Aesthetics in Urban Documentary Photography?

Landrum Kelly · January 14, 2016

Here is another by Jack McRitchie that captures both a moment and the larger context:

<a href="/photo/16430692&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/16430692&size=lg</a> Again, the picture that emerges of Osaka transcends the particular photo.

Context is both everything and nothing in Jack's work. This shot could have been made anywhere. It was not. It was made in Osaka. One might go so far as to say that all street photography from all over the world gives a general sense of what one can only call "the urban."

--Lannie

Julie H · January 14, 2016

"Documentary" is going to be a problem, Steve. I think I know why you use it -- to separate your kind of work from that of the eco-tourist type or that of the urban trophy-hunter. However ... tell me if you would agree with this, from Leonard Freed, and, if so, doesn't this directly contradict the idea of "documentary"? Here is what Freed said:

Basically, I think there are informational photographs and emotional photographs. I don't make informational photographs. I am not a journalist. I am an author. I am not interested in facts -- I want to show atmosphere.

</blockquote>

That's pretty far from documentary.

All of the many urban photographers whose statements I can find talk about exactly the kind of statement you (Steve) made in the OP:

A good deal, though not all, of the aesthetics I find are a kind of "found" aesthetic. Instinct leads one to a particular corner, or a street, to a particular light, or person, and one depresses the shutter button. For me, the aesthetics may be "felt" in the moment, but often do not reveal themselves until the editing process occurs later on.

</blockquote>

Like you, over and over again, they talk about "connecting" at the time of making the picture and they talk about finding the best shot in the editing process.. Here is Stuart Franklin:

A contact sheet is a record of a journey, of a pursuit. It carries all the wandering around an idea -- or, as some would have it, a vision.

</blockquote>

Here's Nikos Economopoulos:

One always has subject matter: it's a matter of selection, the form that works the best. Usually one element strikes me initially, and then I start building around it. The rest of the elements are fluid and it is this fluidity that I try to capture and understand what I see.

</blockquote>

I like that: "it is this fluidity I try to capture" re urban life.

All of the photographers I read (I'm looking at various Magnum compendiums) seem to assume that I/you will just know that this picture is the best one out of a group or a contact sheet. Watching a video that I have of Klein talking about a series of his contact sheets, he walks me through the progression of shots until he gets to the one he picked ... and all he says is "THAT's a photograph," in a very satisfied and triumphant voice. No explanation of why beyond his approaching patter about "see this" woman/person/whatever moving into or out of the frame as he moves into or out of the space. But why these things matter, he, and all the other variants in these books, just assume I will know or feel ... because the picture is good. Period. The picture makes the aesthetics by its rightness, and I can go with that, even though it entirely avoids answering the "what is the aesthetics of ... ?" question. Maybe this can only be answered by saying what it's not, like the answer of what is God; we tell you instead what God is not.

Last (you thought this would never end), I will note that many, though not quite all of those who talk about their work mention some kind of "ethnic" markers necessary to a good picture. By that I mean that near, middle and far have to work together to build a where-ness, or at least there needs to be some kind of local flavoring to tether the picture to place/time.

AJHingel · January 14, 2016

Just a rapid remark before I rush out, I would also chose <a href="/photo/18151294">Jack McRitchie</a> and his Okasa series of often exceptional shot as a perfect subject in a discussion on aesthetics and street photography, but so would John Crosley also be and his monumental collection of photos mainly from Eastern Europe like <a href="/photo/18013035&size=lg">this one from Eastern Ukraine</a>.

I would however expect that the several very fine street photographers who regularly participate in our Street and Documentary forum would contribute to this discussion.

aplumpton · January 14, 2016

Well, I tried....

Julie H · January 14, 2016

Arthur, think of this thread as an urban scene. Find what interests you, your "channels of meaning," and work with them. But this urban life will go on whether you "tried" or not.

aplumpton · January 14, 2016

Fortunately, the downside of encountering deaf ears or blinkered eyes is often short-lived. My remark from the soul (an existential one at that) is colored by the defeat yesterday of a proposed program that my citizen research group initiated to help save important rural architecture in a community that is more interested in where their next dollar will come from or the next new global product that make them danse. Not easy to absorb (especially as I agree fully with Rachel Kyte of the World Bank that "heritage anchors people to their roots, builds self-esteem, and restores dignity. Identity matters to all vibrant cities and all people.").

