Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney yesterday announced the end of his campaign for president. Christopher Anderson followed him through the Michigan Primaries in January.
This is some of the most amateurish, mediocre photojournalism I've seen in a long time. Someone please teach Mr. Anderson how to bounce a flash and balance his light and metering. Why is he so detached from his subjects? He needs to get over his alienation and get in tighter. Everything I've seen from his campaign reportage has been plagued with this crass ugliness. Is this "art"? If so, it is stupid art. Is it journalism? If so, did any of the major news outlets pick up any of these photos? Magnum used to be a leader. This is crap.
To me, this is photojournalism that communicates on a broader but basically human level about the nature of the campaign trail: the paradoxical alienation of the candidate whose job it is to let everyone identify with him and his concerns/platform, most of whom are made anonymous through sheer numbers and the fleeting nature of their interactions. He is alone among like minded people, day in and day out.
Terry's comment sounds a bit over the top...
I personally find those pictures somewhat surreal... Frankly, knowing a bit of his work, I don't think Chris needs to be taught anything about technique, photojournalism, art and what not.
These comments are wonderful. Well, I guess I don't have a defense for the amateurish and mediocre part. And while "art" might be a loaded word (crap is good though), I guess I just wanted it to feel like what I was seeing there. These events are rather ridiculous. they are staged and repetitive. While it may not look like it in these pictures, I do in fact know how to balance my flash and expose. It was a conscious decision to flash with this technique. It is as if throwing too much light on it might somehow expose these campaign photo ops for what the really are. The designers of these events want us to make a pretty picture. but a pretty picture to me felt like something that would be false to this event. I almost thought of the flash as being like an xray that would reveal what I really see at an event like this.
And to answer the question, yes, I was on assignment for Newsweek magazine and they even published this crass ugliness.
Christopher -- Well answered. And, with a bit of informed re-consideration on my part, I won't say that I'm a fan of this type of photography but I "get" what you're doing. I thank you for responding with less heat and anger than I did in starting this round of comments.
The treatment of the subject is nothing less than perfect throughout the election series. These photos are more telling than mainstream ones that "look better" and say nothing, as I am sure time will prove. I am glad to see Christopher Anderson has not lost his edge.
i think this type of photography (which i love) reflects our time, i think that we need to go ahead of what has been doing before and create a new way of seeing the world... i think that anderson is reinventing himself...anyway that is just me....
While I’ve apologized for “being over the top” in my negative response to these photos, please allow me to re-phrase my displeasure with them.
Christopher, I am sorry that you are forced to go through these “ridiculous ... staged and repetitive” political events. So you employ visual sarcasm -- as a kind of F-you to the phonies. Personally, as an amateur photographer, all of my work is self-assigned. I only photograph things that interest me. That way, I don’t have to resort to visual sarcasm. Sarcasm is almost always ugly. As “journalism” I think it demonstrates immaturity.
Some people obviously go for that kind of editorializing. Christopher, you don’t want that. Appeal to a higher form. Please. Use your skills to show us what interests you. What do you believe in? What can you bring empathy to? I’ve said it before, alienation (and, here, sarcasm) is easy. Expressing something positive requires that you show us your soul. Show us your soul, Christopher.
I much admire the work of Christopher Anderson but was wondering if he would have used the same flash technique if he were asked to photograph an Obama or Clinton political event?
More to the point - Was the flash technique employed 'inspired' by this specific candidate and this specific event? Or would he have used this technique, premeditatedly, regardless of the candidate?
Get ready for some soul-showing:
Let's first tackle the question of wether or not I would have used this technique on another candidate (Obama or instance). The answer is that I did use the flash on Obama, MCCain, Huckabee, and Romney. Those are the only candidates I have covered so far. When I referred to pouring light onto the subject to expose all of its ugly realities, I was talking about the political circus itself, not the specific candidate. But does Romney still look worse than Obama under this light? Yes, but is that because I made him look worse, or because he really is a creepy, animatronic figure who just looks bad in photos in general. Perhaps we will never know.
Re: visual sarcasm: I think you misunderstand. I don't do this as a F-you or as visual sarcasm. I am actually truly fascinated by the political machinery. Perhaps appalled and disgusted, but fascinated. This is not sarcasm, but perhaps more related to satire.
re: editorializing:
first of all, what I do as a photographer is much more akin to an editorial columnist than a reporter. I unapologetically offer my opinion. But I will go a step further to say that there is no such thing as objective photojournalism. What rules would you apply as the standard? not using this particular flash technique, ok. then what? no wide angle lenses (they distort reality)? no black and white film (our eyes don't see in black and white)?
What a photographer chooses to include or exclude from the frame is subjectivity. The moment the photographer chooses to press the shutter is subjectivity. If we continue down this path, we could create a dogma for World Press Photo: no photos are allowed unless they were taken with a 50mm, in color, the photographer was not allowed to have composed the picture or consciously chosen the moment to actually take the picture. Otherwise, those would all have been conscious decisions that are by definition, editorializing.
That leaves us with aesthetics: you may like it or not like it. it might appeal to you or not appeal to you. As I said before, I do happen to know how to correctly expose film (or digital flash card as the case may be), but I CHOSE to do it this way. You may not find it "good" or "beautiful" or of "high quality", but you had a reaction to it. I doubt you had a reaction to many of the "well executed" but innocuous wire photos of Romney that appeared in that week's newspaper. THAT is what I am going for. I DO hope you engage with the picture. love it or hate it, but react to it. As for me, I find a beauty in the ugliness of this flash. I stumbled upon it by accident, and it made me think of pictures by Weegee. There are other obvious influences (some in this very agency), but there is something about it that I have not seen before and I am thoroughly enjoying exploring that.
check out the feature, Novosibirsk or silicon forest in the Magnum Features for more of this flash style
Thank you for your clear and honest response.
An insight to the creative process of a professional PJ to be sure!
' Editorial columnist' or 'editorial commentary' is largely unavoidable, sighting the reasons you've listed. No one in impartial. The 'message' that photojournalism conveys via the mass media is 'agenda' based. No one is innocent or naive.
Cable TV, newsprint and radio are littered with political/social commentators who all add their spin.
The creative inspiration of the photojournalist doesn't exist in a vacuum of impartiality.
Love the Weegee reference.
I look forward to viewing, and to be continually inspired by, your photography.
I had asked for you to show your soul, and you told us to "get ready for some soul-showing." Then, instead of showing us your soul -- instead of showing what interests you, what you believe in, what can you bring empathy to -- you lectured on the editorial nature of photography. That's Eugene Smith's gig, which I learned as a teenager in the 1970s. I get that. (I was referring to specifically to "that kind" of editorializing -- meaning taking the F-you sarcastic route. Which you say you aren't doing. It looks like sarcasm to me, but I'll have to take your word for it.) I appreciate that you are taking a conscious aesthetic approach.
But as much as I got ready for your "soul-showing," I still haven't seen it. And I'm not seeing it in your Novosibirsk images. There, I see alienation; and, as I said in an early post on that "Magnum-In-Motion" piece, I think alienation is easy. That general "look" is achieved millions of times a day by snap-shooters all over the world.
Also in my post on the Novosibirsk piece, I direct the viewer to Wayne Miller's 1940s "Chicago" essay. He, by limitation of technology, also has that "Weegee" flash style. But his photos are not detached. Miller had the emotional strength to show us some tenderness, to get in close to subjects and to tell us, visually, who they are as human beings. Miller brought empathy to his editorializing. I don't get that with your two most recent Magnum features. But Magnum has changed since Miller's time. In the 1940s and '50s, sarcasm (or "satire" as you prefer) wasn't so prevalent; empathy was.
