Real world imperfections and aesthetics

<p>I think many of the post-processing edits done in landscape and other genre of photography are not only to remove distractions, but to make the picture pristine or ideal, like a painting. While I am not questioning the freedom of the artist to do so, I am thinking whether it is really necessary to make a photograph pristine and perfect. Can we not enjoy a landscape photo (or architecture for instance) that has all the quirks and imperfections of the real world? Is it really necessary to remove a tree branch (except in the most extreme cases) or add a sailing boat where it did not belong? While I am not a staunch adherer of aesthetic realism, I think some principles of it are worth considering when applied to photography. For example:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>First, the deepest desire of every person is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis. Second, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it—contempt defined as the false importance or glory from the lessening of things not oneself. Third, the study of what makes for beauty in art is a guide for a good life: "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves." - Wikipedia</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I am not saying I staunchly believe in these principles. I just want to give it a thought. I don't believe "honest and accurate basis" is equivalent to saying "all photography should be photojournalistic". I am proposing using photography to depict the world with all its blemishes and imperfections, which adds an extra illusion of realism and with it a new aesthetic. While in painting, one has to really put an effort to add such imperfections, photography makes it easy. So I am wondering whether we should move away from such imperfections in photography, or celebrate them.</p>

<p>I would be curious to know what others think. Looking at existing threads, principles of aesthetics have been discussed in the past, but may be not in these exact lines. Of course I may have missed something, so feel free to direct me to previous discussions if you feel so.</p>

<p>Probably need to ban makeup and good clothing for models too. Maybe avoid "flattering" angles and perspective. Shoot buildings before the garbage out front is picked up. Make all those imperfections show!</p>

<p>Jeff,<br /> I think you are taking it to the extreme. E.g. I am not asking models to forego makeups, but wondering whether portraits have to be perfect. Whether that pimple on a person's face must be removed in photoshop.</p>

<p>I am referring to imperfections in an otherwise interesting composition, I am not suggesting we forego creative or interesting compositions.</p>

<p>BTW, photographing a building with garbage in front can be quite exciting. I would try to shoot it in an instant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can we not enjoy a landscape photo (or architecture for instance) that has all the quirks and imperfections of the real world?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a key question. Any photo can show the quirks and imperfections of the real world or not. Any photo can want to be about the real world or not. Some photos are not about WHAT a photographer sees and seem more about HOW he sees or what he wants to MAKE. Art is usually some sort of creation. <br /> <br /> Pictorialists didn't show the quirks and imperfections. Modernists did. I'm glad we have both and will continue to allow both these sensibilities to influence me in the future.<br /> <br /> I can appreciate a romanticized Pictorialist rendition of a scene as much as a gritty and realistic rendition of a street scene. Why do I have to choose?<br /> <br /> Photography can have a unique relationship with the world and can be used forensically and photojournalistically. Because of that, art photographers can use or discard photography's uniqueness in that respect as they please. There are all degrees of the use of the original reality the camera was pointed at.<br /> <br /> Romantic comedies of the thirties and forties weren't showing as many quirks and imperfections as film noir of the same period. I love both genres.<br /> <br /> Richard Linklater often allows and encourages his actors to determine their own dialogue in the moment. Hitchcock was much more deliberate and controlling in his approach to making films. Linklater's films have a much more real and spontaneous feel and Hitchcock's tend toward more artifice. And yet Hitchcock, like Linklater, gets to such a human and real place. It's just different methodologies, different styles. <br /> <br /> Art is not necessarily in how true or real something is. It's in what it does to you and where it takes you.</p>

<p>Let's look at the difference between some "golden age of Hollywood" portraits and some of today's magazine fashion stuff. There were plenty of quirks and warts left out of the Hollywood stuff as there are of today's fashion stuff. Yet, I love much of the old Hollywood stuff and hate much of today's fashion stuff. That's because the great Hollywood portraitists of the 30s and 40s were being expressive. Today's fashion stuff is selling something and seems often to be wiping expression away. (Of course, there are exceptions in both cases!)</p>

<p>Now, those are extremes. But I look at cloning the same way. It can be done to purify and wipe expression away or it can be done in the service of a larger expressive vision.</p>

<p>Fred,<br>

I am for both ways, expressionistic, or idealistic. I think it should vary from case to case. I am against following one ideal throughout. One thing you mentioned in a recent post that made me think: Photographers tend to wait for the ideal weather and conditions for shooting landscapes. However, you said it doesn't have to be. One can find beauty in non-ideal situations as well if one searches.</p>

