On 'Ruin Porn' - exploitation in modern ruins photography

<p>Hey all, I just published a response to the recent slew of criticism that has been leveled against modern ruins photography, designating it as 'ruin porn' - necessarily exploitative in nature. My article is here:<br>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-ference/on-ruin-porn_b_816593.html<br>

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the topic!</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Ian,<br>

I personally feel that ruins represent a great opportunity to capture an essence dilapidation that would be foolish to ignore. Those who dislike it can surely avoid looking at it? I am afraid that I live in a country where there is much preservation of the old and what is not preserved is boarded up in the name of health and safety. If you get the chance, make the best of it.</p>

<p>Ian, it is good to see photographers like you taking such an interest in the work of others and in responding to critiques that they may not agree with. I cannot wrestle myself from my work long enough to read your lengthy article, but having read part of it and also the article that prompted it, I have to say that these are not porn in any sense. or what is inaptly called ruin porn (perhaps ruin obsession or ruin dispossession, or some other term, might have been better). I agree that they are what they are, mainly devoid of any comment other than what we already know. I was watching a program on French Canadian TV the other day that showed small towns in a southern and a mid-western state that had born the brunt of both disaffection and the effects of the recession. I came away thinking that yes, for these towns that is so, but it doesn't give an overall picture of the state of life in the USA. An exaggeration if taken in a more general sense.</p>

<p>Burtynsky has shown his "manufactured landscapes" that are not always affluent, often rundown remnants of former or degraded industrial life. There is a beauty in many of them. We have seen such images as the Detroit images in those of many contexts and times. The images in question do not provide a response for the future, only a bleak awareness of the present, so that I guess is the criticism of some. Europe was devastated but rebuilt effectively in most cases after the wars. The ruins are but transitions (although terrible ones for those involved. who paid with their lives and not only with their jobs).</p>

<p>I enjoy making images of dead trees, old abandoned buildings, uninhabited or rejected places, continuing but weary architecture. They say something to me, and their structures are often visually more apparent and powerful at, after, or near the end of their life cycle. They have a character that is masked in the former pristine building or natural object. They are to me more like (a glass of) port, than porn. My furniture is largely antique, not the highly polished smart antiques, but rather primitive and simple, colored and yet with lots of wounds of time. Somehow thay are very comfortable to live with, like the somewhat flakey yet warm office of Lionel Logue in the recent King's Speech film of Tom Hopper.</p>

 

<p>I don't think of current ruin porn as a form of exploitation as I do a titanic, yawn-inducing cliche.I see its potential for documentary value, but a lot of it isn't that.</p>

<p>[For the record, Burtynsky's work reminds me of former President Bush's fly-over of Katrina. Who else could have gone to China and made the whole thing seem so disgustingly <em>clean and sanitized? Worse, it was mostly done from the perspective of the Eagle's Nest POV, from a position of dominating, distanced power.] <br /></em></p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

<p>Luis, Burtynsky has a social message (I'm referring to his North American work, or panoramas of East Indian boat breakers) that goes well beyond so called ruin porn and incites us to reflect on the efffect of man's industry on man. The Detroit images, of which I've seen but few to date, I admit, seem to me to be simply curious decayed architectural ruins. The connection with the problem is not there for me. </p>

<p>So long as it satisfies the intellect of the people making this sort of photograph, it doesn't matter whether it means anything or not. If others like it, well fine; if not, let them find something they do like. Its no more porn than pictures of birds, or modern architecture , or sport. Just because something isn't enjoyed doesn't mean that one has to seek out a nasty label to stick on it in justification of dislike. </p>

<p>I like this sort of photography as much as anything else I do. There's not much of a commercial outlet for it for me at least, so as far as I'm concerned its pure pleasure, limited only by the availability of accessible and interesting sites. </p>