My problem isn't with you, specifically, Christopher. I think my problem is with the general tenor of the times, when people get bored with anything that isn't "edgy," when warmth and empathy are derided as "pretty," when "reaction" is the objective (and anything "good," "beautiful," or "high-quality" fails to elicit enough of a "reaction"). But I'm not your audience. I'm still marveling at Eugene Smith's editorial skills -- what he was able to do with "good," "beautiful," and "high-quality" photography to reveal the soul (like an "x-ray" flash simply can't).
My first thought when I saw this first photo was something like: "what the heck is this!?"
Then, thinking about it for a few minutes and reading the photographer's own comments, I fully understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the photos. Personally, I agree with many of the points made. I'm also sick and tired of all the staged pretty pictures we see every day.
That being said, my main concern with photos like these is that "most people" will consider them amateurish snapshots. If the photos don't appear "professional", why would the reader (I'm a newspaper guy) trust the written text that goes along with them? I'm afraid you'll get a "if they can't afford to send a real photographer, why would they send a real reporter. I can't take this seriously.." kind of reaction. (In the real world, I'm not sure if most people really cares that much about picture quality any more, but hopefully I'm wrong).
It's a good thing that Newsweek printed these photos, but I can't help wondering if they would have done so if they had been taken by some unknown guy that wasn't a Magnum photographer?
Finally, a remark to your comment that "a photographer is much more akin to an editorial columnist than a reporter". Not true, in my opinion. I'm a professional journalist - and a former photographer - and can assure you that you have to make the same editorial decisions as a writer. I agree there's no objective photojournalism, but there's no objective journalism either. Not really. You always have to decide what to include and what to omit in a story.
I'm glad Chris chimed in with his lengthy comments. I dig his likening of the flash to an x-ray. The term that came to my mind when I saw this type of lighting was "bullhorn flash." To me what's most interesting is not seeing who did what technique first, rather seeing how long it takes somebody else to copy it. The last picture on his portolio page, of the Bushes at the Texas inaugural ball, says it all in my opinion.
you confuse emotion and sentimentality...and you are unwilling to let go of "pretty" equalling "good"
Do you really believe that there is something wrong with the tenor of the times because you don't see "warmth and empathy" in my pictures of politicians at a 1 night, staged political event?
I do not have time at the moment to write (just a quick look) as I am on my way to teach, but the work is extraordinary, both this series and the series about NH...for photographic, editorial and, more importantly, evocative reasons ....
I promise i'll write tonight/tomorrow.....
though Chris is certainly, just as with his photography, an articulate defender...
Personally, I love this shot. I love the flash, the framing. I'd like a high-res copy if possible (not print res, not going to steal it!). It's pictures like this that make me want to try colour.
BTW, the balloons everyone keeps asking about are snow flakes that were falling close to the lens and then accentuated by the flash.
For the record, I didn't say that all photojournalists are like editorial columnists as opposed to reporters. I said that MY function is more like the photographer equivalent of an OP ED writer and less that of a traditional reporter. There are many excellent photographers who are reporters, and their function is different from mine. Wire service photographers for instance. But I assume you are here on the Magnum site not just to see "good" photography, but to see the point of view (or maybe we will call it authorship) of individual photographers. If you are looking for a news report, than you would be looking at the web site of a wire service or other news outlet.
Christopher, in the above statement, which I assume was in response to my lament, you said:
you confuse emotion and sentimentality...and you are unwilling to let go of "pretty" equalling "good"
Do you really believe that there is something wrong with the tenor of the times because you don't see "warmth and empathy" in my pictures of politicians at a 1 night, staged political event?
Christopher, no, I don't confuse emotion with sentimentality. Nor do I equate "pretty" with "good." And I certainly have not formed my beliefs about the tenor of the times on the basis of this single set of your pictures.
Do you confuse alienation with sophistication? Do you equate "ugly" with "good"? Do you believe that a single set of your pictures sets the tenor of the times?
I didn't think so. So please don't smear me with any of that.
My frustration is with what I believe is a movement from "warmth" to "cool" within the ranks of what counts as "sophistication" in photography. I am frustrated because I have become a rear-guard reactionary against the dominant trend in my beloved art form. Magnum was one of my primary sources of inspiration and philosophy when I was starting as a photographer as a teenager in the 1970s (at the very time that the tenor was turning). I look to the founders and early members of Magnum and I see warmth and empathy throughout their work, regardless of the subject matter. Now I see mostly (but not exclusively) "cool" and "alienation." Where I used to find irony, I now find sarcasm. Where I used to find love, I now find ridicule.
I am frustrated because, as Jarle hinted at (above), there is a growing separation between Magnum and the general public. Magnum used to communicate to the public through purposefully "good" photography that was actually popular. (Egads!) The photo book, "The Family of Man" was a best seller that remains in print more than fifty years later, and it was packed full of the work of Magnum photographers. (It's the book that got me going.) Now I see through statements like what you and your supporters here have made that "sophisticated" photography is basically a club that requires a "get it" hurdle for entry. No "pretty" pictures allowed, because they aren't "edgy." And in that I see a soulessness.
So, again, you told us to "get ready for some soul-showing." I'm still waiting, but I think I'm pretty much alone on that count.
Oh, and, Christopher -- Congratulations on your World Press Photo award. There is lots of empathy and soul in those photos. Pretty pictures, too, I might add. Nothing wrong with that.
I photograph weddings and dogs, part time, with a heavy reliance on post-production, so I probably don't even belong within three Web clicks of the venerable Magnum agency.
Regardless, I wish people would accept that their personal photographic style is neither the only one, nor the "most legitimate" one, and stop posting nonsense in a misguided effort to drive traffic to their own less-impressive photo sites.
For what it is worth, I like the emphasis on open mouths, Christopher.
Matt, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate them. Please don't get me wrong, but I don't think nonsense was posted here by any of the commentors. The comments reflect their points of view which might not always be mine, they might not be your's or the photographer's, but they are legitimate comments. And I wish discussions like these would start more often underneith articles on this blog since I see them as enriching way of communication between our readers and the photographers.
I like the feel of conscious choice in those images. Everything that I've seen from Christopher is really loose in the sense of style, coherent within each of the pieces but very variable (lomo shots, good black and white, beautiful pictures, overflashed images), and there is a way in which they fit the topic. These are not my faovourite, but I like how the flash sort of exposes some truth in the images (I get the same feel from Weegee, Yoshiyuki or Arbus, even if they're ugly most of the time).
Terry, I don't agree with you, and I find your comments quite cheesy (but I am just a kid, a supertramp with a camera).
I am glad that Magnum is evolving towards different horizons (and I believe that we should move far away from Cartier Bresson, Capa and so on. They had a great time, please give a chance for a new art).
"KILL THE FATHERS", would say Freud. Once and for all (of course, we will always respect ancient work, but I am glad when we move on).
I believe that everyday is a good day to challenge photography, and question art.
Personnaly, if today Magnum members would be only children of their founders and early members, I would be soooo bored and I would stop watching their pictures.
So yes, I like the pictures of this post, I find the message and the mood super clear.
Because I like when photography totally assumes its subjectivity (objectivity just doesn't exist when you frame, just accept it and move on. Let's remove all boundaries, technical, cultural, historical, everything which stops a true and original author).
I almost couldn't like this picture more. Despite cameras being seemingly everywhere on the campaign trail, I keep seeing the same candidate shots over and over again (with a few notable exceptions). This shot, however, feels like both an acknowledgment of the distance at which the press is kept, and a transcendence of that limitation. It's cold yet strangely intimate. And I love that hand on the steering wheel.
