Photographing Ugly People

I was thinking earlier today about Richard Avedon. In a photography

class I recently completed we watched a tape about him. One segment

showed how he would set up his white back drop in the middle of

nowhere and photograph, well, ugly farmhands and backwoods kinds of

people. Then I thought of the oddballs Arbus photographed. I started

to wonder if any of these people were paid. I mean if Avedon saw me

on the street and wanted to photograph me, how much if any money

could I expect? Avedon increased his fame and made money off these

pictures but what did his models get? Without them his book wouldn't

have been possible. Furthermore, does photographing ugly or odd

looking people give a photograph a higher degree of merit? Does the

photographer recieve any extra consideration? Someone said to me many

moons ago that "People like the extremes", meaning people who are

extremely beautiful or extremely ugly are the ones that captivate us.

Really though, is it more tilted to one side? Certainly there is no

shortage of pictures being taken of beautiful people. So much so that

such photos can be rather boring to look at. A photo of an ugly

person may make us take more notice. Yet why take one in the first

place? As street photographers, do any of you go out of your way to

photograph an ugly person? Different cultures of course have unique

outlooks on what is considered attractive and what isn't but for the

most part I think there are many traits in both the ugly and

beautiful camps that are universal. Would approaching a beautiful

person to ask for a photograph be any different then approaching an

ugly person? It's easy to tell someone they are handsome or pretty

hence the reason for photographing, but would you tell someone they

are ugly? Maybe this is why some people have a strong objection to

having their picture taken by a stranger. The photographer may make

money from the photograph but what's in it for them? Assuming

everyone photographed should get something, should ugly people get

the same or different then good looking people. So far, all I've

offered people I've photographed was a print. Is this enough? As

always, I'm interested to read your comments.

Cheers,

Marc

"I mean if Avedon saw me on the street and wanted to photograph me, how much if any money could I expect?"

 

I would hazard a guess it would be more than enough to buy some more of whatever it is you're on.

Great photography is more than skindeep and money isn't everything after all

this is the street/doc forum not advertising nor fashion modeling. You are

doing a disservice to all street photographers if you pay for your street shots

imo.

"You are doing a disservice to all street photographers if you pay for your street shots imo."

 

i'll second that

 

jamie, you're funny

I think Avedon did pay his subjects, but then I am not sure I would equate what he did with street photography. You can read about his process in Leslie Wilson's book about how he did his American West series. Philip Lorca di Corcia also paid his subjects for at least one of his series, but he also uses carefully staged flash & lighting to make his "street" photos, which makes his photos seem like those flash trap photos that National Geographic uses to capture images of animals. Much more overt planning and strategy than I would necessarily equate with street photography. But in the end, who is drawing lines?

 

Photographing an ugly person (and this is such a clumsy phrase, isn't it?) is tough as most people know by the time the photographer has shown up, that they are considered ugly. Society has been telling them this every day of their lives. So there is no way they can interpret the photograph taken as anything other than a continuation of this alienation based on their appearance. In an ugly person as subject matter (versus an attractive person) I think humanity (or human-ness) is much more readily apparent and that humanity (pathos, whatever) is what makes the photo. So I think you have to make recognizing that humanity an overt part of the process - which sounds bloody obvious, but how distancing is standing 10 feet from someone and taking their photo without speaking to them at all?

If Avedon shot his subjects and they were not paid models than maybe the got a print or maybe they didn't but it doesn't really matter if they agreed to be photographed.

 

Photographing 'ugly' people doesn't neccesarily give or take away merit it all depends on the context of the shot. Receiving extra consideration as a photographer for shooting 'ugly' people probably comes and goes. When people subconsciouly reach "beauty overload" it's refreshing to see something that contrasts. So in that case a photographer might get kudos for something 'new' e.g. 'ugly'.

 

If the balance is tilted in any direction it's definitely in the direction of supposed 'beauty' - simply from a money standpoint - people don't envision themselves in the lifestyle of an ugly person - so using an ugly person to sell a product isn't used too often except for comic relief (Xelibri mobile phone ads from Siemens are a good example of this) Check out the site of the Ugly modeling agency. They've got plenty of professional 'ugly' models.

 

When you ask why take a photo in the first place of an 'ugly' person - it's whatever strikes you at the moment. Personally I tend to think people with very strong bone structures are interesting. High cheekbones, prominent noses, strong brows, almost like architecture - think the people of Afghanistan or Uzbekistan. Since it fascinates me I shoot it. On the other hand I also like incredibley smooth skin, very wide set severly almond eyes and thick lips - think Thai people or Malay or Indonesians. So I shoot that also - again it all comes down to personal preference. Many people though have it so heavily hammered into their heads by the media as to what is beautiful. Many never give a thought why they think something is beautiful. Look at the covers of FHM and all this new wave of 'mens' mag's all the chicks have been airbrushed so much they look like replicants. LOL.

