On 'Ruin Porn' - exploitation in modern ruins photography

[lightwait]

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

This sort of thing bothers me more than the 'no body cares' ones.<br>

You appear to be saying something but all your key terms are "special."<br>

And you know, you often bandy around the term significance, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen you justify "significance" in any "objective" sense. At least nothing that would warrant your apparent command of the concept. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Thomas, sorry. In my experience "significance" has been pretty well explored by many photographers (beginning with Minor White's people, for me), but in a nutshell it seems commonly applied to imagery that elicits something beyond the personal (beyond "photo of Mom") and aren't lightweight (not just pretty). Reverence, anxiety, questions, motivation seem associated with "significant" for me. Like most words that stand for ideas, it's substantially a matter of association with other ideas. Or..maybe it's just weighty, important, not enough when glanced at quickly.</p>

<p>I can't help you with the "objective" sense of the word as I don't think it exists (nor do I think anything "objective" exists). </p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>"Ruin porn" can be a question of semantic discussion, as to my knowledge at least it hasn't been defined in any erudite dictionary. That doesn't mean the term is invalid, just that some group (small or very large) of persons acknowledges a specific meaning of that term. A commonly accepted definition simply hasn't yet made it into a learned dictionary for public consultation.</p>

<p>But "significance" is a word also that has been defined, quite apart from this camp or another camp giving the word a different meaning or rejecting it completely.</p>

<p>From one erudite source (OED):</p>

<p><em>Significance</em>: n Being <em>significant</em> (itself defined - <em>you can choose the one of the following you like</em> - as having a meaning; expressive, suggestive, with pregnant or secret sense, inviting attention; noteworthy, of considerable amount or effect or importance), expressiveness; covert or real import, what is meant to be or may be inferred.</p>

<p>These may refer to how John describes significance. Meaning, suggestive and expressiveness and the other definitions cover a lot of ground.</p>

<p>As this is not the first time we risk being bogged down on word use, is it not useful to acknowledge that unless defined in some different (and specified) manner, words are taken in their accepted dictionary sense, whether the dictionary is Webster, Oxford or another?</p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, <strong>Word!</strong> (I think that's antiquated rap usage)</p>

<p>Dictionaries aren't the best resources for poetic or other evocative writing. Strunk and White might be more helpful on this Forum.</p>

<p>"Educated" people can approximate Webster's and Oxford's definitions for most of their words, and tend not to stray too far. On the other hand I don't think Webster's or Oxford's is much good at slang (of course my editions are at least fifty years old).</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, you might not find many today who value Strunk and White (In any case, they did not prone poetic or other evocotive definitions):</p>

<p>Strunk and White – a few critiques:</p>

<p>Specifically, Prof. Pullum (Prof. of Linguistics, Edinburgh University, in his paper (17 April 2009) "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice”) said that "Strunk and White misunderstood what constitutes the passive voice, and criticized their proscribing established usages such as the split infinitive and the use of which in a restrictive relative clause. He also criticizes The Elements of Style in Language Log, a linguists' blog about language in popular media, for promoting linguistic prescriptivism and hypercorrection among Anglophones, referring to it as "the book that ate America's brain.”</p>

<p>The Boston Globe newspaper's review, of The Elements of Style Illustrated (2005) edition, describes the writing manual as an "aging zombie of a book . . . a hodgepodge, its now-antiquated pet peeves jostling for space with 1970s taboos and 1990s computer advice."</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>what I take exception to is the generall derisive and dismissive tone in which Dan posted. Comments like "Non-issue. Go take a photo of some old bricks and be happy. Nobody cares" reek of pompous egotism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, this thread has finally turned out to be good for something: a good belly laugh.</p>

<p>Think of it this way. Before Mr. Ference wrote his article, buildings decayed and photographers took images of them. The buildings weren't being harmed, exploited, or damaged in any way (possibly neglected, but not by the photographers). The photographers made (hopefully) interesting images, and their audience got to enjoy those images. Everyone went about their business and no one was the worse for wear. I'm quite certain that the bricks didn't mind the attention.</p>

<p>Can we at least agree on this much? The status quo was fine. No harm was being done to anything by anyone and art was being made. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.</p>