However, what is down doesn't stay there long. In the next hour I received a sought after research contract from a European client and look forward to fulflling that pleasure during the winter and early spring in a neighbouring province. So let the urban world see what it wishes. The singular process of making the photos I posted for comment is just compensation. Ciao.

AJHingel · January 14, 2016

"Basically, I think there are informational photographs and emotional photographs"

</blockquote>

I will stop here, hoping to have made the point.

By the way, Fred, thanks for looking through my portfolio. I can agree on your formulations on the general characteristics of what I see in streets. But as you might understand above, in many cases, there is more to it than that. Whether the viewers of such photos actually experience seeing the unseen, is of course an open question.

AJHingel · January 14, 2016

Arthur, sorry to hear about your professional "defeat", but luckily Europe stepped in to save the day :)

Your heritage work might have been a very good opportunity for "engaged" street photography.

Looking through your photos you gave links to earlier on, I especially found pleasure in three very Cartier-Bresson type of shots :

La terrasse

<a href="/photo/11472733">http://www.photo.net/photo/11472733</a>

Different lives

<a href="/photo/11472734">http://www.photo.net/photo/11472734</a>

And of course, if I may say so, this "untitled" shot:

http://www.photo.net/photo/11472740

thomas_k. · January 14, 2016

Steve:

I'm looking at first sample image you posted:

"Sample 1 Man at Foster Ave Beach"

What makes it specifically "urban" or "documentary"?

Aren't all photographs "documentary" to certain degree even if not intended to?

Julie H · January 14, 2016

Anders, it's not that all (other) urban ***** photographers will fit the Freed "emotional" claim. It's that if Freed, who claims that for himself, is to be an urban ***** photographer then the definition Steve chooses should be able to encompass Freed (as well as you).

aplumpton · January 14, 2016

"Your heritage work might have been a very good opportunity for "engaged" street photography."

</blockquote>

Anders, thanks. In fact IT IS, and it will be a part of a theme on identity and heritage (Title not sure to date but likely to be "The spirit of place" or "In search for time lost" depending upon the results) that I suggested a few years ago and which has been accepted such that I mount next summer's sponsored exhibition (solo, and yet to be completed) for our island historical and geneological centre and tourism site. Notwithstanding my "defeat" to get support of the elected for heritage conservation (albeit a battle and not the war) for disappearing buildings, I am very optimistic about the challenge and who knows, photography may persuade more people. Last year's exhibition was by a young conservationist and artist trained at the Louvre who presented the subject of the physical and philosophical aspect of bridges (our island is so connected). I am looking forward to it and recommend to any PNetter that engaging in thematic and series photography is a very rewarding type of photography pastime (Themes, as part of the aesthetic of some street photographers. Jack Ritchie I think certainly has a specific approach or viewpoint in that regard).

cyanatic · January 14, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=586046">Thomas K.</a>, Jan 14, 2016; 10:49 a.m.

Steve: I'm looking at first sample image you posted: "Sample 1 Man at Foster Ave Beach" What makes it specifically "urban" or "documentary"? Aren't all photographs "documentary" to certain degree even if not intended to?

</blockquote>

I am actually in the middle of trying to write a response to Julie's original statement and question. The amount of time it is taking me tells you something about how difficult this is. There is also work and personal life events going on -- it's not like I have been spending every hour since yesterday grappling with it. But there's been a lot of commentary and photographs added to this thread and I would like to at least attempt to do justice to them.

That said, I saw this post by Thomas K. and thought it a good question. Yes, documentary could apply to almost any photograph, though that is not what I meant. To be honest, my use of "Urban Documentary" in the title of this thread was a sad and bad mistake on my part. Fortunately, most of the posters in this thread are using a more inclusive and broad interpretation, which is what I actually intended. I should have used the term "street photography", but used it in its most catholic sense. ("catholic" as in broad-based, liberal, inclusive, etc.).

