Beauty in Photography

By the most common definition, beauty is considered to be a quality or combination of qualities that gives pleasure to the senses, most notably sight. To most, the word describes positive physical attributes such as attractiveness and allure, but to the artist, beauty has a much different meaning. Back to Susan Sontag’s On Photography, the writer demonstrates the dissimilarity through words. She says, “Except for those situations in which the camera is used to document, or to mark social rites, what moves people to take photographs is finding something beautiful. Nobody exclaims, “Isn’t that ugly! I must take a photograph of it.” Even if someone did say that, all it would mean is: “I find that ugly thing… beautiful.””(Sontag, 85). What Sontag seems to be is saying is that the word beauty in an artistic sense translates to something being of a virtuous, moral, or intellectual quality. Therefore, when a photographer captures a tragedy or major disaster on film, it is the reality and truth in the image that adds to its beauty.

In The New York Times’ photojournalism piece “2010: The Year in Pictures,” the majority of the images selected are of natural disasters, fatal tragedies, and wars around the world. Less than ten photos depict images that bring forth positive memories. With that idea in mind, it is likely, then, that the editor of the piece thought in congruency to Sontag’s artistic theory on beauty- that it does not necessarily have to be something attractive or delightful. Below, I have chosen a few photos from the afore-mentioned piece in order to illustrate my point.

It is obvious that pictures above each portray horrific tragedy and disaster, but it is the truth in the events’ actual existences that make the images beautiful.