Deadpan to the world

Alright, I admit it. I didn't know what my style of photography was until I studied for a masters degree in art history and came across the deadpan aesthetic.

Apparently, it was an actual aesthetic trend a few years ago. It completely passed me by. In fact, the aesthetic dates all the way back to the 1920s.

I just thought I was documenting the mundane Everyday, finding beauty in forgotten or overlooked spaces. When I take a photograph, I photograph the subjects (buildings and on the rare occasion, objects) straight on, centrally framed (which is a big no-no, or so I've read).

I actively search for rundown, abandoned, derelict, or just straight up 'boring' spaces and look for the beauty within it. It may not come from traditional aesthetics; the beauty may be the history of the space, or the function of it. Lines and shadows falling on corrugated industrial units, the repetition of a series of garage doors in the alley behind a residential street, the staircase on the outisde of a midcentury building. The forgotten details and overlooked shapes are what I want to document.

My photographs are never staged; I find my subjects and capture them exactly as they are at that moment in time.

This is exactly what the deadpan aesthetic subscribes to; centred subjects, captured as they are, in all their honesty and authenticity. There is no pretense. There is no fancy lighting, no staging. On any given day, you'd walk by it and not notice it.

So, what is the deadpan aesthetic?

The term deadpan means expressionless, impassive. A lack of emotion. It has the same effect on art; deadpan aesthetic is an image that conveys no emotion; the subject is emotionless; detached. The image shows the subject exactly as it is in real life.

How does this differ from documentary photography?

I suppose the way deadpan is different from documentary is the way it is photographed. Documentary photography is in the middle of the action, capturing movement, a moment in time, at whatever angle is possible depending on the situation. Deadpan on the other hand is straight on, centered, and depicts the subject exactly as they would be seen in real life.

Would I categorise my photography practice as deadpan?

Yes ... to an extent, anyway.

My problem with deadpan is that it claims to be expressionless. The photograph or artwork is devoid of emotion. I find the idea that any artwork, whether it's a photograph, painting, sculpture etc, can never be completely emotionless.

This is because there is always a story to tell. There will be a backstory to any building, any object. If the spectator does not know the story, they portray their own story onto it. Even if the artist manages to photograph something completely empty of emotion, it is not a guarantee that it will be seen that way by the viewer.

I also question, then, how deadpan photos with human subjects can really be considered emotionless images. The facial expressions, posture, clothing, space - everything - can be read into, given an emotion, or have an emotional attachment. Can these photos really be considered deadpan? I don't think so.

Even this photo of three abandoned fridges under a lamppost has emotion attached to it. To me, this is a sad image. Why have they been left there? Were they all discarded at the same time? What is their fate? We can go further - they are three friends, perhaps.

In aesthetics, yes, this is deadpan. In theory, not so much. Is any artwork truly deadpan?