ianference

<p>@Arthur - 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; while a number of posters have disagreed with my viewpoints and the viewpoints of others on the matter of 'ruin porn' to greater or lesser extents, they've all done so in a tone that encourages respectful discussion. Not so with this sort of blustering suggestion that the entire discussion is worthless. Obviously, some people do care, and obviously, it is an issue, or there wouldn't be debates going on about it. While I've generally tried to sit back in the bleachers and watch, to genuinely see where other photographers' opinions on the issue lie, I take exception to this type of internet forum know-it-all who just shows up to beat their chest and posture.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't much care for the 'ruin porn' terminology - I think it's loaded in certain ways, and that a more descriptive phrase such as 'exploitative ruins photography' might do a better job of conveying the message. But 'ruin porn' is now so widely used that it has escaped the more narrow discussion on Detroit and has been applied to ruins photography in general; this was one of the arguments I discussed in the article. But regardless of my feelings on the terminology, it seems to be inescapable - it's been used in discussions about ruins photography for a couple of years now, and whether or not it was the best phrase that could have been picked to discuss exploitative abandonment photography, it is the most common phrase used for this denotation at present. Since it has, in a sense, escaped the narrow realm of "Detroit analysis" and been discussed frequently in regards to ruins photography on the whole, it seems unavoidable to just accept the general intensional definition of 'ruin porn' and move the discussion to the concepts underlying it.</p>

<p>And once again Dan South steps onto the stage with pomp and grandeur, not to join the discussion, but to belittle the discussion on the whole. Pete Seeger wrote that "to everything, there is a season", and I would posit that to every internet forum, there is a self-righteous jackanapes that gets a thrill out of posting incendiary comments and then patting themselves on the back for it.</p>

<p>Leary appropriates the phrase 'ruin porn' for use in his article, but he did not coin it; the phrase has been around in the Greater Detroit area for a good while now, and has been prevalent in various bodies of literature surrounding both cultural studies of the cities and ruins photography on the whole for a couple of years. It already exists, is used, and has a meaning, which everybody can agree is not the same meaning as the word 'porn' when used to denote provocative imagery of humans designed for sexual gratification. As I am very clear about in my article, the 'porn' component is clearly metaphorical - "Leary makes clear that the 'ruin porn' usage is centered on exploitation" - you do understand metaphor, yes? So acting as a blustering White Knight for poor abused women really does nothing, since they're not the topic at issue here. And besides, I rather think that Sasha Grey would take issue with your characterization of the porn industry, as would plenty of others.</p>

<p>But that's really not important, since you've demonstrated no interest whatsoever in actually discussing the topic at hand. Perhaps if you disagreed, for example, that the objects of exploitation in some ruins photography were either the historical & cultural context of the structure or the viewer of the image, you might offer an argument as to why this is so, but instead, you've written off the argument as a "non-issue" and ranted that "nobody cares". Congratulations. You're that schoolboy we've all had a class with that doesn't understand the lesson, and therefore belittles the topic of the lesson in order to assure his own ego that he's better than all that.</p>

 

<p>@Everybody - thanks for the thoughts! A lot of great stuff to chew through; I'm glad to see all the various opinions presented in an intelligent and respectful way!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think the article might have had more credibility were it not on the (paint) Huffing-ton Post.<br>

What's next, the DU or the Daily Kos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see how the venue in which the article appears has any influence on the validity of the points made. I'm not familiar with the DU or the Daily Kos, but if they wanted to hire me to write on abandonment photography, it's unlikely that I'd turn down the job.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ian, you'd be way ahead to merely indicate you grasp "Lost America"'s point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It should be pretty clear that I grasp his point about the usage of the term 'ruin porn' having previously been neutrally used in the photo community to denote pretty pictures of buildings by my second response to him. However, I am not inclined to agree - whether or not a narrow community uses the phrase a certain way has no application to what I am writing about, which is the broader use of the term which has become commonplace in the last few years. The term 'hysteria' once meant a disease in which a woman's uterus would attack her brain; it is now a gender-neutral term denoting irrational panic. Likewise, 'ruin porn' is a term used far and wide outside of the photo community and it does indeed carry exploitative weight. Lost America's semantic argument fails, and he cannot "defend" the term against Leary's usage when the latter is prevalent in discussions of this topic in general.</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Thanks, I guess?</p>

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

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

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

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Never used them, but if you can get out there, Klein and Ulmes in Middlesex does excellent work.

And if the film is past-dated, you might wanna consider a little extra exposure just to compensate for the "old film factor".

Fuji Pro 160S (a neg film) would be my choice - tons of lattitude, and a very natural look. If you're not bracketing, shoot it either a half or a full stop over - it can take up to +3, so you won't lose any highlight detail, and this will ensure that all of the intricacies of the facial features are not lost in bland and murky shadows.

<div></div>

<div></div>

Photographs of abandoned structures.<div></div>

<div></div>

A burst steam pipe in the frozen basement created icy stalagmites.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>