Technical > Digital Imaging > Just wondering

Just wondering

Interesting question. I stay next door to mom, and between our houses is a barn. An old wooden barn with a metal rusted roof. We look at it everyday, but it has that "historic" feel to us. Between the both of us we could have cleaned it up years ago, but havent. When I see old stuff like that I always wonder what story it could tell.

I guess my answer is it wouldnt bother me
--
| map your city |

reply to SueS
It depends. Generally, I wouldn't want much of the stuff next door or in my yard. I believe in many of those photos I enjoy most, it's the subject in context to its lighting and surroundings. The images simply wouldn't be as appealing in the setting of my immediate neighborhood.

reply to SueS
I don't think it's a question of what neighborhood the building or object is in, so much as what backstory we each mentally attribute to the image. The photographer is merely recording what is already there, not creating the ruination.

I don't think that anyone really wants a junked car parked in front of their house, or an abandoned tenement building or factory next door if they are in an urban setting, simply because of vandalism, squatters and rats. When those same items are in an isolated setting, though, their decomposition seems to be more of an effect of time and weather - human absence rather than human intervention.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals

I want to retire to the Isle of Sodor and ride the trains.

reply to SueS
A very good question. The photographer in me says hell yes! Give me something interesting to shoot close by, thank you very much. There is a small part that understands there is a risk to having something like that so close by. Many of these types of buildings bring with un-wanted elements, such as drugs, violence and even arson. So, to be totally honest, yes and no.

reply to SueS
I live in a rural setting, while I don’t have this stuff in my neighborhood, I don’t have to drive far to find it. Even if it is not in my neighborhood, it is in somebody’s. I view this stuff as I do trash along the road. I understand that it is there because it is costly to clean up.

I can see why someone would photograph the stuff for documentary purposes. We have many old barns around and I can see the art in some of those photos. Some of the old barns around here are still in use. Old vehicles have sentimental value to some, so it is kind of understanding why those photos are taken. I just don’t get glamorizing an old building that should be torn down or restored and calling it art.

I was mostly curious to see if I am the only one who feels this way, and from the responses I guess I am.

Thanks for the replies, however I would be interested in seeing even more.

Can you explain more about what you mean by "glamorizing"?

For example, there's this Fickr group called Abandoned Oregon -- is this what you mean by glamorizing?

glamorizing- To make something seem more interesting, romantic, or glamorous than it really is.

reply to SueS
I kind of agree with you, but so often, today, there are derelict buildings in places where they were never seen before, or many more of them going into a more decayed look due to a dead economy. I would not want one in my neighborhood, but I am perhaps a snob. Many of the old barns and buildings speak to me of the past, but they also speak of trash along the road as you suggested. They have not been cared for. I would not want our roads taken care of like some of these buildings nor much of anything else of our structures/cars, etc. But, as a photographer, I love to see them in someone else's neighborhood.
--
JKK

Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!

»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay

reply to SueS
I've been thinking about this a lot and I can't quite say that I feel this way towards objects/buildings/etc but I can see how others might. In contrast, I was never comfortable taking pictures of people when I traveled in underdeveloped countries (unless I had their permission of course) and I always wonder how other photographers got comfortable with candid shots where I wouldn't necessarily assume they had permission (though I could be totally wrong about that).

In the end, however, I think it's about intent of the photographer. Beyond that, a photographer can't control the thoughts or reactions of those that view one's photos...

My $0.02 worth at any rate.