<p>I like Burtynsky's work a lot. Inevitably I like some work more than others, and the China portfolio mentioned above is not IMO his most interesting work ( though its more interesting that the two portfolios I saw in London two weeks ago of Gulf oil spills and prints made from polaroids that had become stuck together. However, the manufactured landscapes, Quarries and Australian mining series , especially when seen in the flesh rather than on-screen, are often very beautiful. Reading about Burtynsky's work gives the impression that he considers himself a conservationist. I'm not terribly concerned, and can accept the photographs (or not) as a pure visual treat. </p>

<p>Arthur, I understand what you are saying about Burstynky having a social message, and understand and agree with the effects of industry of man. I also did not mean to give the impression that I see his work primarily as ruin porn. My problem with him (and it is my problem, not his) regards aesthetics for the most part. It is beautiful, strongly formal and skillfully executed work.</p>

<p>David, I dislike the dyslogistic term "porn", but realize the relative usefulness of using such terms, which is why they are with us.</p>

<p>Luis, I think I may understand where you might derail from Burtynsky in regard to aesthetics. Although I admire what he is doing in many cases, for its social value, I don't relate fully to his precise yet physically detached approach, made technically possible by the large format negatives or transparencies. Man is also a minor character, although we are dealing with his industrial realisations. Perhaps an American artist would see the subject in more human terms (although I dangerously generalize). Is it too much to suggest that perhaps we are seeing a somewhat more detached northern view? Much traditional Canadian painting excepting folklore painting seems to me to physically exclude the human and just suggest his presence or not at all. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the topic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, I'll be happy to oblige.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>It's a non-issue.</li>

<li>No one gets 'stimulated' by photos of old buildings, so calling such photography 'porn' is inaccurate at best.</li>

<li>The article is well-written, and you get an 'A' for promotion.</li>

</ol>

 

<p>LOL - deep thoughts there.</p>

<p>1. Saying a thing does not make it so. I can say abortion is a non-issue, and plenty of people would disagree with me. This has been a contentious topic in the ruins photography community for several years now.<br>

2. Did you even read the article? 'Porn' is used metaphorically - "Leary makes clear that the 'ruin porn' usage is centered on exploitation" - not to indicate sexual arousal.<br>

3. Thanks, I guess?</p>

<p><strong>Arthur, </strong>yes, I think you are seeing what I mentioned about Burtynsky. I'm not going to speculate or negate it, but wouldn't touch the idea that it's a "northern" thing without researching it. Interesting thought, though.<br>

_____________________</p>

<p>Ian's article is beautifully written. His own writing points out many of the issues I have with this genre. For example: "Since the invention of the daguerreotype, photographers have been studying ruins; Rome and Egypt were very common destinations for lensmen. Modern ruins are no different, and indeed, are often studied with the same historical and documentary intentions as these early explorers."</p>

<p>An insightful remark, because that is exactly how they come across: As a form of Neo-Orientalism, with all the shortcomings of the original works. Worse, they are drowning in self-evident Sentimentalism.</p>

<p>Richard Nickel's work, which I have seen in person on several occasions, is an entirely different thing, both in style and documentation. Nickel intimately <em>knew </em>what he was looking at, had devoted his life to it and understood its historical significance and context, and in his case, racing against time, as his subjects were disappearing rapidly. He and Vinci physically <em>saved outstanding decorations from these buildings and found them homes. He also lobbied to save the buildings, and protested their destruction.</em> Something most people don't know is that when all of this started, while Nickel was in school at the then-Institute of Design, his partner in the budding project as none other than Aaron Siskind.</p>

<p><em> </em>Where is this level of commitment among Ruin Porn Photographers?</p>

<p>Sadly, Nickel died in the act, when a part of a building collapsed on him. His partner in crime, architect John Vinci, faithfully rescued Nickel's 15,000 negatives, architectural documents, library, etc., and on his own began the Richard Nickel Committee to help preserve, house, make available to researchers, and display the work, which later moved into the Art Institute.</p>