 

Your assumption that there are universal traits for both 'ugly' and beautiful is kind of strange I guess... one only has to look around the world at different ideas of beauty to see that it runs the gamut. From tattooed faces of the Maori women, to scarification in Africa, to plate lipped indians in the Amazon. There are dozens of other examples as well. One problem with the American media machine is that sometimes it seems as if everyone wants to be Brittany Spears. You have beautiful Persian women with incredibly strong features getting nose jobs so they can look more 'western' - it's quite sad actually.

 

As for approaching people in the street and asking them - that's silly. Shoot it already. They're in public. It's fair game. Don't be an ass about it - but if you can manage a shot then go for it. If you ask them most times you will get a very 'posed' shot - while that works sometimes if the photographer can create a momentary dynamic and capture that more often than not it looks crap.

 

As for offering people something to shoot them. Don't do it. If you want to do that hire a model and pay them. Paying people for street shooting is lame. It screws it up for the rest of us as well. Again if they're in public they're fair game - that goes for me and you as well.

I don't think Avedon's subjects are particularly ugly. But some of them are certainly well-used.

I disagree that Avedon picked "ugly" people for his "West" photos. His usual approach was to find subjects with attractive faces but with clothing and grooming that went in the opposite direction -- the old "diamond in the rough" thing, which starts to look a little formulaic after awhile.

 

I once met some people who were photographed for the "West" series (and were later described by name in the Wilson book). Not surprisingly, these people felt angry and betrayed by the photos. Avedon tried to expose the vulnerability, sadness, and frailty of his subjects, and who (particularly westerners) wants to be seen like that? Nevertheless, the photos are pretty great for the most part.

Many of Avedon's pictures, even more than most photographer's, are self-portraits.

Odd (actually sad) choice of words... I've photographed lots of people, but not once has

the term "ugly" ever entered my mind. Such characterizations reveal a lot about how you

see and go through life.

 

I would also disagree that Avedon chose "ugly" subjects. He did, though, seek those that

he thought characterized the real West as opposed to the glamorized views most people

had.

 

I highly recommend the Laura Wilson book if anyone is looking for real insight into ITAW -

however, I doubt the original poster really is.

ITAW = ???

ITAW= In The American West

Beau, can you tell your story about meeting subjects from In the American West? That's pretty amazing.

Brad, thanks.

Yes, the term "ugly" is a poor choice of words, but it was shorter to write then "beauty-challenged". Lucas was right on when he wrote that after one reaches beauty overload, a photo of a (argh here comes that word again) ugly (or well used as another messge said) person can be welcome. Lucas is also right about the different cultures having different ideas of beauty which I slightly touched on in my original post. However, science has shown that almost all cultures find those people with symetrical facial bones to thought of as more attractive then those with unbalanced features.

When photographing a beautiful person is the photographer saying "This is my ideal outlook on what a attractive man or woman should look like"? With an beauty-impaired person is the photographer going for to try to show the essence of the person? Attractive people have the stereotype for being shallow, lacking personality ect. So maybe when looking at photo of a beautiful person one is just supposed to admire natures handiwork and the result of good genetics.

With a less attractive person are we more inclined to wonder about the life this person leads, and who he is as a person? And why is being thought of as less then attractive so devastateing?

I was also thinking of my 6 year old neice and 4 year old nephew both who live out of town. They are truely attractive kids. Strangers are always saying they are such beautiful kids and they should be on TV ect. I have a very tough time even though I'm only 33 following them around the backyard getting candid shots. My sisters hallway walls are like a gallery exibit of my photos of them. Yet when people admire my photos, is it because they like my choices in film, processing and developing or does the photogenic niece and nephew make the picture good? In school I took some outdoor portrait shots of a attractive gal from my work. The pictures were horribly over exposed and there wasn't much I could do to bring that down. However, she and her parents liked the 8x10 I gave her so much that it sits in a frame in their living room. Even another person commented on what a great photograph it was and wanted to know how much I would charge for some family pictures. So there you have it I guess.

Oh and yes, Jamie you ARE funny!

Regards,

Marc

I suggest you look at a picture by Roger Ballen from his book 'Outlands, and particularly a

picture entitled ' Cassie and Dressie' and reflect on what this picture tells us.