In response to someone else who brought up my unfortunate use of the term "documentary", Sandy Vongries had this to say about individual photographs being "documentary":

Sandy Vongries: "the individual situations in themselves compelling

</blockquote>

For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "street photography" or "documentary" in the broader senses that I, or Sandy, described. This is about the aesthetics which may be involved in such photographs, not really about what category or genre this, or that, photograph, should be called or plugged into.

Discuss as you will, but that's my intention. Hope that helps, at least a little.

Back to wrestling with the angel/demon that Julie and Anders let loose....

;-)

aplumpton · January 14, 2016

Anders, the only thing a little bothering for me is that those more classic approach pictures (re Cartier-Bresson) I posted are from my uniquely film photography days (late 80s early 90s). Perhaps I should go back to that aesthetic but more in color like in the very recent ones in my list (chipwagon, Languedoc market, girl in St-Tropez).

As for color rather than B&W, your Inside/0utside stands out for its strong message, and chromatic contrasts <a href="/photo/17985191" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/photo/17985191</a> while http://www.photo.net/photo/10103995 seems really ready-made for B&W This one http://www.photo.net/photo/8582380 is very urban street, nicely framed and full of information about the mobility of urban living. The girl talking to the driver, possibly about directions or where to get off, is genial. Good use of color but the characters (animate ones) are not too evident that leads the viewer to look a bit further into the frame. As everyone we see is inside, the ad on the side of the tram or electric bus goes with the scene. Well done.

Landrum Kelly · January 14, 2016

Arthur, you have not only tried. You have succeeded admirably: <a href="/photo/18013433&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/18013433&size=lg</a> I love this one, too, and not a few others: <a href="/photo/17676589&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/17676589&size=lg</a>

I have to say that I like that one that you posted by Anders as well:

<a href="/photo/8582380">http://www.photo.net/photo/8582380</a>

As for that other "aesthetic," it is hard to beat French or French-American women. I was married to one for thirty years, of the lineage Olivier. Lost her to cancer about a year ago.

--Lannie

AJHingel · January 14, 2016

As you then know, Lannie, French people don't die, they disappear or "trespass". Their aesthetics they leave behind for survivors to care for. We have partly something in common in that respect.

aplumpton · January 14, 2016

Thank you, Lannie. I am glad you like those and the beautiful photo of Anders. You have no doubt enjoyed a most agreeable and beautiful 30+ years. I am partnered with a Simard family daughter, ex Chicoutimi and former Nouvelle Rochelle lineage and North American migrants of the 1600s. I am sorry to hear of your loss. Olivier is a beautiful name, owned as well by an equally attractive and fruitful tree.

cyanatic · January 14, 2016

Before I write anything else – Lannie, I am so sorry. I had no idea you had lost a wife of 30 years to cancer. I won't bore you with my personal history, but I only ended up in Chicago in 2008 because my wife contracted a rare form of cancer and required an intensive operation. Although I did not lose her (for which I am grateful beyond words), the thought of it, and the thought of what you may be going through…touch me very deeply. I wish I could say something better, but there are no words. I can only say I am sorry.

******************************************************************************************************

Because I failed to write out some of my responses yesterday, I'm faced with a monstrous thread, with many side avenues that I would like to explore.

There are now numerous photographs that have been linked to in this thread. I have looked at all of them, and I feel that they deserve some sort of comment and recognition, at least in regard to how they have helped contribute both to this discussion, and in illuminating each contributor's take, and approach, to aesthetics.

But I am like a dog with a bone and I cannot rest, or move on to other photos or comments that have been added to this thread, until I have at least attempted to grapple with the slippery angel/demon that is Julie's original question and statement regarding aesthetics and its relationship to street photography.

As brief as I will try to be, this is going to be a bit lengthy. I'm not stupid. I am aware that some people may look at the sea of words and say, "The hell with that! I don't have time to digest all of that." I can't say I blame you.

Arthur Plumpton: “I think this question first needs to be anchored in the meaning or definition of the word, then perhaps to see some examples or use in street photography.”