<p>I think, photography gives us a natural way of depicting a scene with its inherent imperfections. I find a new aesthetic beauty in it. I was wondering if others feel the same way. Of course, I also enjoy looking at pristine landscapes, whether paintings or photos.</p>

<p>I posted this photo to PN where I removed the post in the middle. Later on, while comparing the two versions (with and without the post), I still like the version without the post, but I am wondering whether the original photo should never be presented as is, or whether the post adds any aesthetics to the photo because of the 'imperfection' of the post.</p>

<p>This is not meant to be a critic of my work. I just wanted to give an example.</p>

<p>Edited:</p><div></div>

<p>Original:</p><div></div>

<p>Aren't we beating (repeatedly) the dead horse? It's a subjective medium....whether you accept it or not.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Aren't we beating (repeatedly) the dead horse?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> To some extent yes, I agree. However although you say (and I don't disagree) that it is subjective, the general trend is to remove such imperfections. Just post a photo with an obvious distraction to PN and look at the majority of the comments. Sometimes people just religiously remove blemishes from photos without thinking out of the box. I have also been a victim to that. However I want to know better, hence the question.<br /> <br /> The bottomline is, I know it is subjective, but people may not always realize that. I feel I am a minority in thinking that blemishes and imperfections could be aesthetic elements. Is that a true feeling?</p>

<p>If it is not an interesting subject for you to discuss, I understand. However I am still learning, and sometimes I have childish curiosity.</p>

<p>Supriyo, in terms of your photo, I find the one with the post a much more compelling image, but it all depends on what YOU want out of the photo. I don't see the post as a distraction adding to the reality of the scene. I see the post as a fascinating companion for the man and as a somewhat subversive element which impacts the entire story. So, it depends if you want that kind of tension and statement and story or the more placid and peaceful rendering that taking away the post gives. Again, I don't see the post as an imperfection but as a major player in its own right when left in the photo. In some ways, even though the post was "really" there, there's a sense of artificiality which I like when including the post. The artificiality of including a post in that manner in the center of a scene where such a thing would usually be avoided. We can play around with the notions of what's real-looking and what's artificial-looking a lot. Your photo, for me, feels more staged and yet more thought-provoking with the post than without.</p>

<p>Phil, Fred,<br /> Thank you very much for the lively discussion. I agree that the post mimics companionship to the boy and (I realize now) as a staging element too. However when I took the photo, my primary staging element was the framing of the tree branches. My primary logic for removing the post was, it divides the frame into two parts, one with the boy in it, but the other part does not have anything worthy. Phil, you brought up the example of a tourist brochure (vs a displayed artwork), and it is a very good example. In a tourist brochure, people want to see photos that make them dream of visiting a place. perhaps too much reality is detrimental to dreaming?</p>

<p>Phil, thank you very much for your creative suggestions, and I will try the idea of removing the boat. Again, this thread was not meant for critic of this particular work, but I think it has helped the discussion a lot. Both you and Fred have given a different perspective of looking at the inclusion of the post, that it looks artificial and staged (in a positive sense) rather than realistic.</p>

<p>Let me give another example which I think is relevant to this topic (sorry for posting too many of my images, but giving real examples would help the discussion). I posted this image from Utah many years back, and I think one of the comments is relevant:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/3051182&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/3051182&size=lg</a> (please excuse the colors)</p>

<p>Shilesh Jani writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Too often lanscape photographers exclude any man-made objects (I am guilty) or worse still clone them out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I see the majority of landscape photos, I feel I am dreaming or meditating. I can't imagine myself to be there (not that I think thats a requirement). I am thinking how it would be to include a national park sign or the barrier at the viewing deck in a landscape photo. I know it is subjective, but the general trend is not to.<br /> </p>

<p>Regarding your two photos above, Supriyo. One, they are YOUR images. You can do <em>whatever</em> you want to them, to look <em>any way</em> you want, to say or bring attention to <em>anything</em> you want. It's OK. Photographic images have been manipulated for this purpose since the beginnings of photography. It's part of the charm of the medium. Like clay, it's malleable. Two, the only "rule" is there are no rules. It doesn't matter what others think of your work. What matters is what <strong>you</strong> think of it. Other photographers have those same rights. Some photographers like to include junk in their landscapes, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=hockney+pearblossom&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1015&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk9d6fh9jMAhWIJiYKHZ4JC-YQsAQIKg&dpr=1">Hockney's Pearl Blossom Highway</a> comes to mind, some, perhaps many, like a pristine view that invokes depth, or peacefulness, grandeur or whatever. It's all correct, it's all good. </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6704288-lg.jpg" alt="" width="660" height="452" /></p>