I'll take cheesy over patricidal, any day. "KILL THE FATHERS," indeed. Am I the only one who responds with revulsion to that statement?
More and more, the photo arts is becoming an exclusive club for those who are "soooo bored" with anything that communicates to the wider public, to those who aren't initiated. How many people came to the pictures in question and at first thought they were junk, then realized, "Oh, they were ugly on purpose! It's 'edgy' -- I get it!"? Welcome, you're in the club. If these same pictures were posted by Aunt Gladys on Flickr (who thinks Weegee is a board used in a seance) everybody would've just kept on going, laughing at the ineptitude.
But, no, they were posted by a Magnum photographer. And all the club members (who, by the way, advocate questioning everything) like it -- love it -- without question. And let's kill the founders. Their stuff was so obvious -- anybody could get it. (And what kind of club is that?) But this attitude that if it's ugly ON PURPOSE, done by a top photographer with street cred -- that my friends is a race to the bottom. Nihilism is a force that has no logical end. And as Magnum moves "far away from Cartier Bresson, Capa and so on," the public will keep moving too -- in the other direction.
"KILL THE FATHERS"
My only request, Christopher, is that you give Elliott Erwitt warning that your fans are coming in. (He perfected irony, after all; and those kinds of pictures are a lot harder to make than some might realize.)
LET ME OFFER THIS FIRST: THIS WILL BE A LONG AND UNEVEN POST...SO PLEASE, IF YOU WISH, FEEL FREE TO BY-PASS......
"Never have I found the limits of the photographic potential. Every horizon, upon being reached, reveals another beckoning in the distance. Always, I am on the threshold. "- W. Eugene Smith
Let me begin by saying simply:
Christopher Anderson is a poet.
I am not talking only about his work on the Presidential Primaries which has ruffled Mr. Carroll's peculiar and odd feathers so richly (a sign, Chris, I would suggest is a monumental success as a story) but the entirety of his work. Beginning with his remarkable and extraordinary series on the Haitian boat people (in which Chris and the refugees on board nearly perished) and progressing through his work in N. Africa to Afghanistan and Pakistan, from Venezuela and Israel and Gaza to the night sheer-shorn shadows of torn Lebanon, benchmarked upon the alienating alienation of what has been bequeathed to those, especially the young, left behind in the far-flung archipelago of Russia (a country i also know personally) to the aftermath of Katrina culminating in his magisterial National Geographic essay on Jerusalem which was just awarded a WPP. One would be hard-pressed to find another photographer of our generation as soulful and committed to the language of story than Christopher. Hard-pressed indeed. But Chris' vision has not been held sway merely by the reportage he has come to be known by but also through the exuberant and incandescent personal work he's accomplished in Cuba and France and Iraq and around New York.
To me, much of the attack that Mr. Carroll has put forth seems to concern some chimera of his own making or some infantilization born more of a photographic frustration than with any real truth (photographic or philosophic ) about the reality of Chris' work as a photographer, past and present, or of any of the younger Magnum photographers or the current state of photography (whatever that may be). Frankly, had I not gone to Mr. Carroll's website, I would never have believed that he was a photographer or at least been a photographer for has long as he proudly claims. His first comment, "some of the most amateurish, mediocre photojournalism I've seen in a long time. Someone please teach Mr. Anderson how to bounce a flash and balance his light and metering..." clearly shows he knows, technically speaking, very little about the art he professes to defend. Moreover, it's clear by his many comments that that his defence of photography must surely be one of his raison d'être. How else to to understand some of the demagogic comments that have scrolled down upon this blog? I might, respectfully, ask him that a defence of something surely requires, a priori, a more than just facile and passing understanding of the technical aspects of that which is being defended. This is even more critical with photography, a language and media born on the bellowed backs of technology (a mechanic box serving as an organic heart). Otherwise, surely, whether he liked the work or not, understood the work (emotionally, editorially, aesthetically), at least technically, he would not have so "amateurishly" and pre-ejaculatorily spit out such a silly comment about the technical aspects of this and the NH essay. This is a particularly egregious comment given the photographer and his body of work, the technical aspects of which are quite formidable. Toss a flash amid a body of flashes the way he does here and maintain the coloration and emotional character of the frame and then I'll listen to his comments. It's also very curious to me (I mention this as a writer) his use of the work "irony." While Erwitt is a master at irony, as are Gilden and Kalvar (check out his new brilliant book), and of course the brilliant Parr. However, Chris work is not ironic at all, at least not in the sense that Carroll argues above, nor does it afflict the work of some of the younger photographers like Jonas and Jacob and Alec and Donovan, though often they're colours appear "cold" or the distance, but this is something much different than Carroll's evocation of "cold" or "ironic." Irony is about contrast, incongruity, often for humorous evocation. Irony is the use of contrast as a way to understand the wide gap between appearance (intended) and appearance (actuality), apparent and intended meaning. While much of Chris' pictures in this and the NH series are ironic and THAT use of irony is emotionally evocative and compelling: contrast these 2 photos:
We're talking Michigan folks...and all that implies. The economics of that state and the cruel irony between the expensive and expressive "coat" of the fanfare and hoopla of these kinds of events and the bitter-cold truth of those two young men on the sidewalk. A more bitter irony is unlikely. This does NOT ALIENATE the viewer, but to the contrary, this contrast draws the viewer in, allows the viewer to understand the gross negligence of these kinds of events, the feel-good-nature of them versus the reality of the body politic vis-à-vis its politicians. I should add, right now, a disclaimer. When I was 23, I worked as a speech writer for a few politicians and I work on campaigns and worked for politicians during the '88 presidential elections (before I became a photographer) and i worked during the '90 Congressional campaigns. I can tell you there is extraordinary truth in all Chris' photographs, both this series and the series about NH (more about that later). Irony is not a negative characteristics and in fact often delegates itself in the service of greater human verisimilitude. I have no idea what "irony" Mr. Carroll is talking about, but it appears that he, like many others today (is this a fad among the photographic and the wannabe photographic community?), wish to dismiss much of the work that is done now and swath it in an accusatory blanket of "this stuff just sucks and aint as good as the old days" by calling it "cold" and "ironic" (irony, here, meaning: patronizing or indifferent or too-cool for its own good), when much of the language used to attack the work (as evinced above) is just nonsensical. Chris is NOT and ironic photographer nor is his work. Filled with photographs that are, surely, ironic (a blinding "snow" storm in Afghanistan) but this contrast, this incongruity points to the hard and difficult-to-fathom contrast of the human life.
Enough about Mr. Carroll for I've digressed enough.