</blockquote>

Fred G: “I'm not sure there's a street photography aesthetic as much as different aesthetics that street photographers have...”

</blockquote>

Anders Hingel: “...needs to go beyond documenting the seen, it has to make the viewer see the unseen.”

</blockquote>

To Arthur's point, yes, ideally the question and discussion should be anchored in the meaning of “aesthetic” or “aesthetics”. But how? The definitions can be so varied, as we've seen in the various approaches previously made in this thread.

Fred, I agree with the distinction you make. I don't think we're talking about some kind of aesthetic unique to street photography, but rather the aesthetic (if it exists) that some street photographers or photographs may have.

Anders hits upon something which, to me, is at least one aspect of this vague and amorphous thing we call “aesthetics”. It is the “unseen”(as eventually revealed by the “seen”) in a street photograph which allows it to lay some claim to possessing an aesthetic value. (I am not saying that this is unique to street photography. It is not. Any photograph, from nearly any genre, may possess this quality.)

Julie saved me some time and verbiage by touching upon one of the problems often encountered when talking to street photographers about aesthetics :

"…a video that I have of Klein talking about a series of his contact sheets, he walks me through the progression of shots until he gets to the one he picked ... and all he says is "THAT's a photograph," in a very satisfied and triumphant voice. No explanation of why beyond his approaching patter about "see this" woman/person/whatever moving into or out of the frame as he moves into or out of the space. But why these things matter, he, and all the other variants in these books, just assume I will know or feel ... because the picture is good. Period. The picture makes the aesthetics by its rightness, and I can go with that, even though it entirely avoids answering the "what is the aesthetics of ... ?" question."

</blockquote>

Julie, this is exactly what I struggled with last night when I wanted to post some kind of response and definition. I am NOT satisfied with stopping at "THAT's a photograph." I feel I understand exactly what Klein is saying, because in the editing process I do exactly the same thing. I select and work a photo until it "feels" right. (To "work a photo" does not mean heavy-handed manipulation. The "rightness" of the image does not come from software buttons and sliders. But that is a separate discussion.). But, damn it, Julie's question has made me realize that I want to at least attempt to get at the "why" of a photo's "rightness".

One approach I hit on is similar to an approach I sometimes use for critiquing or attempting to understand a photograph. When I am making a serious effort at understanding a photograph, my first step is to describe it. (I have sometimes contributed critiques on PN that are not much more than a description.) The act of describing helps me to bring out some of the salient elements in it.

(As an aside, there is a book I bought years ago which I have been re-reading lately. "Criticizing Photographs" by Terry Barrett. Although it covers far more than just description, the book recommends beginning with that approach and gives examples of it in critical writing.)

After that, it starts to get a bit complicated because there are so many other factors and points of view from which to consider a photograph and its attending aesthetics. To name but a few: conceptual, windows & mirrors (in the way that John Szarkowksi used those terms), political, social, "the thing as it is", symbolism, allegory, punctum, etc.

One problem I ran into when I attempted to go beyond mere description was that I started to get "aesthetic" confused with "style". A whole other conundrum, but what is the place of style in relation to aesthetics? To serve the aesthetic? When is the style the aesthetic? Looking at some of my own work (black and white, toning, often grainy, sometimes tilted, sometimes lacking in sharpness, intentionally cutting off or putting subjects at the extreme edges of the frame, etc.) I started to get a bit lost. Then I thought about where I was photographing (the streets of Chicago) and what I wanted to say about that environment in comparison to what my photos might actually say about that environment. Some of the common elements (grain, tilt, movement, proximity or lack thereof to people) seemed to express both how I see and feel that environment and how I move through it with my camera. It is part of my style, but does my style, such as it is, also express something aesthetically about the city of Chicago?

Another consideration (again…damn you, Julie, this never ends!) – For argument sake let us say that my style is an aesthetic interpretation of the city of Chicago. If it is, it grew organically. I did not consciously set out to create a conceptual representation of Chicago in that manner. It grew that way over the last 8 years of wandering the streets of this city.

