DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> The DPL >> ugly pics, anyone?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 39, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/13/2014 03:51:32 AM · #1
Hi all, this might sound unusual, but I am a researcher trying to learn about the nature of beauty, and I am looking for hints on "the opposite of beauty" whatever that is.... let's call it "uglyness".

My idea is to learn about the properties of images that we call aesthetically ugly, purely because of the aesthetic sensation they produce. In summary, I am looking for ugly pictures that do not contain faces, people, animals, faeces, rubbish or other man-made objects that are too much associated to our personal experiences, memories or non-visual senses. Also, I am not interested in blurry, out-of-focus or other obvious distortions that are not part of our normal visual experience (unless you forget your glasses!).

My ideal picture would be an image of trees, rocks, soil, sky, etc. (no man-made objects), technically sound but ugly.

I've been browsing this fabulous website and although they are many low-rated scenes, they have all been submitted with the aim of winning the challenge (which means that at least the owner does not think of them as "ugly"). I would like to see more and know your opinions as aficionados and experts.

Any examples or ideas are truly welcomed!

Message edited by author 2014-06-13 03:53:10.
 06/13/2014 06:39:09 AM · #2
sounds like a good challenge topic.
 06/13/2014 07:06:11 AM · #3
You just described my portfolio. :P
 06/13/2014 07:17:57 AM · #4
I saw my mother-in-law's face in a rock once. Is that what you mean? I'm sure I don't understand. You've excluded the most beautifully ugly.
 06/13/2014 07:47:25 AM · #5
ha ha, thanks for answering.

I've certainly excluded the most "beautifully ugly".

If you Google "ugly" in Google Images you get mostly distorted faces or horribly disfigured animals or faeces and the like. I don't want that because they appeal to sentiments that are not purely aesthetic: our inner fears, our disgust, our past experience with disease or rotten food, or whatever.

To make sure the ugly images just appeal to our aesthetic sense, I believe I should restrict them to natural objects (rocks, trees, soil, sky, etc.), excluding animals, man-made stuff and people.

You are right! This might be a nice challenge topic if you guys like it!

Message edited by author 2014-06-13 07:48:15.
 06/13/2014 08:22:35 AM · #6
This is the most interesting thing I've read here in quite a while. So, my inquiring mind wants to know...you are a researcher trying to learn about the nature of beauty, & so you went looking for the opposite of beauty...whatever that is, you're calling it ugliness. I suspect that the opposite of beauty is not ugly, but something closer to evil. Because you know there is beauty to be found even in ugliness.



Why? Why is it that even the most perfectly ugly creatures on earth are also compellingly beautiful? Is beauty the result of the spark of divine -- is ugly the result of the lack of this spark?

To create an ugly work of art on purpose requires a level of fearless genius & skill that would perversely create beauty anyway. Because there is always beauty in truth.



Message edited by author 2014-06-13 08:39:48.
 06/13/2014 08:31:34 AM · #7
Few photographers here or anywhere has the eye to find a beautifully ugly shot. I can only aspire to appreciate their genius. This shot to me is so perfectly ugly that it transcends to beautiful.

06/13/2014 08:31:56 AM · #8
Ugly to me is a state of mind, some emotions and exhibitions of callous disregard... all of which are difficult to photograph.

Oh wait, there are always politicians and lawyers. :O)

Ray
 06/13/2014 08:35:05 AM · #9
Originally posted by pixelpig:

While that's one of my favorite photographs on this site, it seems to be the exact opposite of what the OP is looking for.
 06/13/2014 08:40:43 AM · #10
Sometimes finding the exact opposite is the most I can hope for.
 06/13/2014 08:50:01 AM · #11
This is actually a fascinating quest. I'll need to give it some thought.
 06/13/2014 09:08:49 AM · #12
Here is an ugly picture for you... , it seems to meet all your criteria.
 06/13/2014 09:42:59 AM · #13
Yep, I can add one to that......though I would call this uninteresting rather than ugly.
 06/13/2014 09:53:10 AM · #14
06/13/2014 10:49:15 AM · #15
This IS fascinating. My entire visual philosophy is built around finding the beauty in everything!
 06/13/2014 11:01:18 AM · #16
06/13/2014 11:02:30 AM · #17
My all-time favorite on this site:
06/13/2014 11:59:03 AM · #18
Excellent!! thank you very much people for your interest and your pointers!

