Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Aestheticizing the Difficult
If you make a beautiful photograph of something terrible (violence, war, poverty, etc.) does that draw the viewer in to experience the subject matter or distance the viewer from it by making it easier to look at it? What do you think? List examples of either if you can think of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there becomes almost an equal balance for reactions when it comes to a beautiful photograph. No matter what, there will always be that group of people who look at a beautiful photograph and despite the subject matter they will fall in love with it. Just as there will always be a group of people who will take one look at a beautiful photograph and want nothing else to do with it. I think we live in a world where today we tend to do anything we want when it comes to a specific subject matter. Photographs have become more idolized and glamorous than they would have been numerous years ago. Because of all of the technology we have, it’s easy to transform a simple photograph into a media sensation as it becomes spread more easily and manipulated into something else. There comes a point when a viewer disregards the subject and only focuses on the other features of the image.
ReplyDeleteIf someone wanted nothing to do with an image, doesn't that imply that the person did not find it, beautiful? Beauty is what draws one into something, yes?
DeleteWhat do you mean that "today" we live in a world of autonomy with any subject matter? Hasn't this been the case throughout art history, with the exception of commissioned works? What about today makes artists more free to do whatever they want? Perhaps there's a perception of increased freedom because we have a greater access to a wider variety of images (instagram, tumblr, etc.).
What about photographs are more idolized and glamorous? I would argue the opposite. The photograph has become such a ubiquitous thing, and this universal making/sharing of images is only making it more so. I would guess that the general population finds images less special because of how accessible they are.
What features are people focusing on, if not the subject? If something becomes a media sensation, it's not because of the formal aesthetics of an image, it's because of the subject matter. Is there something wrong with "a simple photograph [becoming] a media sensation?"
The first name that came to mind was James Nachtwey (check him out if you haven’t). He’s known world-wide for his breathtaking photographs of conflict zones, and more recently, post-disaster areas (Japan after the earthquake/tsunami, 9/11, etc.). Nachtwey is undoubtably an artist. Every image he publishes is so perfectly crafted, which is astounding considering he is up-close to his subjects with a wide angle lens. His color pallet is superb, his compositions are amazing, and the narratives of even one single frame is more story-telling than the articles the images accompany.
ReplyDeleteBut does the beauty of Nachtwey’s work remove the viewer from the disastrous situation that he documents? I would say absolutely not. Nachtwey’s purpose as a photographer is to create awareness of the places he photographs. Many of the counties he’s been too are rarely discussed (when’s the last time you REALLY talked about Kosovo or Chechnya?). His photographs remind the viewer of the destruction in the world, regardless of how aesthetically beautiful the images are.
If one were to look at Nachtwey’s work, and leave without the impression that the world can be a terrible place, then there is a problem with the maturity and insight of the viewer. Having said that, there is, most definitely, a bad way to photograph such events and states (I cannot think of an photographer who does so at this moment). In order for one to beautifully aestheticize a disastrous situation, they must find the perfect balance between the aesthetic and the story at hand. Nachtwey is one of the few conflict-journalists to do such a thing. There is little wonder as to how he became a Magnum photographer and a Ted Prize winner.
Nachtwey’s statement of his work is simple and humble: “I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated.” His goal is to document, and he is supported by his impeccable eye for photography.
Personally, I feel that it distances the viewer from the severity of the situation, thus forcing them to experience the subject manner in a way that simply easier to digest. I think a lot of times, people get uncomfortable when confronted with very serious, oftentimes disturbing subject matter. By "making light" of it, an artist is forcing the viewer to experience the subject, but in a different way apart from how it should be experienced.
ReplyDeleteFor example, there is a lot of glamorization of mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. Many people throw the terms around much more loosely than they should, and it is almost made out to be hip and trendy to be depressed. Although glamorizing these issues exposes a broader audience to the subject matter, it is in no way the way that these very serious issues should be viewed. This is not to say that making beauty out of not-beautiful things should always be seen as offensive, but I do not believe that the beautiful photograph should be viewed as a true representation or definition of the direct subject matter.
I think that this can go either way. Yes, it does make the image easier to look at, but in doing so, it may force the viewer to read deeper into the image, thus making the subject matter all the more relatable. I feel that if a person cannot bear to look at an image for more than a few seconds, it gives itself more of a shock value than anything else. Not to say that these images should become obsolete, they are necessary to inform the world of injustices. There needs to be a balance between both types of image.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the question I immediately thought of an exhibition I saw at Aperture Gallery a couple years ago. The photographs were of victims of accidents and crimes that happened in Mexico during a 50 year span of time. They were taken by Enrique Metinides and were originally for local newspapers. All of the photographs show gruesome scenes where people lay dead or are severely injured. The photograph that stood out the most to me was of a woman who had been struck by a van and was dangling on what looks to be scaffolding. The lighting and composition are so perfectly beautiful that at first glance you might think it's a still shot from a movie or tv show. When I was walking around the gallery there must've been at least 20 other people there but no one said a word. The photographs were beautifully made and presented the horrific content in a way that made it easier to view, but I don't think that affected how the viewer experienced the content of the photographs. I know personally, I felt the horror, empathy, and shock that the witnesses in the photographs must've been feeling at the time the photograph was taken.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aperture.org/exhibition/101-tragedies-of-enrique-metinides-2/
DeleteGoing off from what I said on Tuesday, I feel like the photo I presented A Beautiful Suicide by Robert Wiles is a image seen by many as something more beautiful than horrific. The usage of the image on t-shirts and in colorization seems to make the image much more about how beautiful Evelyn McHale looks in the photo. I wouldn't like to say that I am drawn to the photograph for it's beauty, but more about "why" the horrible thing in the photo was done.