This series of work, including the NH work is remarkable. To begin with, it is both beautiful (i dont get how this can be termed ugly at all) and insightful. These two series (NH and now Michigan) speak as much about the political process and the campaign trail as I've seen. As I mentioned, I once worked on these kinds of events and I can tell you that they are often physically, emotionally and spiritually exhausting. Many of the candidates feel the same as well. This is one of the brilliant insights from this essay. The picture above, shows Romney in a near-terror fit of odd exhaustion. He may not have been, but the picture (for me) evokes so much: the assassination of JFK (the seemingly antiquated car, the harsh white flash, the anonymous hand on the wheel), the weariness of the campaign road, the cluster of isolation that accompanies these kinds of events. The audience whipped into a strange and odd frenzy (this year more than ever) as they pin their hopes upon figures for whom they long for redemption. I have stood beside politicians and listen to people in the audience tell them that if not for they're success, they'd abandon their dreams. This kind of weight and delusion is what marks profoundly our body politic. Moreover, Chris story is really a Lynchian dream. Anyone who has attended a high school reunion understands this squarely: hopes pinned on the negotiation of a bent-out past. Under the seepage of "warmth" (we once were warriors all those years ago) of sharing class graduations and hopes and aspirations, the harsher and more important and indelible truth comes: we're rarely a shade of what we'd hoped to be and this quite and desperate truth IS THE HUMAN condition. We aspire and in the oddly-lit rooms retire to our quieting and disquieting sadness and openings. these pictures really are our of a David Lynch film or a class reunion. I love their exuberance and their sadness, and their sadness is not reserved only for the candidates, but the audience and the press who cover the campaign as well. The distancing, the lens use as alice-in-the-looking-glass, the incredible use of flash (which is like a Wegee pic, or even a Pinkhassov photo), the other-universe-over-the=hill of class reunions, proms, political promises, ..oneiric and, one wonders, the investment we grant ourselves in our beliefs and yet seldom expose them for what they entail: often the disbelief of the fallout....
but more than the Aestheticization that has been argued about, I want to suggest that actually Chris has achieved a reportage of a singular nature. Has anyone NOT READ writers who've spoken of this process? The vacuity, the emptiness, the irony of the well-heeled politicians and the bedraggled electorate as they sift and drift and drive away from these events? All the arguments that have been tossed at Chris are seldom thrown at writers and reporters who offer similar insight. Chris' language is photography and he uses all the syntax and grammar and technique of that medium to speak about the process as he witnessed and experienced it. Most photographs of the political process highlight the grandstanding and the tumult, the pomp and pageantry, the inordinate wealth and spectacle and the aspirations and the drama. Seldom does, except when being written about, does campaign photography offer this perspective: the loneliness and the distancing emptiness, the vacuity at the centre. The use of the flash and the wane colours, the halos of light and shadow and the contrast between the isolation of the politicians and the audience further highlight and distinguish the crux of the problem of what plaques our electoral process. Amateurish? Irresponsible? A bane of journalism? You have to be fucking kidding me?
This work is remarkable and will be seen as brave and brilliant and honest and eye-opened (and eye-opening) work. I might add that Eugene Smith was often pilloried by others, especially by the purists, accused of "aesthetizing" truth/life. His work on the country doctor and later the work on albert schweitzer and his magnum opus, Pittsburgh, was criticized and gawked at as an instance of "what was wrong" with Magnum photographers....how quickly, people forget.....
Above all, Chris work is a soul-sifting, voice-evincing, sting of human eloquence, reaching out against both the darkness of the shadow and the wing of light to capture what lay inside the negotiation of life. It is not a rare achievement to make photographs that speak of life lived; it is not a rare skill to harness light and shadow, color and penumbra to report events. It is, however, a rare and distinguishing ability to speak out wide and make the specific universal in such incontestable ways. Poets tie the yoke of their language to the beast of their living and so too Anderson. That a commentator above as asked for something more soulful from a photographer who has continually invested himself in the lives of those he has photographed, that a commentator has above has asked for something less "soulless," that is an indication to me that he is less "thoughtful" of a reader of photographs that he is as a listener to his own, 15-year trained "acumen" as a photographer.
Forgive me for saying, but Mr. Carroll your pedestrian reflections about the work and your subsequent diatribe about everything photographic (the new "alienation", the magnum forefathers vs. the magnum babes, the exegesis of "ugly" vs. "pretty", your sirens' call to Elliot) is pretty paegentry but devoid of substance.
Chris has harnessed technique in the service of story. THIS IS WHAT PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABOUT. His "style" here conveys and propels and evokes story, and it's not simply a "trick" or "cool" technique without emotional and essential meaning.
Chris' coverage of the 2008 Primaries (the extraordinary NH series and now with the Michigan series) will be seen as one of the great recent essay on political campaigning in recent time. Regardless of Mr. Carroll's objections and quite superficial understanding of the work, this work will be understand as a bold and insightful and significantly photographic.
A soulful digression.
the flash, like the pop of a small shadow-step caught in the ice-bridge of snow, the frozen wink of water sprit off the bow of a fishing ship (Pinkhassov), the fly-spit mechanic click of a gun, bullet-less drained, beside the sealed loss of a drunken body dead in the eye of Wegee's
Above all, we sing out against the darkness, each of us, rhyme along the echo of the well that stands in front of us, push (either aggressively or tentatively) against the curtain of annihilation that, like a velvet Lynchian twitch, waves in front of each of us. To speak upon things, to speak up, to reflect upon, to offer as rumination and expression, the countenance, as we see and experience and render, seems to me to be the elemental essence of what each of us do with out lives. If in the beginning was not the word, it surely was the urge to fill out the silence with them: to speak is what makes our human voice human. Christopher's work, here and else where, is filled, soulfully, magisterially, sadly, inspiringly and informatively, with that speech that I, as a human, long and hunger to hear.
He is above all else a story teller, this is larger than the imprimatur of "photographer."
To me, foremost, a photographer's obligation is to his vision and to his craft for within these tools rest each of his, for good and ill, responsibilities. Chuck Close once said that photography is the medium, above all, that is so easy to learn to become adept at but the medium that was the most hard to achieve real authorship or voice, singular voice. As a photographer and a writer, as well as a lover of photography, I would agree wholeheartedly. That much of this body of work (including the NH primary work) has been questioned technically seems to serve as an example of such a statement. I am still in shock that so-called photographers, commentators above who describe themselves as photographers and countenance themselves as knowledgeable, criticize the "technique" of the work without fully having understood the technical achievement of the work, how difficult it is to use flash in a manner that Chris has done and still retain the evocative, emotional, aesthetic and, principally, documenting quality of the story of the pic shows how easy it is to become a photographer, criticize photography, without in truth having understood the first think about the art form, technically or otherwise.
There is very little which distinguishes, which bemires this from that, that
Disorienting, to say the least....and I'm not speaking of Chris story but much of the lamentation expressed above...a lamentation, that ironically, sounds falsely wearied and more specifically disingenuous...so much evoked above by Mr. Carroll that (ironically) I find my self at a loss as to where to begin, so let's start squarely: with the series
It's, frankly, a bit odd to me to digest much of what Mr. Carroll has written, begin with his initial lugubrious and demagogic harangue. The odd quality of his argument (initial) and subsequent argument is that he has couched his displeasure and annoyance with chris work within a nomenclature of photographic argument, while rarely understanding the photographic worth or history (let alone technical aspects) that make this work so striking. Had Mr. Carroll, like others above, simply dismissed the work as an aesthetic orientation that didn't dig, or a story they felt didn't move or affect or infect or inform them, I'd better understand the comments. That the story was taken to task on it's photographic, reportorial and existential orientation is a gesture of grandiosity that it simply astonishing, thought not surprising.
Incidentally, "kill the fathers" was a remark not made by Chris but by another commentator. Just for the record, Chris' work is filled with all kinds of celebrations and allusions to his "magnum fathers and mothers", for a careful and deeper understanding of his body of work shows this, ...
This series broadens our understanding, our insight into the process...
The final image in Chris' magisterial story from Jerusalem is also an technically extraordinary photograph. Those who understand about the technique of photographer will grasp it quite clearly. this photo is not a "straight forward" "warm" photograph, but is also filled with bitter and profound irony: technically and emotionally. This is one of the most "odd" (technically speaking) photographs I have seen in NG is a long long time...the foreshortening, the inverted-like lens center, the blurred trees and wall....and yet, this DISORIENTATION commits even more to the profound heartache of this photograph....this confluence of technique and soul and eye compels:
this photograph should be celebrated and will continue to be understood as the iconic image of the middle east that it is....this is the marriage of soul with technique..... See image here.
Chris Anderson is a poet. I am happy he is among us.
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
W. Eugene Smith
But at least, I would like to thank Terry for one thing.