I agree that what I am looking for is quite difficult to find. Ugliness is as ethereal to define as beauty.

Some of the pictures you've shown meet my criteria 100% and I would agree that they could be called "ugly". Please keep them coming.

Remember that including a lady in colourful clothes will appeal to our fashion sense, experience, memory and other cultural criteria. May be an African or Asian person would find the picture of the lady beautiful, who knows!

I've found some examples in the internet, but the system wouldn't let me post them here. One of them is in a website called uglynewzealand.

Message edited by author 2014-06-13 12:17:09.
 06/13/2014 12:06:46 PM · #19
Dear pixelpig, what you say it's true and I´ve always wondered why do we consider beautiful some animals that are our natural predators, like wolves, lions and tigers, when it should be the opposite: we should run away from them like hell, not feel attraction.

There is something of an attraction to evil theme here. That is another reason why I am trying to avoid animals in my search. They are too charged of meaning and we don't value them just because of aesthetics, I believe. The pictures of soil do perfectly well.

Message edited by author 2014-06-13 12:20:42.
 06/13/2014 12:09:38 PM · #20
The idea behind asking you guys these questions is that if you know how to create beautiful pictures you should also be able to create an ugly one, or at least you should know more than I.
 06/13/2014 12:22:35 PM · #21
Have I got a mushroom for you! Perhaps one of the ugliest things I've ever seen. This mushroom was growing in the forest near the base of a waterfall.



Click on the "View full-sized image" on the image page. Do it... get that nasty all up in your face, do it!

Message edited by author 2014-06-13 12:25:15.
 06/13/2014 01:24:39 PM · #22
The problem with defining the ugly as the opposite of the beautiful, is that they are both moving targets. In music, art or fashion the search for the new is constant, and that results in the ugly of the decade before being embraced as fresh and honest and new. Be it Warhol, the Sex Pistols, or The "ugly" look of the 2007 catwalk season (really! look it up) we embrace the ugly, the un-polished the banal, what ever will get a rise from an audience. The only thing we fight against is the dull. In art we co opt the ugly, and add it to the batter as a spice. The only constantly ugly thing is the boring, the mundane, the thing we see so much of that we never want to look at it again. But if that object of our scorn was to become a rare thing, then it would begin to loop back into the land of perceived beauty.
 06/13/2014 01:33:21 PM · #23
Originally posted by aliqui:
Have I got a mushroom for you! Perhaps one of the ugliest things I've ever seen. This mushroom was growing in the forest near the base of a waterfall.



Click on the "View full-sized image" on the image page. Do it... get that nasty all up in your face, do it!


Oh my. I cannot disagree, that is ugly.
 06/13/2014 02:38:36 PM · #24
While I don't have any pictures illustrating what I mean, perhaps it would be worth considering the incomplete, the failure to reach fruition, the disfigured, the distorted from expected form. The soil pictures fits this line of thought - bare, unproducing earth. Think also of large facial tumors, cancer-eaten lips / cheeks, and the like. I think the mushroom fits because (especially in texture) appears to be undecided on what it should be.

I think there are other examples that are much more subtle - like one of the shots I took for the bench challenge. Something was wrong, just flat out wrong with the shot, but I couldn't put my finger on it. The disharmony with expected form creates dissonance that makes it difficult to experience beauty. On the other hand, I believe there are those situations where there is a consonance with the unknown / unexperienced that we find attractive.
 06/13/2014 03:01:07 PM · #25
You'll see pictures here in challenges, where other participants have given votes on a scale from 1 to 10. On a number of occasions there are votes at both ends of the scale.

Aesthetic judgements are subjective. That's probably a given, but you're looking to find objective criteria that are common to most.

Judgement is often made of 'the thing that is depicted', like the mushroom, but not of the various pictorial characteristics of the area on screen or paper or canvas that constitutes the picture.

Guernica is both ugly and beautiful - go figure (I suspect that may be precisely what you are trying to do).

A lot of judgements here may be made for photo-technical reasons, like noise/grain or focus or depth of field and on and on. While these affect the result, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively, it is often tempting to say that it is the technique that is being judged and not the picture.



Message edited by author 2014-06-13 15:19:36.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 01:39:38 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 01:39:38 AM EDT.