<p>Then a couple of articles were written, first by Mr. Leary and then by Mr. Ference, expressing strong feelings on the subject. If Mssrs. Leary and Ferrance have strong feelings about the photography of decaying buildings, that's entirely permissible. And if they want to write about those feelings that is their right. Still, neither the buildings nor the photographers nor the communities where the buildings reside were being harmed. Agreed?</p>

<p>If Mr. Ference wants to announce here that he has written and published his article, that is completely fine as well. I don't believe that he was acting in violation of any photo.net guidelines, so good for him and good for his readers. Again, no one is being harmed, no resources exploited.</p>

<p>However, here's where things become thorny. The author asked for comments. He asked this directly. He stated that he was "curious to hear [our] thoughts on the topic!" And he received several responses including mine. Well, I didn't see what all the fuss was about. As stated above, the photographers aren't harming the buildings that they shoot. I don't sense any degree of exploitation anywhere in the process. Where is the foul? Why the concern? Why is this an issue at all? And how could one possibly compare it to something as personally harmful as pornography?</p>

<p>Well, that opinion received quite a reaction, didn't it? Mr. F appears to be fiercely proud of his article and seems to want nothing more than to express moral outrage toward anyone who questions his position. That's all well and good. We are adults here, we enter into these discussions of our own free will, and if there were no debate allowed, discussion would be pointless. But please don't accuse <strong>ME</strong> of "<em>pompous egotism</em>." I'm not the one mounting a fierce and caustic defense of an article about exploitation where no such exploitation actually exists.</p>

<p>Now, I'm sorry, but I must be off to write my article about Shutter Porn. It has come to my attention that every time a photograph is exposed, a shutter sustains measurable wear and tear. If photographers persist in exploiting their shutters in this manner, I want to make certain that they are doing so only while making meaningful and important images. The problem is widespread and there is much work to be done. Please join me in lobbying for exploited shutters everywhere!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What is all this harm that pornography is supposedly causing? Child pornography, a different story. Harmful for sure. Inexcusable. But pornography done by consenting adults. Where's all this harm? Sure, some percentage of pornography is exploitive, perhaps even abusive. A problem that should be dealt with in terms of exploitation and abuse. But pornography <em>per se</em> is neither. Way too much sex-phobia, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Arthur, thanks for your comments. I'm not from Detroit, but I grew up in the rust belt. I watched our factories being torn down and cut up for scrap metal, our local economy reduced to rubble. I watched as the population of my home city dropped by fifty percent in two generations. I have some firsthand familiarity with urban decay, but admittedly not as much as the citizens of Michigan.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Perhaps Ian demands more than the status quo out of photography and art. I think, regardless of the words used (and regardless of the dictionaries cited in which those words are looked up), the point of the article was the creation of photographs that have some significance. It's about a lot more than not doing physical harm to buildings. It's about vision. It's about making photographs. </p>

[lightwait]

<p>"I can't help you with the "objective" sense of the word as I don't think it exists (nor do I think anything "objective" exists)."<br>

Thanks for the response.<br>

Why don't you think "objective" exists? What about 'objective?' Or, what about the concept objective? Don't all three exist as each one is sustained in your mind? Isn't that how concepts generally exist, John? Even if only a myth, it still exists as a myth, and as such, has a particular power to inform human experience...wait for it...siginificantly. By the way, it's mythical status is what I meant to convey with the scare quotes.<br>

At any rate, understood as a myth, with a particular range or power to "make sense" of a particular range of human experience, we needn't get bogged down with theoretical arguments concerning the ontological status of concepts...not unless you force the issue. <br>

So then, a more objective sense of significance, at this point, would consist anything remotely resembling a reason for holding the notions you do.<br>

Are you simply a significance meter? Or are you saying that when we appreciate a photograph, if in doubt as to its significance, we can consult a table comprising the official list of significance?<br>

I am asking you about your knowledge and why you feel it really is something you know as opposed to something you believe or advocate.</p>

 