<p>Nothing like the huge majority of current photographers working in that genre. Most of the time, the work being done today gets a generic, usually sentimental (or faux apocalyptic/anthropological/archaeological/post-capitalist) foreword.</p>

<p>It is easy to see why Leary perceived the idea of exploitation, though I don't see that as the major shortcoming of the genre.</p>

<p> Mr. Nickel's work can be seen here:</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&biw=791&bih=396&q=Richard+Nickel+photographs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=fmFJTd36EYeglAeP473dDw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQsAQwAQ</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I often enjoy masterful and highly detailed (as 8X10 fillum or multi-file-stitched) work. Why, since it's rarely more than technical exercise? Because I find it often to be beautiful photographically. </p>

<p>We've recently experienced a tremendous amount of gorgeous <strong>Katrina</strong> and <strong>Havana</strong> peeling-wallpaper and crumbling elegance. Is that stuff superficially <strong>redundant</strong>? Yes. Is it any less redundant than a century of "nature" and "street" and "architectural graphics" and "figure studies?"</p>

<p>Seems to me that "aesthetics" most commonly has to do with "looking pretty," has little relation to <strong>"significance." </strong></p>

<p>When looking at Nickel's work, commitment is not an inept description. Maybe that is what separates the well-researched and intended imagery from the less memorable quick fixes (sorry for the pun). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>LOL - deep thoughts there.</p>

<p>1. Saying a thing does not make it so. I can say abortion is a non-issue, and plenty of people would disagree with me. This has been a contentious topic in the ruins photography community for several years now.<br>

2. Did you even read the article? 'Porn' is used metaphorically - "Leary makes clear that the 'ruin porn' usage is centered on exploitation" - not to indicate sexual arousal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>YOU ASKED for MY thoughts. And I gave them to you. Are you so insecure in your views that you have to attack those with an opposing position? Or are you so narcissistic that you actually believe that your musings about photographing old buildings are on par with a discussion of human reproductive issues?</p>

<p>Regardless of anyone's position on abortion, most reasonable people would conclude that it's a more serious issue than photographing urban decay. The only thing that you've accomplished in your response to my comments is to make your silly 'porn' analogy look marginally more respectable by bringing up a morbid, emotional, and politically charged topic like abortion to deflect a bit of honest criticism, WHICH YOU SOLICITED.</p>

<p>I suppose that I could understand your reaction if I had hurled some mindless insult at you (e.g. 'you stink and so does your stupid article, you little weasel!'). But I didn't do that. I did exactly as you requested and shared my thoughts on the subject. You might have considered that response thoughtfully and used the lessons of the feedback when writing your next piece, but instead you elected to indulge in a pissing contest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br />3. Thanks, I guess</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're welcome. Too bad it didn't help. Good day, and good luck.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>YOU ASKED for MY thoughts. And I gave them to you... blah blah blah... You might have considered that response thoughtfully and used the lessons of the feedback when writing your next piece, but instead you elected to indulge in a pissing contest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You didn't "give me" any intelligible thoughts; you first stated that the issue I was writing on was unimportant, then you stated that the thesis of my article was <strong>clearly</strong> wrong without providing anything resembling an argument for <em>why</em> it was wrong, and then you snarkily accused my of self-promotion for soliciting opinions on the matter.</p>

<p>There was nothing in your response that merited thoughtful consideration, nor are there any "lessons" in your feedback - you were clearly trying to provoke a response with your derisive tone, and I responded in kind, because I have a low tolerance for pompous idiots.</p>

<p>In point of fact, if my goal had been to self promote, I would spam the forums every time I posted on my actual blog, hoping to promote that, since my blog provides me with income and a theoretical article on the notion of exploitation in abandonment photography does not. But my goal was not, in fact, "promotion", but rather, the solicitation of intelligent feedback. I've refreshed the page frequently and read the other responses and considered them - everybody besides yourself has written a response which was thought-out and useful. You, on the other hand, decided to take the time to write condescending crap.</p>

