sky,<br /> the way of a serpent on a rock,<br /> the way of a ship on the high seas,<br /> and the way of a man with a maid.</p>

<p>Such things exemplify beauty. In the absence of adequate definitions of "beauty," perhaps others can at least offer their own examples of "beauty."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>If it is not beauty you express in photograph, then what is it? Ugliness? Or plane banality? Or mindless egotistic self expression to jam down anybodys throat free of charge?</p>

<p>Even in that case you will probably have to put it up in some harmonious form, I guess.</p>

<p>Unless one is prepared to go for chaos, cultural annihilation and such like manifestations - consciously. What would be the point of it after all?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it is not beauty you express in photograph, then what is it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilia, if one wants to show the horrors of war, for example, does one make the photo beautiful or even well-ordered?</p>

<p>Likewise, if one shows a deserted ghost-town as rather stark, run-down, and depressing, might that not be the point?</p>

<p>The movie <em>The Last Picture Show</em> depicts a small Texas town. It actually was shot in Archer City, Texas, not too many miles from where I used to live in Wichita Falls. It was shot in black and white, and the shots are deliberately stark, often emphasizing cold, windy conditions with tumble weeds blowing through the main streets. I have seen that side of Archer City, but I have also seen it in a more favorable light.</p>

<p>Why did the director have the scenes shot as he did? (Rent or buy the movie and find out! It is a classic of sorts.) The same kind of question applies to whatever mood one is trying to evoke with still photos.</p>

<p>On a given day for a given photo, that is, one might want to present the beauty of a place. On another day, or with a different intent, one might want to evoke a completely different mood.</p>

<p>I hate to link to one of my own, but I definitely did not try to evoke beauty in this scene, given the title:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5226830</p>

<p>That is not a great example, of course, since it is hard to see how one might photograph that scene as portraying beauty. Even so, I hope that you get my point.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Say, documentary it is. The concept of composition is to make it unusually visually stark and graphic in order to shock and terrify public viewer. Vietnam war, German nazi extermination camps, Pol Pot, Manson family, Haity shakeup - you look carefully at these photos all you see but precisely measured visual, compositional impact calculated to support the ideology at hand.</p>

<p>In any case, your suggestions offered easy fall into one of the kinds I mentioned. Question hawever remains: what is the point of keeping doing it?</p>

<p>Let me point out, in OP John is talking about "easily - appreciated" "beauty" whatever it means. Since time immemorial people has been taking every chance to frighten each other for variety of reasons but why would independant, creative person do likewise today in his spared time? To show THE TRUTH? Or to show his personal PERCEPTION OF REALITY? Or just IMPRESS SOMEONE? Or WHAT? Perhaps you will take an opportunity and tell us kindly why have you made above linked image in first place and why bring it to the public after all?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>The OT</strong> has to do with <strong>"beauty"</strong> and<strong> "your photography."</strong></p>

<p><strong>"Your" does not mean somebody else's work. It is a way of asking for more honest insights.</strong></p>

<p>To be honest in the OT, I tried to express something that seems to me to be <strong>fundamental to</strong><strong> my own last few years' photography</strong>... maybe my P.N gallery correlates reasonably positively. If someone thinks it doesn't, I'll take that as an <strong>opportunity to learn</strong>, especially if their P.N gallery establishes credibility. <br /><br />I specifically asked about "<strong>your photography,</strong>" hoping to learn more about photography from the thoughts of <strong>real photographers about their own work</strong>. If someone's own work doesn't support their thoughts, that might be the measure of both.</p>

<p>If <strong>"your own" P.N Gallery </strong>doesn't indicate you are doing something of <strong>"your own,"</strong> maybe you are not yet making "your own photography?" <strong>Maybe this is an opportunity to start making that photography.</strong> </p>

 

<p>I am not particularly interested in "beauty." I don't have a statement that says "I photograph to show the world they beauty I see around me," and not just because I've seen that line several thousand times. My inspiration comes from punk rock and death metal, grotesque art from Monte Alban's Danzantes to Francis Bacon, movies like <em>Freaks</em>, and books like <em>Hollywood Babylon</em>. There are problems with this - I often shoot subjects considered beautiful (I actually consider all my subjects beautiful) and they are not always happy with the treatment, so I end up doing quite a bit of shots that might be considered depictions of beauty. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If "your own" P.N Gallery</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I use <a href="http://spirer.com/">my own website</a>. Seems a lot better for the presentation I want.</p>

<p> <br>

Simple-seeming question: ... In deed. 'Easily appreciated' 'beauty' equated to sunsets, surf and young lovelies is so not a question of photography but one of characteristics, yours, mine, the subject... reaction. Easily appreciated beauty for me in photography, and life, varies (sometimes contradicts) dramatically from convention. Sunsets can be beautiful to experience live but extremely rare that I find them beautiful in a photograph. It doesn't seem to matter who shoots them to me. </p>