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Did anyone see the ad during the Super Bowl yesterday supporting Detroit as a place one can still find culture? This whole thread clearly began with a reaction to a Detroit booster who is unhappy with what he sees as a current trend to characterize the city as a post industrial urban wasteland. He is frustrated and worn out from seeing images of Detroit blight and decay. He thinks they distort his city in the eyes of others and would prefer to have some civic pride, however difficult. He is disgusted with pictures that promote the notion that Detroit is not a fit place to live, and he calls them "ruin porn." </p>

<p>I think that the centerpiece of the discussion is the City of Detroit and its decay rather than the photograph that finds ruin and destruction fascinating. Surely the photograph is not the problem, and a term like "ruin porn" should be seen as a characterization of civic disrespect rather than as some sort of movement in new urban photography. It's nothing to get worked up about. I think that for someone to make an issue of saying that photos of Detroit's current misery show ruin and not porn is somehow missing the point. The photo isn't the problem; it is the relentless frustrating urban reality it shows. </p>

<p>Surely images of urban destruction hold a fascination for us. Life in the aftermath of atomic war continues to be a popular vision of the future in movie entertainment. "Mad Max" is one example. Who would ever believe that the foreign customers we wanted for our exports in the '80s would turn out to be fierce competitors now? Who would think that our industrial leaders would be so motivated to lower production costs that they would sacrifice US commerce to have them?</p>

<p>The bleak post atomic age is arriving now, but without the threat of atomic fallout. Although the original writer Ian references at the beginning hates the idea, Detroit is becoming the poster child for an super-accelerated urban decay. The fact is that the time honored response for people to obey when things go bad in their home town is to go someplace else to find a better opportunity. This is where the ghosts in ghost towns come from.</p>

<p>We live in scary times, but with regard to the focus of this debate, porn without sex shows a great misunderstanding of the genuine issues facing the people who must try to make a living in a place like Detroit today.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Surely photographing ruins depends upon why and how it is done. I watched a program on a Normandy village that was bombed almost to nothingness by the allies as they attempted to chase enemy soldiers from it. The population suffered greatly, as did many other cities during that war. 65 or so years later the remainimg citizens and their offspring and others are still retaking possession of the village. The program showed the ruins of the central church,one which had one of the highest steeples in that part of Europe, and the work of local young researchers to recreate what little is left of the tower, by using a software to recreate what was once there, and its surrounbdings, using pre-war photos and documents as ressources. Modern technology is recreating the village and solidifying the pride of its citizens. The village, like many after such destruction, is redefining itself as well, with new commerce.</p>

<p>Detroit was once a French outpost in New France. It has a long and impressive history. Our local rural church in Canada possesses a painting by Frère Luc, once the King's painter (Louisa XIV) turned monk, who spent a few years in North America to decorate the new churches. The Detroit church received one of his religious paintings in the late 17th century. That is only a minor part of the overall history of the motor city, which is more varied and a part of the foundation upon which to renew. Image of current desolation could be used in a positive manner, as a turning point in the reconstruction of the city. Just like a small plant growing in the middle of rubble, the Detroit images can be used as a turning point in its regrowth and be thought of simply as a temporary benchmark in that progress. What sort of commerce can be re-injected into the city? I am not in a position to know, but perhaps new commerce types like the IT industry or those dealing with services might develop from the ashes of former businessess no longer profitable in the current world situation. Priority might be given to new government labs or offices, when they are needede or to universities or colleges that are particularly concerned with regrowth issues. Some industries that can capitalize on temporary lower wages, like the film or TV industry, might grow in that situation. Why not site new foreign car final assembly plants in Detroit, as in other regions? </p>

<p>Pride of place can be mirrored in the way the destruction is perceived and the approaches to re-development. The European postwar model shows that ruin porn is only temporary. The images are turned around into pride as the new structures and life replaces them. Exploitation in a positive leaning sense of the term is a role that photography can play.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Oops, double....</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Understandable as Detroit's current situation is, photographers do not have an inherent debt to help Detroit rebuild, or portray/forge a particular kind of image.<br>

 <br>

The depiction of ruins in art has a long history, going back before the invention of photography. I wish either Leary or Ferrence had edged into that, because I feel it is important to the argument. The only exploitation I see in "RP", is the constant playing on knee-jerk reflex viewer reactions.<br>