<p>I agree with the thoughts of David henderson (above) on this.</p>

<p>Adding the word '-porn' to a genre really doesn't bring any insight to the discussion and just seems to be a perjorative term meaning the speaker or writer does not like that kind of photo.</p>

<p>For myself ruin shots speaks to me most about the subjects of failure and of end-of-lfe. Consideration of both these and related subjects is valuable in modern society so I am happy for wrecks and ruins to be photographed. I don't see it as more exploitative than comparable subjects.</p>

<p>I didn't read Leary's article, but having read yours, I think I might agree with him in at least one respect. When it comes to telling a story, the notion that a picture is worth 1,000 words is wrong. In fact, when it comes to telling the story of how a specific place turned out to be a derelict, it may not be worth <em>ANY</em> words at all. It's just plain silly to think it would. You could have saved yourself a lot of ink and aggravation by simply saying so.</p>

<p>You almost have to see such a place for the art it has within it. Visual form alone carries the day. I thought the photo of the circular staircase was interesting visually. I have no idea what took place there or why the facility was abandoned. I have no opinion about whether or not it should be remodeled or simply torn down. Perhaps there's no reason to do anything to it at all. Politics aside, these places offer an opportunity to see things you don't necessarily see every day.</p>

<p>I have never heard the term 'Ruin Porn' until this evening. It's a funny term, isn't it? I think it's value is the evident contempt it conveys. It suggests that someone or something is being exploited, but I think it suggests that photos it might describe are more successful that they truly are. I have to admit that when I saw the wheelchairs I thought, "Wow. Those things are expensive! How can they just be sitting around there? Someone should collect and refurbish them because they look too good to be trash." Perhaps I got the wrong message. That's the problem when a picture isn't worth any words at all.</p>

<p>I suppose it's a good thing for people like you to try to defend people like me from crackpots who like to get things wrong. Although I really don't care who might have been housed in the facility or what happened to it. I have gotten used to the fact that I will never know the story behind most of the things that fill my everyday life, and it is pointless to ask about them. Inventing explanations is one of the things fiction is good for.</p>

<p>I really don't understand how photographing decaying buildings is exploitation.  How, or what is being taken advantage of for gain?  And, what is the gain?  If anything, they are documentary photographs.  In the case of the Detroit photographs, I can relate directly to those as I was in many of those buildings when they were active and vibrant parts of the city.  As for "porn" please, give the sensationalism a rest.  They're no more porn than school pictures are insightful portraits.</p>

 

<p>If there is such a thing as "ruin porn" how and when does the photgraph become exploitation and not documentation?  "Ruins" can be found nearly anywhere one cares to look.<br>

 </p><div></div>

<p>Exploitation is like porn. I know it when I see it. Some pictures of people who live on the streets are exploitive. They often go for a generic kind of pathos (as Steve says, sensationalism), missing the person completely. The exploitation is most often of the form: I want to make a good photograph, one that people will respond to emotionally, so I will use this guy's hard luck and pathetic looks to wring some feeling out of people, all the while staying (hiding) safely behind my camera. [i can often tell when a photographer is hiding. I get it wrong sometimes and the hiding itself can be poignant sometimes.] Some pictures of old, wrinkled people are like that, too.</p>

<p>I agree that the idea of exploiting a building is a little odd but I think some pics of old, decaying buildings exploit viewers. They prey on quick symbolism and easy emotionalism to get a quick but ultimately unsubstantial rise (excuse the pun). Wheelchairs are often used as one of those kinds of quick and easy symbols. Oh, the pain! The question of what makes something documentation and not just exploitation is a difficult one. It's like asking what makes any photo something other than a snapshot or something more substantive than a grab for facebook. Long discussion. No quick, easy answers.</p>