Thanks to his honest reaction, he spoke with passion and without fear, and then we can find an interesting discussion on this blog!
Very interesting discussion. I feel I understand Terry's Position, even if I don't find a strong connection with these pictures specifically. Photography's fastely changing in these years and those kind of pictures terry refers to are in my opinion part of this change. It's language changing.
We'll see inext years who's wrong (if someone is), but, Terry, The work Chris has till now produced is remarkable and can not be judjed by watching these 'maniera' pictures.
My response to Anderson's photos lies somewhere between hopeless and superficial middlebrow readings lamenting ugliness and lack of empathy and a three-thousand-word circle-the-wagons sycophantic ode defending the photographer's skills, motives, and poetic soul.
Instead, I would simply say we live in visually literate and sophisticated times, and these are literate, sophisticated pictures.
Somewhat interesting discussion, given what it is. Nice to read Anderson's comments.
Martin, thank you for your diplomatic response. I still believe that comments insulting the photographer's technical ability are, in this instance, nonsensical. However, comments are just that, commentary. My post was an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to arguments that sound to my ears very similar to those originally used to decry photography as mere craft and not art.
SInce you keep reminding us that you have been there since way back, I would say this to you: grow up. It is about time after all. Photography is not about repeating what others have done but finding your own voice. Thats visual communication. You don't have to agree with someone else but at least give them the respect their voice deserves. By the way I stopped by your website. All your pictures are in black and white. I do love black and white, but by your logic, do you not know how to tone for color?
For what it's worth, I have to weigh in and say I am definitely a fan of this style. I too was in New Hampshire covering the primaries, and in these pictures I see an element of truth. Personally, that is what I look for in a "good" picture. This series doesn't capture everything about Romney's campaign, but it does capture one element that most other photographers did not capture, whether by choice or because they simply did not have the insight. To me, that's important. There were lots of photographers shooting the happy warm feelings exchanged between Romney and his genuine supporters, the frenetic pace of the campaign, the rock star entourage associated with the candidates, but few attempted to articulate the strange emotional distance that comes with forced emotional closeness. Chris did, and did so in a unique, visually compelling style.
Photo fans, dont get upset with Terry's opinion that these photos are 'crap'. It's just his opinion. Different photographs appeal to difffrent people. Thats just the way it goes.
I must say I enjoy reading these comments and love to read the photographers opinion. Thanks Chris you got me thinking with your shots and the reasons behind your method.
By the way Terry thats the difference between flickr's Aunt Glady's use of direct flash and Christopher Anderson of Magnum. Aunt Glady's probably used flashed because it popped up automatically and bam. where as Christopher put some thought into it.
I'm not one to stroke the ego of any Magnum photographer (there are already far too many sad Magnum sycophants in this world), but Christopher Anderson is one of my favorite photographers, because he seems genuinely interested in allowing mistakes to occur and that approach is very appealing and fresh. Its an approach that I have always strived for in my own photography.
Any aspect of a picture that is impossible to influence (water/snow droplets in this case) is what makes an image take on a life of its own. Using chance to bring immediacy to your art / documentary / photojournalism (whichever 'camp' you feel most in comfortable in) is not a new idea, but ultimately its what most photographers actively avoid. Its the opposite of intellectualizing a picture to justify its meaning - i.e., applying the usual contrivances ("Its about THIS catchphrase... or THAT catchphrase... or whatever the fashionable cause of the day is!")
No amount of meaning applied after-the-fact, can equal what those unplanned graphic elements suggest - a scene that resonates and is visceral because it represent the actual reality of what the photographer experienced, not to mention the physics of photography. That is the most profound statement any photographer can make, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, its hardly crap as one of the earlier comments suggested!
I prefer pictures that stir questions and intrigue in my mind. I would rather stare at an image that makes me uncomfortable than a perfectly exposed photograph that follows traditional guidelines of photography to present to me exactly what was in front of the camera.
Everything is working against the photographer producing anything but the propaganda-like photos that the campaign wants you produce in these situations. It is an Orwellian scene designed to manipulate and deny truths. Otherwise, why would photos like this one be so feared and attacked?
Outstanding discussion. I appreciate the responses, especially Mr. Anderson's thoughtful response to some rather flippant remarks.
I really like the first picture. The others are good pictures but I think more ordinary.
That said, the second picture reminds me of some of the pictures in the book 'My America' by Christopher Morris (this is not to say that Morris' pictures are ordinary, I like this book a lot). But I think it is interesting to see how they are both similar and different: same subject matter, and roughly the same kind of framing Morris could have used. Now the light and the perfection of Morris's pictures convey a sense of mystique and, at the same time, highlight the kitsch of these events: the perfect uniforms, the perfect ties, the smooth teen faces... On the contrary, all this is ridiculed by the harsh flash light in Chris Anderson's picture. And look at those pimples on the boy's face. In one way this is more Martin Parr here... In Morris' pictures open mouths denote the ecstasy of Bush admirers seeing their 'god'; here the open mouth of the man is just mundane and anything but ecstatic...
What strikes me about this series of photographs is that technique seems to trump substance.
While I can appreciate the use of a hard-edged flash to convey disdain or portray phoniness, artifice and ugliness, there are photographers who have made a career of that – Martin Parr comes to mind.
I think it's tempting to try on someone else's style when you're in a rut or when you're looking for a new approach to a familiar topic. Personally, I struggle with this routinely, so my intent here is not to condemn.
But I think it's a greater challenge to force yourself to work within your own style to achieve uncommon or unexpected results. We know Christopher for his cinematic black and white photographs, for his willingness to travel anywhere and risk his own safety for the sake of a great image, for his story-telling genius.
By contrast, what I see in this series of political photos is a parlor trick, not the voice of Christopher Anderson.
Christopher, I love your willingness to experiment. I appreciate the intent that you expressed with this project. Personally, I would have preferred to see this essay in the established idiom of Christopher Anderson and in the tradition of Magnum. In other words, your authorship would be evident in your ability to identify and capture visual irony, working within your own style to reveal the ugliness and the artifice you speak of without relying on auxiliary technical support, so to speak.
That said, I've appreciated reading all of the viewpoints here. Lots of valid and informed comments.
to one person, opinion may be the most wonderful thing ever. to another, it may be the most terrible thing ever. there are so many degrees of perspective available to any one person. the world is a very large place, and i am grateful there are people like the commenters to this blog, and the photographers of Magnum, offering their perspective of the world. if anything is objective, it is that perspective is, and will always be, beautiful.
Photography is a reflection of our time, which is always the present. If the images being produced today are not warm and endearing as in the past, clearly there has been a shift in the way photographers and viewers are seeing the world around them.
As a young, learning photojournalist, it's good to see the definition of what we do expanded as the tools we use advance. I admire Christopher's work and the long list of comments is a testament to how powerfully his images are felt.
I don't know any photographers that wake up each day wanting to make boring photos... but I know a lot of them who obsess over details enough to overlook the most important part of what we do; the gut reaction. Great moment.
Reader comments (56)
This is some of the most amateurish, mediocre photojournalism I've seen in a long time. Someone please teach Mr. Anderson how to bounce a flash and balance his light and metering. Why is he so detached from his subjects? He needs to get over his alienation and get in tighter. Everything I've seen from his campaign reportage has been plagued with this crass ugliness. Is this "art"? If so, it is stupid art. Is it journalism? If so, did any of the major news outlets pick up any of these photos? Magnum used to be a leader. This is crap.
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 8, 2008
To me, this is photojournalism that communicates on a broader but basically human level about the nature of the campaign trail: the paradoxical alienation of the candidate whose job it is to let everyone identify with him and his concerns/platform, most of whom are made anonymous through sheer numbers and the fleeting nature of their interactions. He is alone among like minded people, day in and day out.
