People have different perspectives and opinions of what "ugly" is. So even something that is "ugly" is still a great work of art to someone. I'm not one for abstract art, but it doesn't mean it isn't a great work of art. Who's to say what is and isn't beautiful or ugly?

I think that documentary photos show the truth, but not completely. It can only show one side of the truth. Maybe it's from a certain area, or a certain time period, or the photographer was really opinionated, or some other factor. The situation might not be the same everywhere or for everyone. Documentary photos show a fraction of what might be occurring.

This monochromatic portrait project should be interesting.
I found some portraits by Federico Erra.
http://abduzeedo.com/beautiful-monochromatic-portraits-federico-erra
LOVE <3

Also, I'm taking photographs for my family of my cousins' communion because they chose me over paying a ton for a professional photographer. Hey, I'll take it! My first gig! I kind of doubt I'm getting paid though, but I don't mind. It is family, and taking photographs.

Question of the week for me seems to be:
Would it be crazy for me to dye my hair blond for this photo project?
People have done far crazier things for art...