<p>Here's a comment on this photo from someone I respect and have shared many critiques with back and forth, though we have somewhat different visions of the world:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's one of the best portraits I've seen for a long time. But that background on the right? I mean really, that should have been easy to get around. Nevertheless it's not enough to make me change my mind. Great."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I saw this no other way. What others think of as distraction or non-harmonious composition, I find endearing and adding to the story. If a portrait is sometimes to go below the surface and into the person himself, storytelling is important and not everything inside us is organized sweetly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter what others think of your work. What matters is what <strong>you</strong> think of it. Other photographers have those same rights.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Louis, To be clear, I do not presume to tell other photographers what is correct and what is not. I am simply discussing new ideas to apply in photography. I am surely not in favor of including a lot of junk in a landscape, but would like to experiment by including a bit of distraction or imperfection here and there, to see how it affects my emotions on viewing the picture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What others think of as distraction or non-harmonious composition, I find endearing and adding to the story. If a portrait is sometimes to go below the surface and into the person himself, storytelling is important and not everything inside us is organized sweetly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Fred, I am very much in line with your thinking, although I can appreciate pristine and flawless images too. However I think what you wrote is perhaps easily conceivable in certain genres of photography and maybe less in others (say landscape or architecture?). If you see the top prizes in these genres from sites like 1x.com, they are all so pristine and flawless. I would like to break the rules and experiment with inharmony and imperfections.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In landscape photography The New Topographics movement has dealt with the man made and man altered landscape of the American West. One of the photographers working in this style and that I find very inspiring is Robert Adams, and one who interestingly also argues for <em>beauty</em> in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0893813680/?tag=nmphotonet-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this book</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Phil, Thank you very much for referring to Robert Adams' work. I went and saw a small subsection of his work, and quite impressed. There is a photo which shows a discarded McDonalds box in the dirt. His works do give a new perspective about American West other than Monument Valley and cowboys on horses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you see the top prizes in these genres from sites like 1x.com, they are all so pristine and flawless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Prizes are usually given as the reward of a popularity contest of some sort. I don't doubt pristine landscapes are popular. That may be reason enough to make landscape photos that aren't pristine. <br>

<br>

But I'm very aware that when I'm out in nature, far away from the garbage cans in the main parking lots, and on trails deeper into the wild, there IS a sense of the pristine or unharmed natural beauty. So I can understand why that view is something photographers might often offer. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with pristine views of nature, or idealized views of anything. They can be that and still be given some sense of personality and some personal touch of the photographer. Showing garbage is one way of bucking the trend. But showing pristine in a new and compelling way would be another way to go. <br>

<br>

Look what Meyerowitz did. His photos are still pristine and somewhat idealized, for the most part. But his use of color is incredibly adept, somewhat unique, and gives the viewer a new view of the world still unencumbered with garbage or "distraction."<br>

<br>

When I'm around the city, garbage seems an integral part of it. The little bit of garbage I might see on a back trail somewhere feels more like an anomaly. When I hike those trails, my senses dispense with the occasional bit of garbage as I concentrate on what I'm there for, which is the relationship with nature. So, often, including the garbage wouldn't necessarily be what the lived and photographic experience is about.<br>

<br>

Blemishes are so much a natural part of people (whereas garbage is not so much a natural part of nature) that I can express my relationship to people and something about other people themselves by including such blemishes and including "distracting" elements that they themselves surround themselves with in their homes. I think the relationship of garbage and nature is somewhat different, so it makes sense to me that garbage wouldn't as often be included in landscape or nature photography.<br>

</p>

 

<p>To the OP:</p>

<p>Poodle or tiger? Lap dog or the wild?</p>

<p>Lap dog in the wild??</p>

<p>In citing the quotation, the OP should have noted that it is a tenet of Aesthetic Realism, the philosophy founded by poet and critic Eli Siegel (1902–1978) in 1941. I had never heard of Mr. S. and have no impression that I have missed anything. A truer statement would be that "the deepest desire of most people is to surround themselves with a bland and anodyne comfort zone and avoid every intrusion by reality, which is seen as threatening and terrifying". <br>

The single most crucial definition of an artist is someone who is willing to step outside his/her comfort zone and has a commitment to probing the unknown and welcoming new experience. Comfort zone lovers will welcome and exploit any excuse for their behaviour - chief among these is likely to be a perceived lack of technical perfection in the work they are seeking to dismiss.</p>