 <br>

In all fairness, this extends well beyond the realm of RP. How many times have we had our emotional chains yanked by the very same few dozen beat-to-death-in-exactly-the-same-way locations in landscape photography? The same serious, head-on documentary portraits of the dispossessed? The head-on, deadpan close-ups, dripping with gravitas? The beautiful, silken-skinned, sad-looking nudes lying around gritty industrial trash? Or traipsing along railroad tracks? Brown bears catching homeward-bound salmon as they unwittingly leap into their maws? Nude teens frolicking in rockpits or forests a la Ryan McGinley? I can go on and on, but you get the point: RP is not alone in this. And, to be perfectly clear, I am not talking about the very few creatives that make familiar topics and subjects distinctly their own. <br>

 <br>

What ails RP is also ailing a majority of the medium as well, and always has.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis is persuasive here. There's a discussion going on in Street and Doc about the exploitation of homeless people in a lot of street work. The a photographer comes along and posts a really good photo and I do a double-take. Most of these "genre" discussions boil down to good photograph vs. bad photograph, clichés employed, independent vision involved. We're probably often finding fault with genres when we should be critiquing photographers. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>What drives a photographer or photographers to continually direct their attention at the same phenomenon, like the decay in Detroit, the beaten to death similar viewpoint landscape photos, nudes traipsing along railroad tracks or railroad tracks glistening in the low sun, or thew thousands of other clichés (my term, admittedly not always applicable) as Luis has mentioned.</p>

<p>There are two reasons that come to mind: dullness of creative spirit and political-social agenda.</p>

<p>Yes, these are strong classifications, but I think often valid ones. My objective of digressing into the history of a small unnamed French village and that of Detroit, and my hopes for their future, is not to responsabilize the photographers in any way - art and communication need not be bound by political, moral or social intent - but to show that there are other ways to depict a town, city or other subject matter, and ways than can be just as significant, or more so, than the omnipresent (and ultimately counterproductive in many cases) ruin porn images. The analogy is our TV or radio news, that is bolstered more by what wrong or disastrous event is occuring, rather than the contrary.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A lot of people aren't using the camera as a creative tool. Many like to record visual memories of what they see. I wouldn't characterize them as dull creatively or as having a particular agenda. (And I'm not suggesting Arthur is doing this.) I might not know anything about their creative spirit from the pictures they take if they're just taking pictures and not trying to create something.</p>

<p>I've done some tried and true clichés and I make no apologies for them. I've done them because I want one of my own. There is significance, at least as far as I see it, in honing one's craft and in wanting to make that craft personal.</p>

<p>This also relates to the discussion next door on artists and art and bodies of work. There are times when I feel the body of work I'm developing (a series, a project, the entire body) is calling out for one of these clichés. A cliché taken individually is very different from a cliché within a particular context. I have done a couple of very traditional nude studies. Nothing unique in and of themselves. But they have a place in a bigger picture and I find them quite necessary to what I'm putting together.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, my point relates on the one hand to the dullness of copying (yes, I know that plagiary can be a stepping stone to further realisation - like the Japanee industials who employed the practices of a US guru to achieve high quality products, long before they were finally applied in the States, and developed those to an art) as an easy way out from actually perceiving and photographing something unique. The other point was the ruin porn image motivated by anagenda, with the professional photographer reflecting the desires/needs of his client newspaper or other client body. At least the latter has the quality of expressing something significant beyond the "eye candy" or curiousness of the ruin porn. </p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean in a cliché taken "individually". Some basic compôsitional clichés or clichés of form, like a serpentine path, dramatic diagonal, strong image point, and the like, are really just tools in our kit, but oft seen similar nude poses (and I find really successful and non-cliché nude poses very appealing) are perhaps fun but I think really need to be placed with other elements or in a particular strong context in order to escape the ho-hum reaction.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, what I mean is that the same photo that might seem just a dull cliché when it is looked at as a single photo might very well serve a different purpose if it were intentionally made as part of a body of work or particular series. In other words, as part of something greater than just an individual photo, the cliché itself could be significant or help a series be significant. I've used them that way.</p>