ReplyDeleteThere is also this other photograph I wouldn't like to call beautiful, but am drawn back to every now an then. Sadly, I can't remember the name of the photographer but he took this photo during 9/11 of this cross on top of a church which is located in the foreground while one of the twin towers collapses in the background. I can't really say what it is that draws me back to the photo, it cold just be the composition, but I think I can safely say it's not about beauty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think in a way its both. Yes, aestheticizing these images does take away from the realities of them in a way. They are such terrible subjects that by making beautiful photographs of them it almost demeans the subject. But on the other hand, in todays society people don't want to/won't look at images that are harsh and terrible. By making these beautiful images of terrible subjects, it allows people to look at them and to be drawn in, to spend time studying them and realizing that what's happening is real. There has to be a balance, because if it's to aestheticized then it takes away form the subject, but a certain amount still has an impact on the viewer.
ReplyDeleteI think that in a way this can be said for other art forms as well. Many paintings were made of events that have happened, such as wars and revolutions. Although it is different than photography, it still brings up a similar question, is making a beautiful painting about a horrible event wrong? Photography is seen as a more realistic representation, but it boils down to the question of whether making beautiful art about horrible events is wrong? I believe no, because often times those events are what fuel artists, and the artwork made is what raises awareness and can bring a change.
I think that Eli Reed's photos of Rwandan Refugees in Tanzania are a great example of someone aestheticizing a difficult situation without taking away from the reality of what these people are going through. The shot that i can't get out of my head is the one of a mother reaching out to comfort her sick infant who is wrapped in a bunch of blankets, looking back up at his mother. Reed's composition is excellent and the range of tonalities in the photo are nothing short of exquisite. Although when i look at this beautiful image i can't help but feel horrible that these people had to go this.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Casey in the sense that like Nachtwey, Reed helps create awareness around the subject he is photographing by making aesthetically pleasing images of horrible events occurring in the world. I think it's this juxtaposition of the beautiful image with the horrible event that gives the viewer the ability to look at a horrible event occurring they might normally turn their head from and gain secondhand perspective from it for themselves. However i also think there is something lost when an image of a horrible thing in the world is made aesthetically pleasing for the everyday person; because in our modern world we are confronted with horrible images of violence and things like it on an everyday basis. Every time I turn on the news i almost expect see a story about someone being killed or injured along with a plethora of videos and images online of these horrible things. So i think that to even be able to come close to experience these events we need both the aesthetically pleasing images and the more extreme ones to be able to give a truly honest reaction.
I believe if you make a beautiful photograph of something terrible such as war, poverty, suicide it draws the viewer in to experience the subject matter more rather than distancing the viewer from it by making it easier to look at. I know for one of my projects I created an image of a homeless man living on the streets. The man in the photograph was not in fact homeless but portrayed one for the purpose of the photograph. When the image was shown in class, I believe it opened everyone's eye to that many people do live like this. We rarely see it due to our environment and how we live our lives. Many think if you do not see it happening it does not exist. Most people turn their cheek when they read or hear about issues like poverty but when they actually get a first hand view they are forced to deal with the issue. Most people are turned off when they pass someone living on the streets and think negatively towards them. But when shown an image they responded quite different.
ReplyDeleteLike Dan and Casey have said, I think that it goes both ways in this and that things that are difficult to swallow in hard to look at are the things that we need to be confronted with more often than not. These images allow everyone to see the horrible things that occur on this planet and I think that even if presented beautifully, people will understand that it goes deeper than aesthetics. It definitely has the ability to distance the viewer from the situation, especially in this time period where there are so many images that people process daily and we see gruesome images all over the place. However, I think the context that the image is put in can also determine how it is interpreted, if it is in an article that talks about the atrocities that occur around the world, then the image will obviously be read with that in mind but if it is commercialized on some billboard or magazine, it might be more difficult to interpret the image beyond the aesthetics and understand it for what it is presenting.
ReplyDeleteI always think it makes it easier to look at. I think there are a lot of times that the common viewer also may not realize the extent of seriousness in photographs like that (war, poverty...) because these photos may be easier to look at and "understand", but easily get shrugged off. This reminds me of things I've seen with images of 9/11 on them, or similarly, the gift store tchotchke mug you showed us early in the semester. Sometimes topics lose their heaviness and importance when they're photographed or presented in certain ways.
ReplyDelete