<p>Thanks for that link, Phil. It often strikes me that the inclusion of garbage in landscapes is done with that sort of self-consciousness irony the author speaks of. Gossage's seems a refreshing departure. The more self conscious irony in much inclusion of garbage on the landscape is not unlike the many awful and exploitive pictures we see of homeless people on the stoops of Madison Ave. homes or glassy, modern skyscrapers. How often are homeless people treated with equanimity rather than pity or irony?</p>

<p>Irony is tricky, as the author notes. It can be as sophomoric as taking one more photo of a man smoking a cigarette in front of a no smoking sign or as sophisticated as the audience knowing what Oedipus's acts mean long before he does. If an artist is going to use irony, it helps for it to be textured and layered. On occasion, the quick and easy irony will work, but it often fails miserably.</p>

<p>There are not only man-made intrusions of the "darkness" spoken of in the article in terms of physical things tossed into the wild. We have certain "dark" fears of nature and readings of nature, for example some killing that naturally occurs in the food chain looks horrible to us but that's OUR imposition of horror onto something potentially necessary, natural, and beautiful in its own right.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Art is usually associate with aesthetic and sensual feelings. Accentuation of strength, beauty, power, etc are appreciated.</p>

<p>Secondly, the brain tends to eliminate obstructions in views of the real world. It doesn't do that very well when the image is reduced to a 2D print. We can look at a beautiful sunset in real time and totally ignore the power lines running through the sky. But the moment you see a print of the same view, those power lines pop out and detract from the beauty. So the photographer has to aim his camera in a way that eliminate things that take away from the picture. A painter has the luxury of starting with a blank canvas and he can just add in the beauty he wishes too. In both cases though, there is an aim for "perfection". In many respects both artists and viewers are looking for representation of perfection to accentuate the effect. </p>

<p>Thank you for all your comments. I am in a hurry, so I will post a short comment. I will write a more elaborate chronicle of my thoughts later.</p>

<p>Fred,<br /> I agree, when one is in nature, an occasional sight of garbage does not affect ones' sense of serenity, because the mind can ignore those. Thats why I was wondering if these small imperfections are really so detrimental to the emotional response one gets by looking at a photograph.</p>

<p>Alan has raised an important point, the distinction between looking at something in 3D vs 2D. Many scenes look great in 3D, but not so much in a 2D projection. So that could be a reason why imperfections in a 2D image are more revealing than the 3D counterpart. I will think about it, and will come back at it again.<br>

Julie,<br>

How about the tiger within a poodle?<br>

<br /> David,<br /> I think you did not read the OP fully, or I am missing something. I clearly stated that the quote is from aesthetic realism. In fact the quote is directly from an article in wikipedia about aesthetic realism. The reason I did not write a lot about aesthetic realism is, although my thinking has elements of this school of thought, they are not identical. I am not fully convinced about all the tenets of aesthetic realism. I think you can still be an artist without wanting to see the world on an honest and accurate basis.</p>

<p><em> I clearly stated that the quote is from aesthetic realism. </em><br>

You did, but I did not realise until I followed the link that "Aesthetic Realism" was a movement started by one particular person.<br>

<em>I think you can still be an artist without wanting to see the world on an honest and accurate basis.</em><br>

I disagree strongly here. For me the only interesting artists are the ones committed to breaking out of their comfort zone. Without this, pursuit of technical excellence or a conventional view of beauty is craft, not art. Craft skills can be impressive at a high level but are ultimately sterile and boring.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thats why I was wondering if these small imperfections are really so detrimental to the emotional response one gets by looking at a photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't it depend on the photo? In some photos, it might be a detriment if the purpose is to present nature as pristine. In other photos, it might be a bonus because it sends some sort of message, invokes some sort of irony, or gets me to look at either garbage or nature a little differently, or emphasizes some political or ecological point.<br>

<br>

What may be an "imperfection" (I see garbage in nature as an imposition, not an imperfection) in nature could be completely transformed by a photo into something significant.<br>

<br>

For me, it's not about garbage being detrimental or not, as if there's some general goal for landscape photos that garbage would undercut. It's about how the garbage is felt and what it brings to the photo in each case or in each series.<br>

<br>

Things like garbage and phone wires are heightened in photos by the move from 3-D to 2-D and also for other reasons. Framing and excluding periphery and much outside context makes everything in the frame often take on more prominence. The way we <em>attend</em> to photos is often different from the way we attend to our surroundings, which we move through very differently. Photos stand stiller than life and we focus on them differently.<br>

<br>

BTW, for me nature is not necessarily serene when unencumbered by garbage, though natural serenity is great to experience. It can also be raw and wild, agitated and turbulent.</p>