Comment posted by Chris Kolbu on February 9, 2008
Terry's comment sounds a bit over the top...
I personally find those pictures somewhat surreal... Frankly, knowing a bit of his work, I don't think Chris needs to be taught anything about technique, photojournalism, art and what not.
Comment posted by federico on February 9, 2008
Is Mitt in the picture? Sorry, must have missed him. But love these stupid balloons. Well done!
Comment posted by Stupid Photographer on February 10, 2008
These comments are wonderful. Well, I guess I don't have a defense for the amateurish and mediocre part. And while "art" might be a loaded word (crap is good though), I guess I just wanted it to feel like what I was seeing there. These events are rather ridiculous. they are staged and repetitive. While it may not look like it in these pictures, I do in fact know how to balance my flash and expose. It was a conscious decision to flash with this technique. It is as if throwing too much light on it might somehow expose these campaign photo ops for what the really are. The designers of these events want us to make a pretty picture. but a pretty picture to me felt like something that would be false to this event. I almost thought of the flash as being like an xray that would reveal what I really see at an event like this.
And to answer the question, yes, I was on assignment for Newsweek magazine and they even published this crass ugliness.
Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on February 11, 2008
Christopher -- Well answered. And, with a bit of informed re-consideration on my part, I won't say that I'm a fan of this type of photography but I "get" what you're doing. I thank you for responding with less heat and anger than I did in starting this round of comments.
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 11, 2008
The treatment of the subject is nothing less than perfect throughout the election series. These photos are more telling than mainstream ones that "look better" and say nothing, as I am sure time will prove. I am glad to see Christopher Anderson has not lost his edge.
Comment posted by Martin Parsekian on February 11, 2008
i think this type of photography (which i love) reflects our time, i think that we need to go ahead of what has been doing before and create a new way of seeing the world... i think that anderson is reinventing himself...anyway that is just me....
Comment posted by mauricio palos on February 12, 2008
While I’ve apologized for “being over the top” in my negative response to these photos, please allow me to re-phrase my displeasure with them.
Christopher, I am sorry that you are forced to go through these “ridiculous ... staged and repetitive” political events. So you employ visual sarcasm -- as a kind of F-you to the phonies. Personally, as an amateur photographer, all of my work is self-assigned. I only photograph things that interest me. That way, I don’t have to resort to visual sarcasm. Sarcasm is almost always ugly. As “journalism” I think it demonstrates immaturity.
Some people obviously go for that kind of editorializing. Christopher, you don’t want that. Appeal to a higher form. Please. Use your skills to show us what interests you. What do you believe in? What can you bring empathy to? I’ve said it before, alienation (and, here, sarcasm) is easy. Expressing something positive requires that you show us your soul. Show us your soul, Christopher.
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 12, 2008
I much admire the work of Christopher Anderson but was wondering if he would have used the same flash technique if he were asked to photograph an Obama or Clinton political event?
More to the point - Was the flash technique employed 'inspired' by this specific candidate and this specific event? Or would he have used this technique, premeditatedly, regardless of the candidate?
Comment posted by Doug Ford on February 13, 2008
Get ready for some soul-showing:
Let's first tackle the question of wether or not I would have used this technique on another candidate (Obama or instance). The answer is that I did use the flash on Obama, MCCain, Huckabee, and Romney. Those are the only candidates I have covered so far. When I referred to pouring light onto the subject to expose all of its ugly realities, I was talking about the political circus itself, not the specific candidate. But does Romney still look worse than Obama under this light? Yes, but is that because I made him look worse, or because he really is a creepy, animatronic figure who just looks bad in photos in general. Perhaps we will never know.
Re: visual sarcasm: I think you misunderstand. I don't do this as a F-you or as visual sarcasm. I am actually truly fascinated by the political machinery. Perhaps appalled and disgusted, but fascinated. This is not sarcasm, but perhaps more related to satire.
re: editorializing:
first of all, what I do as a photographer is much more akin to an editorial columnist than a reporter. I unapologetically offer my opinion. But I will go a step further to say that there is no such thing as objective photojournalism. What rules would you apply as the standard? not using this particular flash technique, ok. then what? no wide angle lenses (they distort reality)? no black and white film (our eyes don't see in black and white)?
What a photographer chooses to include or exclude from the frame is subjectivity. The moment the photographer chooses to press the shutter is subjectivity. If we continue down this path, we could create a dogma for World Press Photo: no photos are allowed unless they were taken with a 50mm, in color, the photographer was not allowed to have composed the picture or consciously chosen the moment to actually take the picture. Otherwise, those would all have been conscious decisions that are by definition, editorializing.
That leaves us with aesthetics: you may like it or not like it. it might appeal to you or not appeal to you. As I said before, I do happen to know how to correctly expose film (or digital flash card as the case may be), but I CHOSE to do it this way. You may not find it "good" or "beautiful" or of "high quality", but you had a reaction to it. I doubt you had a reaction to many of the "well executed" but innocuous wire photos of Romney that appeared in that week's newspaper. THAT is what I am going for. I DO hope you engage with the picture. love it or hate it, but react to it. As for me, I find a beauty in the ugliness of this flash. I stumbled upon it by accident, and it made me think of pictures by Weegee. There are other obvious influences (some in this very agency), but there is something about it that I have not seen before and I am thoroughly enjoying exploring that.
check out the feature, Novosibirsk or silicon forest in the Magnum Features for more of this flash style
Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on February 13, 2008
A perfect random picture of a random candidate. Perfect.
Comment posted by Peter on February 13, 2008
Thank you for your clear and honest response.
An insight to the creative process of a professional PJ to be sure!
' Editorial columnist' or 'editorial commentary' is largely unavoidable, sighting the reasons you've listed. No one in impartial. The 'message' that photojournalism conveys via the mass media is 'agenda' based. No one is innocent or naive.
Cable TV, newsprint and radio are littered with political/social commentators who all add their spin.
The creative inspiration of the photojournalist doesn't exist in a vacuum of impartiality.
Love the Weegee reference.
I look forward to viewing, and to be continually inspired by, your photography.
Comment posted by Doug Ford on February 13, 2008
I had asked for you to show your soul, and you told us to "get ready for some soul-showing." Then, instead of showing us your soul -- instead of showing what interests you, what you believe in, what can you bring empathy to -- you lectured on the editorial nature of photography. That's Eugene Smith's gig, which I learned as a teenager in the 1970s. I get that. (I was referring to specifically to "that kind" of editorializing -- meaning taking the F-you sarcastic route. Which you say you aren't doing. It looks like sarcasm to me, but I'll have to take your word for it.) I appreciate that you are taking a conscious aesthetic approach.
But as much as I got ready for your "soul-showing," I still haven't seen it. And I'm not seeing it in your Novosibirsk images. There, I see alienation; and, as I said in an early post on that "Magnum-In-Motion" piece, I think alienation is easy. That general "look" is achieved millions of times a day by snap-shooters all over the world.
Also in my post on the Novosibirsk piece, I direct the viewer to Wayne Miller's 1940s "Chicago" essay. He, by limitation of technology, also has that "Weegee" flash style. But his photos are not detached. Miller had the emotional strength to show us some tenderness, to get in close to subjects and to tell us, visually, who they are as human beings. Miller brought empathy to his editorializing. I don't get that with your two most recent Magnum features. But Magnum has changed since Miller's time. In the 1940s and '50s, sarcasm (or "satire" as you prefer) wasn't so prevalent; empathy was.