<p>Albert makes a good point about the difficulty of telling a certain kind of (biographical) story with a photo. There are other kinds of stories. It strikes me what a paragraph or so of words might add to a few pictures of decaying buildings, or what a few pictures of the buildings would add to some words about them. Much documentary work benefits from accompanying descriptions with even the barest information.</p>

<p>By the way, Ian, +1 on your response to Dan.</p>

<p>I should add for clarity that I don't find Steve's Texas photo exploitive. It seems presentational without manufactured emotion, thoughtful even in light and composition without being self conscious or falsely manipulative.</p>

<p>Exploiting people is sometimes very evident. Exploiting old architecture? Not at all, I think.</p>

<p>How? If it reflects on the state of life in that area, well that is not exploitation but simply reporting, what you see is what exists. The only exploitation in architecture I believe is in the original design, when the symbolism or forms are construed in a manner to exploit certain human conceptions, while ostensibly producing humanly compatible living or working environments. For example, early 20th century bank buildings exploited in their design the notions of strength, fortress like security, etc. The buildings of the Nazis reflected power, domination, etc.</p>

<p>Arthur, here are three photos that I think use the symbolism of decay to elicit pathos, somewhat superficially and obviously. They seem meant to draw out a very particular sort of emotion in the viewer (one fairly easily obtained) rather than to be about the buildings themselves.</p>

<p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8FfvOBLYRfo/S9B_jJvVQyI/AAAAAAAAAT4/nZdRNLdWp8M/s512/Picture%20005.jpg">ONE</a></p>

<p><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbc2fesXif1qc7r46o1_500.jpg">TWO</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.lenkphoto.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/norwich-book-02-590x590.jpg">THREE</a></p>

<p>BTW, I don't think exploitation is necessarily bad. I'm not sure I don't know a photographer who can't, on some level, be said to "exploit" her subjects. Much like Sontag suggested we are all voyeurs, yet we still know more and less superficial and disrespectful levels of voyeurism, a case could be made that we all exploit (with different degrees of respect, need, and honesty).</p>

<p>The pics I've linked to remind me of the wheelchair pic Ian showed us above and also remind me of many pictures of old people. They seem <em>dependent</em> on easy, symbolic pathos, rather than committed to or actively being engaged with something.</p>

<p>Compare that to Steve's approach here, which I would say is much more genuine and documentary-like, even as it's a bit more distanced. I have little doubt that Steve could have approached his photo with more emotion and poignancy, even intimacy (had he wanted to, which I sense he did not) and still not have approached the level of exploitation I experience in the photos I just linked to.</p>

<p>Yes, three good examples of using decay and disorder to create a response, but as you say, it has less to do with the architecture as such. The decay is an "actor" in the photo. The exploitation is not of the architecture as such but of the symbolism of decay. It can be argued whether that is porn or exploitation in an abusive sense. I think not. We "exploit" everything if one uses the more global and less weighted (less negative) general definition of the term.</p>

<p>Steve's photo of the old water tower (I presume) concrete base doesn't use decay in a symbolic manner as your examples do, as it is presented purely for what it is, without much if any symbolism of anything else. Much like those two German photographers who made images of iron blast furnaces and other former industrial architectures. I could make an image of a brilliant glass faced skyscraper with a poor person in rags below. The architecture is not being exploited (in a negative sense), except to be used as a convenient symbol of power and richness, compared to the difficult situation of the poor person. I would not find that as "porn", but simply the use of symbolism to make some point, to generate pathos as you mention. "Ruin porn", I think am slowly disliking the term. it is too glib, and often meaningless in use.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>IMO the element that most characterizes this sort of image (intricately detailed, "of" crumbling structures), when reasonably-well-executed, is photographic beauty. Much like photos of old barns, rusting vintage cars, but perhaps less frequent. Photos like that rarely have much consequence of themselves, beyond sometimes exquisite execution, but they do often lure me into them, even though they're rarely of much consequence. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> but they do often lure me into them</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is a consequence. </p>