So, Julie, when I am editing, at least one of the elements that might cause me to stop and say, "THAT's a photo" is when it successfully contains some, or all, of the things which I have just described. That still doesn't cover it all, or fully explain the "THAT" moment, but it's a lot closer than I have ever come before, because I never tried to understand it before.

Other factors might be the light, or the combination of light and shadows. It might be the arrangement of subjects.

I used the term "organic", and that vaguely ties into the concept of "found vs conceptual". If there are aesthetic elements in my photographs, they are primarily found. I do not conceive of a look I want to photograph and then set forth in search of it. I am highly instinctual, but this also leads to a certain amount of sloppiness. My photographs are often what I would call "messy". I'm not consciously seeking to emulate a "snapshot" aesthetic, but a lot of the time that is what I end up with. This is not everyone's cup of tea and I realize that some people find it off putting. But, since I primarily work instinctually, that's how it is. Earlier in this thread, I think Fred did a nice job of looking at some of Anders photos and some of mine. Not critiques, not "this is better or that is better", but a simple comparison. Some of Anders photography appears to me to be a bit more conceptual than mine. If I am completely honest about it, some of his photographs appear to be constructed with more thought than mine. I am not being self-effacing, nor trying to subtly criticize by making myself appear to be more spontaneous. It's my honest assessment. I mention it because I think it shows Anders aesthetic as a little more conceptual by comparison. But categories break down because I don't know how Anders works and his work could just as easily be considered "found". (Maybe "found" vs "conceptual" is a false dichotomy?) There always seem to be more questions than answers.

Okay. This post is already ridiculously long, but I'm committed now, so here's another possible example of Klein's "rightness" of a photo, the "why" of a photo's "rightness", and how a so-called "mistake" can lead to a possible aesthetic element.

Years ago, when I first decided to try my hand at street photography (somewhere around 2004 or 2005, I think), I lived in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego. There is a large gay population, and the San Diego Gay Pride parade is held in Hillcrest. Some of the major streets are blocked off and there is a wonderful street party held with various concession and informational booths.

I was using a Fujifilm hybrid camera at the time (an S9100, I think) that had an articulating LCD screen. Because it was less obtrusive, I started using the LCD screen and holding the camera at waist level to look down at the LCD screen (this is long before I ever heard of Vivian Maier, or the technique of a "hip shot"). One of the photographs I took was of a gay couple passing by as I walked down the middle of 5th Ave.

<a href="/photo/16486855">http://www.photo.net/photo/16486855</a>

When I looked at the photo later on, most of the couples heads were cut off by the top of the frame. I remember thinking, "Damn! This would have been a cool photo if only I had captured them in their entirety!" For a long time I would keep going back to this photo and realizing that I really liked it. It worked for me. But because it did not fit into the normal convention of what is considered a "good" photograph, and because it was a "mistake", I rarely shared it. Years later, I came back to it and realized that, for me, it was actually a good photo. But why!? Because cutting off their heads, and even including just a tiny bit of their faces, did a number of things that a full "good" version of them would not have accomplished. 1.) The absence of most their face created a certain tension. 2.) It forced the viewer to focus on their bodies, their choice of clothing, their tattoos, and most importantly it gave a sense of their relationship to one another. They almost look like they are holding hands, but not quite. Their forearms are very close to each other, possibly touching, and to me it gave me a strong sense of their relationship. 3.) The posture of their bodies (more evident in the absence of most of their face) also gives one a sense of their personalities, their ease and comfort with their bodies, each other, and their environment. The way one of them carries himself also seems to show a kind of pride and confidence. It would not surprise me if someone looked at the photo and saw none of that. That's okay. To be honest, I often think that very few people see in my photographs some of the things that I see in them. I can't force people to see in a certain way, but at the very least I hope to cause them to feel that they are, in some way, actually there, on that street, if only for a brief moment.

So this "mistake" that I stumbled across in 2004/2005, became in later years one of the techniques, or style elements, that I intentionally use in some of my photographs. It does not always work and I have far more instances where it did not work than where it did. Putting up one such photo (an intentional one) on a FB street photography group page elicited a comment that "You cut their heads off and need to learn how to frame better."

