Social contrast within photography is where two worlds collide. Falling into the idealistic realms of "where we have been" and "where we want to go." Without aiming for the two extremes of similar social variant; we reduce the opportunity to create a reaction from the viewer. The greater the distance of two subjects on any social spectrum, the greater the reaction. Due to the fact by creating two extremes of a similar subject, the image removes the opportunity for ambiguity or individual interpretation by the viewer. The photographer as almost flipped a coin and given the viewer, "heads and tails" within the same image, or 2 images.
The displaying of the opposites or extreme variants within a image(s) allows the viewer to choose; empathy or condemnation, blame or reason.
For example. "That could me my home in the slum" or "If they worked harder, they could live in those apartments" etc...
The first 2 images are of Krakow squares. The first is the main square in the old city. Beautiful and made welcoming for tourists. The second is a market in the backstreets of the Old Jewish Quarter of the City, which only visited by locals from the poorer areas of the city.
Sadly showing differing sides of the social spectrum, only holds an emotional effect on the viewer of the image for a limited amount of time. The images become "social wallpaper" and their effect diminishes, until a more shocking image is produced.
Also I have done a photo "mash up", joining 2 images from Las Vegas. A guy with huge amount of cases, all expensive cases outside a hotel and the homeless lady with her life's possessions all around her. This style of joined image, is an "absolute", almost undiluted effect emotionally, as the viewer cannot discount their thought making process within the confusion of a single image. Instead the viewer is faced with both realities at once and therefore is forced to make an instant choice on the meaning of the image to themselves. This is in sharp contrast to "true" images of "social contrast" which will lean slightly toward one side or the other, dependent on how the original image was constructed by the photographer. Examples of this are my own choice of images. The focus is on the homeless person or the broken down house and although social contrast exists within the image, it is not so prevalent and allows the viewer the ability to ignore the differences and therefore has an element of control over the resulting emotions toward the image.
The final image is from a place called "Park City" in Utah, a millionaire's skiing town, with the back of shack where people still reside set against wooden homes costing several million dollars each across the other side of the street. Once again due to my empathy from the situation I chose as the photographer to focus on the poorer dwelling in the wealthy area. Maybe due to my social background and lifestyle. If I lived amongst the multi-million dollar homes on the far side of the street, I may view that home as a unsightly premises, that should be removed?
There is always the presumption that someone from the socially deprived area would always choose to reside amongst the wealthy in a larger house. This maybe the most common of choices, however it is not always correct and for many reasons should not be presumed.
I have decided to stick with my own images as I took this degree on to both understand and improve my artistic photography. I choose where possible to treat a written exercise as a photographic exercise as the same time.