<p>I have a strong taste for beauty that is not conventional, more fluid than many would allow for. I also have a strong positive reaction for what others may label flaw, imperfection. It can put me at ease where others may be put off. I find my desire for beauty to be easy for me to find when my attitude is in balance. a perfectly graceful fluent Beauty lurks in my head. Beauty, It is external but I don't forget that it is also determined by what is going on in me... <br>

so is easily appreciated beauty important? well of course but what is easy for me may not be for you. The beauty I easily appreciate is where I point my camera. But it is not a conventional sunset or a young lovely. </p>

<p>The beauty I encounter, photograph and reveal... if not conventional it is authentic.</p>

 

<p>Jeff, your website/s are obviously better for your purposes than P.N's very useful Galleries. Prints, especially B&W, are my big thing...and I'm not trying to sell via the Internet...I don't currently feel the need for anything like your website. If/when I eventually want more it'll involve sound (I've mentioned <a href="http://www.soundslides.com">www.soundslides.com</a> before). Today I did some inconsequential photojournalism and, more usefully, I digitally recorded some fine ambient sound...don't know yet what I'll do with it.</p>

<p>Incidentally...I've visited the P.N sites of everybody who's posted here. <strong> fwiw, I think most of those sites show work that's consistent with the comments posted here.</strong></p>

<p>I don't think Ilia's efforts to rigidly categorize photography work as well as Ilia's images, but those comments do directly relate to those particular images. I think Lannies comments are rambling personal meditations rather than efforts to communicate. I don't think they relate to his own photography.</p>

<p>For a couple of years I managed an ultimate E4 slide lab, occasionally shot Kodachrome, and eventually grew to love E6. ...back then my non-professional work often entailed golden hours and beauty (mostly West Coast...backpacking, old buildings /gfriends/graphics...the usual stuff), but that was 20 years ago..<strong>been there, done that. </strong> It was worthwhile for me back then and it's worthwhile for others today...no question about it.</p>

<p>I don't mean to seem negative about other peoples' approaches...most here have responded directly and honestly to the Original Question though I wish some wrote <strong>more about their own work</strong> (ie were more photographically honest and were less constricted by theory and opinion)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Y]ou look carefully at these photos all you see but precisely measured visual, compositional impact calculated to support the ideology at hand.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have to concede that you are right about that, Ilia. Even randomness must be carefully managed in a photo, sort of like looking "casually disheveled" in one's hair or clothing in order to bring about a certain reaction or impact--a process that might take hours in order to get the degree of dishevelment just right. "Carefully careless" comes to mind. . . .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Since time immemorial people has been taking every chance to frighten each other for variety of reasons but why would independant, creative person do likewise today in his spared time? To show THE TRUTH? Or to show his personal PERCEPTION OF REALITY? Or just IMPRESS SOMEONE? Or WHAT? Perhaps you will take an opportunity and tell us kindly why have you made above linked image in first place and why bring it to the public after all?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, yes, Ilia, my most famous (well, actually totally ignored) photo labeled "Scene of the Crime" in the folder of the same title. Well, yes, you are right again. I would not call it beauty, but, yes, I spent some time getting the perspective right, not to mention trying to make it look like a night-time shot. (It was shot in the middle of the afternoon--a very bright afternoon.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Or just IMPRESS SOMEONE?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, Ilia, a bit of that, too, I confess (although having precious little success at impressing anyone with the photo). I think that a bit of vanity goes into all artwork, even the poems of Keats, though he claimed that he never gave a moment's thought to the public reception of his poetry. Doesn't ring quite true, does it?</p>

<p>Well, I never intended or expected to frighten anyone with that shot. I did work to get the angles right, so that there is a certain pattern to the lines that I take pride in. I was crushed when one of my PN friends said that she didn't like it. . . .</p>

<p>But "BEAUTY" in "Scene of the Crime"?? Heavens, no. Beautiful it ain't.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, As I read some of the theories and opinions that have surfaced here and also see work that is consistent with those philosophies... I wonder what is missing. ? The food for thought has been presented and reflected in photographs in most cases.</p>

<p>I am confused by your quest John. Not your sincerity here. In spite of all your cantankerous comments you have often held me spellbound with your feelers. So in I jump.</p>

<p>"<em>To be honest in the OT, I tried to express something that seems to me to be <strong>fundamental to</strong><strong> my own last few years' photography</strong>... </em>[what is that John? that you do not shoot what you consider conventional beauty. And you are not a young lovelies or nature photographer.] <em>maybe my P.N gallery correlates reasonably positively.</em> <em>If someone thinks it doesn't, </em>[it does what would contradict?]<em> <em>I'll take that as an <strong>opportunity to learn</strong>, especially if their P.N gallery establishes credibility." </em></em><br>