One last example:

Naming convention as style element, but also part of an aesthetic. Particularly for street photography, part of my personal aesthetic theory is that a street photograph is, at the same time, both a truth and a fiction. An "illusion of the literal" (Szarkowksi said something very similar in relation to Winogrand, but I find it to be true and used it as part of the title of a book of my street photography that I published in late 2014.). The photograph is an illusion of reality, but it is also a reality unto itself. What appears to be in a photograph may, or may not, have actually transpired and a viewer's interpretation (in "my" aesthetic) can, in many cases, be just as valid as my own interpretation. To enable a viewer to find this unique photographic reality on their own, I intentionally keep my titles as neutral as possible, sometimes not even referring to the human beings who appear in them, i.e., "Wabash and Adams, Chicago 2014". That title tells you absolutely nothing about the photograph except for its provenance. This is intentional, and also makes up part of my aesthetic that the viewer has to discover the "reality" of the photograph for themselves. (I do, on rare occasions, violate this convention, but it is true for the most part.)

That's way more than enough out of me. My apologies if it seems egocentric to have gone on so long about my own process and talk about my own photographs. Quite to the contrary, it is actually uncomfortable and I hope I do not regret it. Laying all of this out there is laying myself open to being mocked, ridiculed, or thought a fool. Even if no one says it directly. None of this means that I consider myself to be brilliant or more talented than anyone else in this thread. I have tried to cover some of the possible aesthetic elements in street photography by way of my own work. I cannot speak for how anyone else works, or why they present the photographs they do, in the way that they do. If anyone else wants to talk about their approach to their work and how they see the place of aesthetics in it (although some of you have already done that), I'll be happy to read it.

Julie H · January 14, 2016

Steve, your post is a feast. I have one quick comment that I what to poke you with, just because ...

You wrote "I don't think we're talking about some kind of aesthetic unique to street photography." I don't think I agree. I think, as an outsider, looking at your work, it has a definite qualifier. To my eye, all street photographers (and I'm going to live dangerously and not qualify that "all") contain their work within the social. In other words, it's always social.

Sandy Vongries · January 14, 2016

Spent the day reviewing thirty odd years of my life through negatives, all I have found so far. A bit like Alice thru the Looking Glass or a visit to a strange lost world. I had already been working on my color slides, but the B&W and, the period covered, late '50's through early '80's were more impactful. Of course, just as when you attempt the task of culling books to donate because your home is overflowing, you can't resist stopping and sampling favorites. I reviewed a dozen sleeves of negatives from my street photo days, and they are pretty much as I remember. Some stood the passing of time quite well.

I have a scanner coming week after next, and will be starting a gallery or two culled from the collection.

I find myself, now "re inoculated" with what I believe street photography was and is, and at what may be the end of this thread I feel unsatisfied.

So, I will make a target, a straw man, by describing what I think of as describing the event and aesthetic of street photography. Feel free to "have at it."

In a public, urban space, there is an unscripted, usually unplanned "collision" of the observer / photographer with an event, combination of people and objects, just objects, along with light and /or other environmental factors that trips the "shoot" reflex. The nature of the strength of that stimulus would vary from observer to observer based I believe on that hard to grab "aesthetic". Some factors that would bear, artistic preferences, elements of personal photographic style, use of light, psychology, prejudices, and that mix intangibles that makes each of us the unique individual that we are. This would include the kinds of subjects one might choose or seek, and another would never be willing to capture.

So at the end, I would have to agree that the Aesthetic does need to be / is subjective.

There are an awful lot of photographers out there of all skill levels, even some who have a style similar to mine, or vice versa, none I have seen are the same. Possibly if several individuals trained were at length under a strong and gifted mentor there could / would be some consistency that could lead to a rule set, but I suspect a lot of us were self taught.

There you have it.

Brad_ · January 14, 2016

Cities and neighborhoods have a dynamic, rhythm, and energy. That's what I try and capture.