<p>Besides that, even as individual photos with no greater context, there are some clichés I simply want to do for myself. Maybe even need to do for myself. Not as a stepping stone and not as a learning experience, but just because I want to do it and have it. I think sometimes I just have to muster the confidence in what I'm doing and what I want to do to withstand the possible criticism by others that it's a cliché. I think one of the keys to clichés is awareness. If I default to clichés that's very different from setting out to do my very best at one that I'm well aware is one.</p>

<p>I also think that, in some cases, when cliché meets craft, there can be a transformation.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>We're probably often finding fault with genres when we should be critiquing photographers."</p>

<p>Yes. An individuated photographer, not necessarily a genius, can make work that is distinctive in any genre.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "...</strong>my hopes for their future, is not to responsabilize the photographers in any way..."</p>

<p>I said what I did in reaction to Albert's post, not Arthur's.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>The analogy is our TV or radio news, that is bolstered more by what wrong or disastrous event is occuring, rather than the contrary."</p>

<p>For me, on most days, TV news itself is more of a disaster and wrong than the terrors it portrays.</p>

<p>Fred, I think even illustrative photographers can be quite creative. One key quality to make this happen is to consistently push oneself towards a distant horizon. I've seen it in a few snappers who reached out beyond their abilities, or their comfort zone. Look at the work of Karl Blossfeldt, whose scientific illustrations unwittingly launched an era in photography.</p>

<p>A lot of people use the camera as an appliance, and we see that here on PN often. People wondering how much improvement in their work a new camera will 'provide'. A Miroslav Tischy with a home made camera out of cardboard and TP roll lens barrels did infinitely better (and this work rolls back in the direction of both porn and cliches).</p>

<p>http://www.michaelhoppengallery.com/artist,show,1,124,249,1246,0,0,0,0,miroslav_tichy_untitled_.html</p>

<p>We all engage in cliches at some point in our lives. It's the genre default, if you will. Or a point of departure, depending on how one looks at it. Some of us <em>use</em> cliche's to transplant visual memes, like warriors hidden inside the Trojan Horse, into the mind of the viewer. Most, failing to grasp the basics of art and/or individuation, seize on reproducing the default itself. A simulation of the art of others.Or an approximation of a predetermined ideal.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, I have no problem at all with that and don't criticize it. I just think that we have to be a bit aware of clichés if we are to do something that is unique to ourselves.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Whether cliché or not in his approach, which in this case is arguably unimportant for the reason you point out in your last paragraph, the sensitivity of Tischy's photos in respect of his subject matter may be in the direction of porn, but never reaches that, I think. They are some of the most sensual, beautiful and provocative images of women, of a type often are not within the grasp of men to realize, but only women photographers (Bettancourt, etc.). His homemade camera, which I once had the privilege of seeing, makes the Diana appear like a Hasselblad. It should be required viewing for all obsessive gearheads. An amazing photographer.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Because I think in terms of "the print" I have an affection for the physical medium and the quality of its execution. Or vice-versa :-)</p>

<p>In any case, I'm reluctant to assign much value to unprinted "images," including slides in files and relatively brief online wonders (as in soundslides.com, many of which I do admire). They're transitory, after all. Film (& video) is less transitory because it demands a lot of time.</p>

<p>The difference (the art) that distinguishes one scenic (or street or whatever) photographer from another is the print, IMO. For example, Galen Rowell's early work was printed beautifully and directly for him via internegs. His post-mortem work is printed badly for someone else. That the same "image" appears in each demonstrates something about photographic values. One is Galen Rowell's work in full, the other isn't. I've seen this with Avedon too...some of the prints have been lousy post-mortem knockoffs, but those he supervised are stunning. On the other hand, HCB's best prints, by far, were made recently...digitally, by printers better than those he knew of.</p>

<p>" I am not talking about the very few creatives that make familiar topics and subjects distinctly their own. ... What ails RP is also ailing a majority of the medium as well, and always has." <br>

<strong>- Luis G</strong></p>

<p>That is precisely what I've been trying to convey about the promiscuous use of "art" by "photographers" (camera owners). Note "promiscuous." Related to "porn."</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Detroit, in a Chrysler ad, answers to ruin porn, clings to its great art and architecture for a sense of identity and civic pride & tries to rise from the ashes:</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKL254Y_jtc</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A sense of place. Anti-porn. "Imported from Detroit". Not bad at all, what?</p>