My problem isn't with you, specifically, Christopher. I think my problem is with the general tenor of the times, when people get bored with anything that isn't "edgy," when warmth and empathy are derided as "pretty," when "reaction" is the objective (and anything "good," "beautiful," or "high-quality" fails to elicit enough of a "reaction"). But I'm not your audience. I'm still marveling at Eugene Smith's editorial skills -- what he was able to do with "good," "beautiful," and "high-quality" photography to reveal the soul (like an "x-ray" flash simply can't).
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 13, 2008
My first thought when I saw this first photo was something like: "what the heck is this!?"
Then, thinking about it for a few minutes and reading the photographer's own comments, I fully understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the photos. Personally, I agree with many of the points made. I'm also sick and tired of all the staged pretty pictures we see every day.
That being said, my main concern with photos like these is that "most people" will consider them amateurish snapshots. If the photos don't appear "professional", why would the reader (I'm a newspaper guy) trust the written text that goes along with them? I'm afraid you'll get a "if they can't afford to send a real photographer, why would they send a real reporter. I can't take this seriously.." kind of reaction. (In the real world, I'm not sure if most people really cares that much about picture quality any more, but hopefully I'm wrong).
It's a good thing that Newsweek printed these photos, but I can't help wondering if they would have done so if they had been taken by some unknown guy that wasn't a Magnum photographer?
Finally, a remark to your comment that "a photographer is much more akin to an editorial columnist than a reporter". Not true, in my opinion. I'm a professional journalist - and a former photographer - and can assure you that you have to make the same editorial decisions as a writer. I agree there's no objective photojournalism, but there's no objective journalism either. Not really. You always have to decide what to include and what to omit in a story.
Comment posted by Jarle Aasland on February 14, 2008
I'm glad Chris chimed in with his lengthy comments. I dig his likening of the flash to an x-ray. The term that came to my mind when I saw this type of lighting was "bullhorn flash." To me what's most interesting is not seeing who did what technique first, rather seeing how long it takes somebody else to copy it. The last picture on his portolio page, of the Bushes at the Texas inaugural ball, says it all in my opinion.
Comment posted by Cary Conover on February 14, 2008
What a magnificent photograph! It says it all about Mitt Rmney's ill fated campaign. Is that Mickey Mouse in the corner?
Comment posted by Percy Dovetoenails on February 14, 2008
you confuse emotion and sentimentality...and you are unwilling to let go of "pretty" equalling "good"
Do you really believe that there is something wrong with the tenor of the times because you don't see "warmth and empathy" in my pictures of politicians at a 1 night, staged political event?
Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on February 14, 2008
wow......
i'm taken back by the reaction.....
I do not have time at the moment to write (just a quick look) as I am on my way to teach, but the work is extraordinary, both this series and the series about NH...for photographic, editorial and, more importantly, evocative reasons ....
I promise i'll write tonight/tomorrow.....
though Chris is certainly, just as with his photography, an articulate defender...
more later, promise...
bob
Comment posted by Bob Black on February 14, 2008
Personally, I love this shot. I love the flash, the framing. I'd like a high-res copy if possible (not print res, not going to steal it!). It's pictures like this that make me want to try colour.
Comment posted by Andrew Larking on February 14, 2008
BTW, the balloons everyone keeps asking about are snow flakes that were falling close to the lens and then accentuated by the flash.
For the record, I didn't say that all photojournalists are like editorial columnists as opposed to reporters. I said that MY function is more like the photographer equivalent of an OP ED writer and less that of a traditional reporter. There are many excellent photographers who are reporters, and their function is different from mine. Wire service photographers for instance. But I assume you are here on the Magnum site not just to see "good" photography, but to see the point of view (or maybe we will call it authorship) of individual photographers. If you are looking for a news report, than you would be looking at the web site of a wire service or other news outlet.
Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on February 14, 2008
excuse me but idon´t agree with you.
i really think there is art there
or instead "an accident?"
this is the only photo i have seen from him before i check for more in the net, but i can tell you that i will see many fabulous images.
thanks
m.
Comment posted by Martín on February 14, 2008
Christopher, in the above statement, which I assume was in response to my lament, you said:
you confuse emotion and sentimentality...and you are unwilling to let go of "pretty" equalling "good"
Do you really believe that there is something wrong with the tenor of the times because you don't see "warmth and empathy" in my pictures of politicians at a 1 night, staged political event?
Christopher, no, I don't confuse emotion with sentimentality. Nor do I equate "pretty" with "good." And I certainly have not formed my beliefs about the tenor of the times on the basis of this single set of your pictures.
Do you confuse alienation with sophistication? Do you equate "ugly" with "good"? Do you believe that a single set of your pictures sets the tenor of the times?
I didn't think so. So please don't smear me with any of that.
My frustration is with what I believe is a movement from "warmth" to "cool" within the ranks of what counts as "sophistication" in photography. I am frustrated because I have become a rear-guard reactionary against the dominant trend in my beloved art form. Magnum was one of my primary sources of inspiration and philosophy when I was starting as a photographer as a teenager in the 1970s (at the very time that the tenor was turning). I look to the founders and early members of Magnum and I see warmth and empathy throughout their work, regardless of the subject matter. Now I see mostly (but not exclusively) "cool" and "alienation." Where I used to find irony, I now find sarcasm. Where I used to find love, I now find ridicule.
I am frustrated because, as Jarle hinted at (above), there is a growing separation between Magnum and the general public. Magnum used to communicate to the public through purposefully "good" photography that was actually popular. (Egads!) The photo book, "The Family of Man" was a best seller that remains in print more than fifty years later, and it was packed full of the work of Magnum photographers. (It's the book that got me going.) Now I see through statements like what you and your supporters here have made that "sophisticated" photography is basically a club that requires a "get it" hurdle for entry. No "pretty" pictures allowed, because they aren't "edgy." And in that I see a soulessness.
So, again, you told us to "get ready for some soul-showing." I'm still waiting, but I think I'm pretty much alone on that count.
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 14, 2008
Oh, and, Christopher -- Congratulations on your World Press Photo award. There is lots of empathy and soul in those photos. Pretty pictures, too, I might add. Nothing wrong with that.
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 14, 2008
Congratulations on the World Press Award. Just want to say I absolutely love that first picture on the World Press Photo slide show. Wonderful.
Comment posted by scott lucas on February 15, 2008
I photograph weddings and dogs, part time, with a heavy reliance on post-production, so I probably don't even belong within three Web clicks of the venerable Magnum agency.
Regardless, I wish people would accept that their personal photographic style is neither the only one, nor the "most legitimate" one, and stop posting nonsense in a misguided effort to drive traffic to their own less-impressive photo sites.
For what it is worth, I like the emphasis on open mouths, Christopher.
Comment posted by Matt on February 15, 2008
Matt, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate them. Please don't get me wrong, but I don't think nonsense was posted here by any of the commentors. The comments reflect their points of view which might not always be mine, they might not be your's or the photographer's, but they are legitimate comments. And I wish discussions like these would start more often underneith articles on this blog since I see them as enriching way of communication between our readers and the photographers.
Comment posted by Martin Fuchs on February 15, 2008
I like the feel of conscious choice in those images. Everything that I've seen from Christopher is really loose in the sense of style, coherent within each of the pieces but very variable (lomo shots, good black and white, beautiful pictures, overflashed images), and there is a way in which they fit the topic. These are not my faovourite, but I like how the flash sort of exposes some truth in the images (I get the same feel from Weegee, Yoshiyuki or Arbus, even if they're ugly most of the time).
Comment posted by Joni Karanka on February 16, 2008
Terry, I don't agree with you, and I find your comments quite cheesy (but I am just a kid, a supertramp with a camera).