Norma Desmond · January 14, 2016

Steve, just a quick reaction to what you've said about your almost headless gay couple shot. You used the word mistake and put that in quotes because you realize it was only a mistake when seen against rules or conventions of what other people think is a good photo (usually one that doesn't cut off heads). I see it as an accident, something often at play in photography. And I think your choosing it when looking at your days' work not only is an acceptance of this accident as OK but is a transformation of this accident into something to be reckoned with, by your choosing to include it in your body of work. It's not just that you choose it because you find it has certain elements or qualities. Your choosing it and making it a part of your greater body of work actually GIVES it some significant elements and qualities. Your choosing it actually TRANSFORMS those elements into something that now has an organic (love that word, which you used) relationship with your other (also chosen) photos. In a sense, those elements you recognized now come alive even more because you choose it and put it next to your other work. Your choosing is not just a recognition. It's part of the creating, IMO.

Landrum Kelly · January 14, 2016

Here is Jack McRitchie's latest:

<a href="/photo/18160008&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/18160008&size=lg</a>

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · January 14, 2016

Has anyone mentioned Brad Evans' work? The work on his private site is incredible, shown as a link on his PN home page.

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=153336">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=153336</a> Here is a direct link to some recent shots on his "City Snaps" site: <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/">http://www.citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/</a> --Lannie

Norma Desmond · January 15, 2016

Messy, bodies, tension, relationships, absence, almost, neutrality (of titles).

</blockquote>

For me, these words stood out, and many of them came when you were being the most visual and specific when describing the so-called "mistake" you made that seemed pivotal to your work. I will try to put this together into a description of a Steve aesthetic.

_________________________________________________

I submit to you a couple of sentences from an article on constructivism which I think encapsulates the aesthetic of constructivism, just to give you an idea of a concise description of an aesthetic.

Constructivism was an artistic and architectural philosophy that originated in Russia beginning in 1919 and was a rejection of the idea of autonomous art. The movement was in favour of art as a practice for social purposes. . . . Constructivism combined a machine aesthetic with dynamic components celebrating technology such as searchlights and projection screens.

</blockquote>

_____________________________________________________ Now, obviously the above is a quick summary but hits at some of the major themes of constructivism. So, going with the concepts I pulled out from your own description, maybe we can isolate a Steve Gubin aesthetic.

Steve's aesthetic is messy, tense, and born of the physical. There's a neutrality of approach rather than a singular politics or social assumption. There's often a sense of absence that is actually a presence. There's a kind of striving (a sense of almost but not quite) to his relationships, an indistinctness that comes across as non-dogmatic and allows the viewer quite a bit of range of interpretation.

</blockquote>

Obviously your work is much more than this as constructivism is much more than what the little paragraph communicates. But this, to me, in so many words and in summary, describes your work as you see it (or at least talk about it) and I think it's borne out in the work itself. Actually pinning down our own work is tough so I have no idea how this will sound to you.

Julie H · January 15, 2016

Social = embedded in a much larger whole; part of the weave, the fabric; subordinate to, continuous with some greater, overarching structure or narrative, which is assumed.

Compare the aesthetics of Ray Metzker's early (street) work with his later (not street) work. Compare Meyerowitz's street work with (not street) Cape Light. Harry Callahan shot the street, but I don't think he did "street photography." Look at the aesthetics of his pictures. What's different? Compare Eggleston's work (he sometimes shoots in the street) ... to any street shooter. Eggleston is not a street photographer; look at the aesthetics of his pictures. Look at Friedlander trying not to do street work in The Desert Seen. He can't do it. He does the desert as if it's a street (social). LOL

An aesthetics of the social assumes that it (the work; the depiction) is part of a (much) larger binding whole.

Metzker described his oscillation to and from street as "humanistic concerns" (street) vs "formal invention" (not). He also described street work as being "of an event" whereas in his later work, the picture "is the event," i.e. it is not part of any other binding structure.

***************

Metzker also said, and this has nothing to do with aesthetics, I just think it's lovely; that he hopes: "to give breath and encouragement to some incipient thought or feeling."

Sign In

Aesthetics in Urban Documentary Photography?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in