Quote:
Originally Posted by EuphoricOctopus
I am kinda tired of Detroit photo threads with the usual pictures of a burned abandoned house, tires in a field, a field, and an abandoned factory. Then these forumers come out like crackhead cockroaches who think they are soooo damn clever by calling detroit ghetto, abandoned, etc. 
|
I agree, but I'm even more sick of photographers (and moderators) getting their panties all in a twist when those threads turn into a debate/discussion about Detroit or a criticism of their shot selection. I know this is a friendly place for people to share their photos, but isn't good art SUPPOSED to stimulate discussion and controversy? And really, how do they expect people to react when they showcase 19 shots of abandoned buildings and empty fields while neglecting dense, intact, and vibrant urban fabric just blocks away?
I get it if you want to photograph urban decay. It's a powerful (if a little bit tired) technique for instilling an emotional response in the viewer. It's chock full of social statements and challenges to the status quo. Just don't try to represent it as documentation of everything Detroit (or any other city) has to offer.