With this simple question what are you really asking yourself and others? brainstorming? Is conventional beauty worthwhile photographically? Am I, I am missing what lays below the surface of this exploration if anything. If it is just a hit or miss kinda thing, maybe you could try fortune cookies. :0 - or let us know where it itches.</p>

<p>John, while I think my first post in a way exceeded your original question, it was just a thought that came up while contemplating/formulating my answer. I hope it is not seen as a unneeded off-topic attempt; it's just that to me it is an interesting question about the 'conventional beauty'.</p>

<p>Josh, while I understand your questions, I read it more or less as a query on how much you allow conventions and the conventional in your work. Do you recognise it, allow it, play it?<br>

To me, it feels like a bit a double-edged sword. Disallow the conventional, and your audience will be smaller, and your work often regarded more difficult. Play with the conventional, and many people will mis-interpret. Embrace the conventional, and be regarded boring.<br>

Anyway, for me, answering this question also happens dissect some of the more seemingly instinctive reactions I have while photographing, which is interesting as a "self-research".<br>

(then again, I may have read this all wrong?)</p>

<p>Rereading 3 times before click proceed wouldn't hurt...corrected that last bit should read:</p>

<p>...answering this question also happens o dissect some of the more seemingly instinctive reactions (in the light of appreciating or valuing conventional beauty) I have while photographing, which makes answering also interesting as a "self-research".<br />(then again, I may have read this (= the question) all wrong?)</p>

<p>Wouter, good take. rephrasing. ".. how much you allow conventions and the conventional in your work. Do you recognise it, allow it, play it? / To me, it feels like a bit a double-edged sword." a classic creative dilemma, pesky for many. <br>

The way you ask the question often guides the answers or obscures the answer. To answer the query as you put it. I recognize it, allow it when it comes naturally, and love to play with it. This is a case for me when 'not caring' about the viewer is beneficial. For me it is characteristically easy and can be accomplished without disregarding the impact of the image. But then I do not have to make a living with photography or impress anyone. The double edge sword played a part in why I chose not to many years ago.<br>

I know that I am primarily an ordinary man, the older I get the clearer it becomes. But I also know that when I pay attention and free up my instinct and learning the little things that make me, me the individual surfaces in my work with clarity. When that happens I am content, my reward.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do want the prints I make to be seen secondarily as "beautiful," but that's not the sort of beauty I'm asking about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've sort of defined easily-appreciated beauty, but can you clarify "that's not the sort of beauty I'm asking about"? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with that statement, can you elaborate on this a bit further?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve, I think you missed my mention of two fundamental-seeming kinds of photographic beauty: one vague and probably subjective (the "sort of" kind), the other fairly standardized and technical (the beauty in good print quality). Purported "artists" often seem limited to the "sort of," but print quality enthusiasts (part of my DNA) often disregard the "sort of" factor (perhaps an"Ansel Adams look" is sufficient for them).</p>

<p>I used "sort of" hoping to avoid the comma-infected semantic swamp in which some muddle elaborately. Semantics ooze uselessly through many of the threads here: "real vs Photoshop," "nekkid: chaste or raunchy" etc . </p>

<p><br />"Beauty" in an image seems a factor that, to the extent it's worth mentioning, can be found at various levels. Other factors become so much more compelling at certain levels that "beauty" becomes at best incidental, even a distraction.</p>

<p>Josh, good questions. I think Wouter's pretty close to what I have in mind, thoughI'm not consciously doing "self research." I am exploring something similar. My photos reside outside myself, they aren't me and they only partially reflect me.</p>

<p>An extraordinarily fine nature photographer (wish I could remember his name) said in his blog that he didn't look for the unusual (eg simple-seeming vistas of midwestern wheat fields). I do look for the unusual. And in fact, that wonderful photographer's "not-unusual" images leap out: the purported absence-of-unusual is a falsehood. Be cautious trusting folks from the Northern Midwest. :-)</p>

<p>I don't much care for taking or looking at pictures of pretty sunsets.</p>

<p>In my own photographs, I consciously work with people I don't necessarily find beautiful in the "conventional" sense. (Thanks for that line of thought, Wouter and Josh.) So, I am aware of an absence of the kind of beauty talked about in the OT. My photographs are my own search for something else, something that I respond to in people both visually and otherwise. Connection, intimacy, humor, character . . .</p>

<p>I've just been introduced to a young, handsome man who would like to be a subject for me. I will try to find ways to work with him that go beyond just his good looks. However, I don't intend to try to deny his good looks. So, in this case, I will be working (and happy to be) with "easily-appreciated beauty." I hope to discover in him (with him) something else. I might just go for the something else. Or, I might try to point to his "beauty" as well as moving beyond it. I will no doubt also personalize it some, because I'd be lying if I said I wasn't attracted to this kind of youthful beauty, quite superficially I admit. So some of the tension I will likely feel between my attraction for his conventional good looks and my desire to express something about that with more complexity in a photograph can go into its making. </p>