"Beau, can you tell your story about meeting subjects from In the American West?"

 

I went on a horseback trip through some of the rugged parts of Wyoming back in the late 80's. We spent some time at the ranch featured in the Wilson book (the one run by women who had competed as skiers at the 1936 German Olympics).

 

It's a tight-knit community out there, as you can imagine, and it seemed like a lot of people that I met there had either posed for Avedon or had refused to do so. Avedon's project was a much-discussed event, and the subject came up alot. As I said, most of the people there thought Avedon was disingenous, that he'd tricked people into making pictures that were humiliating.

 

I can see their point, but then, I'm glad Avedon had the courage to "betray" them as he did -- let's face it, a portrait that a subject really likes is often going to have little in the way of "truth" to it. In addition, the rejection of the photos by the people Avedon portrayed is kind of a built-in part of the tension he was after -- that "be tough" western attitude vs. the universal human frailty thing.

No Marc, I would NOT suggest approaching someone and explaining that

you'd

really like to photograph him or her because, by any objective measures, he or she is

extremely

ugly, and you think subjects who are ugly will improve your photography.

 

I do find it interesting though how this initial post produced such thoughtful

responses.

Hi Marc. I think that until you develop an appreciation for diversity, and abandon your narrow categorization of people into "ugly" or "beautiful", it's unlikely that you'll produce meaningful work. Operating a camera is only one small, insignificant part of producing meaningful work. If one's work is an invitation to viewers into the photographer's world, yours doesn't seem very inviting. There are plenty of venues that offer the lack of subtlety you've expressed, including "reality" television and beauty pageants, in neither of which I am interested. Why do you photograph people in the first place?

Ugly is such a harsh word! I think Avedon didn't shoot people he thought were ugly, rather he shot them because they showed some character in their features. A doctor friend who shoots some of his less fortunate patients in the Upstate NY area shoots them for the impact they exhibit in the image. He would never call them ugly. I'm not even sure I would call the Elephant Man ugly, though many would. Someone's physical appearance, ugly or not if we have to use that word, makes for a great photographic subject. Character is something I am always looking for in a subject. People with a lot of facial wrinkles make for great subject matter! The friend I mentioned has a photo of a farmer with a ballcap on. His face is as wrinkled as they come. He has a big almost toothless smile on his face and the ballcap says..."Damn, I'm Good"! Great photograph!

Well this whole thread really began as I wondered about what compensation the people in Avedon's or Arbus's photos recieved if any. Then I began to wonder if these photos were taken to make some sort of statement. Yes, as I mentioned before, ugly is a harsh word because it is a very emotionally charged word. It seems many people have an issue with it. Certainly not all of the people photographed by the above names were ugly, many were simply odd looking. This is of course all imo, and many of you are entitled to your own. It's just that we are such a beauty obsessed culture that I began to wonder why these photos were taken that's all. Then I began to wonder to what extent the subject of a photo is more important then the craft of making the photo itself. I used an example of my co-workers family loving a terribly overexposed portrait I took of her. Even other co-workers oohed and ahhhed over it. I couldn't understand why.

Jay, most people pictures I have done were of family and close friends. I'm getting more into street and documentary photography. Thus such pictures I go for try to show some sort of relationship between whomever I want the viewer to notice and what is going on around them. I really couldn't care less how these people rate on the looks scale. It's just that as I write, many other ideas and thoughts come to mind and I try to pull it all together. So apologies for the way I tend to ramble on and for my many spelling errors. Can never seem to find a dictionary when I need to.

Kind Regards,

Marc

Ugly is a harsh word. But we�re still attracted to it. The opposing poles of mundane. You don�t ramble Marc, you�re well written and have something interesting to discuss.

I'm sorry if my post seemed hostile, it wasn't meant to. Your post read to me like you were arguing both sides of the same issue, which prompted my questioning of your motives for photographing people. I too mostly shoot family and friends, so that's easy for me to relate to. Good luck with your street photography.

In God's eyes everyone is equally beautiful. Mankind has a long way to go.

Read "Avedon at Work in The American West" by Laura Wilson. She does not mention any payment, but subjects who were eventually featured in the book did receive signed copies of the book. And while I can understand that some may have felt that they were portrayed unattractively (and indeed, in the documentary video "Darkness and Light," one subject expresses this, while others don't), Avedon's goal was not to create likenesses, but rather to express his ideas about the American west.

 

So what did these people get from the experience, other than a free book? They got to collaborate with one of the greatest living photographers. That would be enough for me.