I am glad that Magnum is evolving towards different horizons (and I believe that we should move far away from Cartier Bresson, Capa and so on. They had a great time, please give a chance for a new art).
"KILL THE FATHERS", would say Freud. Once and for all (of course, we will always respect ancient work, but I am glad when we move on).
I believe that everyday is a good day to challenge photography, and question art.
Personnaly, if today Magnum members would be only children of their founders and early members, I would be soooo bored and I would stop watching their pictures.
So yes, I like the pictures of this post, I find the message and the mood super clear.
Because I like when photography totally assumes its subjectivity (objectivity just doesn't exist when you frame, just accept it and move on. Let's remove all boundaries, technical, cultural, historical, everything which stops a true and original author).
Comment posted by Eric Perriard on February 16, 2008
I almost couldn't like this picture more. Despite cameras being seemingly everywhere on the campaign trail, I keep seeing the same candidate shots over and over again (with a few notable exceptions). This shot, however, feels like both an acknowledgment of the distance at which the press is kept, and a transcendence of that limitation. It's cold yet strangely intimate. And I love that hand on the steering wheel.
Comment posted by Kramer O'Neill on February 16, 2008
I'll take cheesy over patricidal, any day. "KILL THE FATHERS," indeed. Am I the only one who responds with revulsion to that statement?
More and more, the photo arts is becoming an exclusive club for those who are "soooo bored" with anything that communicates to the wider public, to those who aren't initiated. How many people came to the pictures in question and at first thought they were junk, then realized, "Oh, they were ugly on purpose! It's 'edgy' -- I get it!"? Welcome, you're in the club. If these same pictures were posted by Aunt Gladys on Flickr (who thinks Weegee is a board used in a seance) everybody would've just kept on going, laughing at the ineptitude.
But, no, they were posted by a Magnum photographer. And all the club members (who, by the way, advocate questioning everything) like it -- love it -- without question. And let's kill the founders. Their stuff was so obvious -- anybody could get it. (And what kind of club is that?) But this attitude that if it's ugly ON PURPOSE, done by a top photographer with street cred -- that my friends is a race to the bottom. Nihilism is a force that has no logical end. And as Magnum moves "far away from Cartier Bresson, Capa and so on," the public will keep moving too -- in the other direction.
"KILL THE FATHERS"
My only request, Christopher, is that you give Elliott Erwitt warning that your fans are coming in. (He perfected irony, after all; and those kinds of pictures are a lot harder to make than some might realize.)
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 17, 2008
LET ME OFFER THIS FIRST: THIS WILL BE A LONG AND UNEVEN POST...SO PLEASE, IF YOU WISH, FEEL FREE TO BY-PASS......
"Never have I found the limits of the photographic potential. Every horizon, upon being reached, reveals another beckoning in the distance. Always, I am on the threshold. "- W. Eugene Smith
Let me begin by saying simply:
Christopher Anderson is a poet.
I am not talking only about his work on the Presidential Primaries which has ruffled Mr. Carroll's peculiar and odd feathers so richly (a sign, Chris, I would suggest is a monumental success as a story) but the entirety of his work. Beginning with his remarkable and extraordinary series on the Haitian boat people (in which Chris and the refugees on board nearly perished) and progressing through his work in N. Africa to Afghanistan and Pakistan, from Venezuela and Israel and Gaza to the night sheer-shorn shadows of torn Lebanon, benchmarked upon the alienating alienation of what has been bequeathed to those, especially the young, left behind in the far-flung archipelago of Russia (a country i also know personally) to the aftermath of Katrina culminating in his magisterial National Geographic essay on Jerusalem which was just awarded a WPP. One would be hard-pressed to find another photographer of our generation as soulful and committed to the language of story than Christopher. Hard-pressed indeed. But Chris' vision has not been held sway merely by the reportage he has come to be known by but also through the exuberant and incandescent personal work he's accomplished in Cuba and France and Iraq and around New York.
To me, much of the attack that Mr. Carroll has put forth seems to concern some chimera of his own making or some infantilization born more of a photographic frustration than with any real truth (photographic or philosophic ) about the reality of Chris' work as a photographer, past and present, or of any of the younger Magnum photographers or the current state of photography (whatever that may be). Frankly, had I not gone to Mr. Carroll's website, I would never have believed that he was a photographer or at least been a photographer for has long as he proudly claims. His first comment, "some of the most amateurish, mediocre photojournalism I've seen in a long time. Someone please teach Mr. Anderson how to bounce a flash and balance his light and metering..." clearly shows he knows, technically speaking, very little about the art he professes to defend. Moreover, it's clear by his many comments that that his defence of photography must surely be one of his raison d'être. How else to to understand some of the demagogic comments that have scrolled down upon this blog? I might, respectfully, ask him that a defence of something surely requires, a priori, a more than just facile and passing understanding of the technical aspects of that which is being defended. This is even more critical with photography, a language and media born on the bellowed backs of technology (a mechanic box serving as an organic heart). Otherwise, surely, whether he liked the work or not, understood the work (emotionally, editorially, aesthetically), at least technically, he would not have so "amateurishly" and pre-ejaculatorily spit out such a silly comment about the technical aspects of this and the NH essay. This is a particularly egregious comment given the photographer and his body of work, the technical aspects of which are quite formidable. Toss a flash amid a body of flashes the way he does here and maintain the coloration and emotional character of the frame and then I'll listen to his comments. It's also very curious to me (I mention this as a writer) his use of the work "irony." While Erwitt is a master at irony, as are Gilden and Kalvar (check out his new brilliant book), and of course the brilliant Parr. However, Chris work is not ironic at all, at least not in the sense that Carroll argues above, nor does it afflict the work of some of the younger photographers like Jonas and Jacob and Alec and Donovan, though often they're colours appear "cold" or the distance, but this is something much different than Carroll's evocation of "cold" or "ironic." Irony is about contrast, incongruity, often for humorous evocation. Irony is the use of contrast as a way to understand the wide gap between appearance (intended) and appearance (actuality), apparent and intended meaning. While much of Chris' pictures in this and the NH series are ironic and THAT use of irony is emotionally evocative and compelling: contrast these 2 photos:
Here and here.
We're talking Michigan folks...and all that implies. The economics of that state and the cruel irony between the expensive and expressive "coat" of the fanfare and hoopla of these kinds of events and the bitter-cold truth of those two young men on the sidewalk. A more bitter irony is unlikely. This does NOT ALIENATE the viewer, but to the contrary, this contrast draws the viewer in, allows the viewer to understand the gross negligence of these kinds of events, the feel-good-nature of them versus the reality of the body politic vis-à-vis its politicians. I should add, right now, a disclaimer. When I was 23, I worked as a speech writer for a few politicians and I work on campaigns and worked for politicians during the '88 presidential elections (before I became a photographer) and i worked during the '90 Congressional campaigns. I can tell you there is extraordinary truth in all Chris' photographs, both this series and the series about NH (more about that later). Irony is not a negative characteristics and in fact often delegates itself in the service of greater human verisimilitude. I have no idea what "irony" Mr. Carroll is talking about, but it appears that he, like many others today (is this a fad among the photographic and the wannabe photographic community?), wish to dismiss much of the work that is done now and swath it in an accusatory blanket of "this stuff just sucks and aint as good as the old days" by calling it "cold" and "ironic" (irony, here, meaning: patronizing or indifferent or too-cool for its own good), when much of the language used to attack the work (as evinced above) is just nonsensical. Chris is NOT and ironic photographer nor is his work. Filled with photographs that are, surely, ironic (a blinding "snow" storm in Afghanistan) but this contrast, this incongruity points to the hard and difficult-to-fathom contrast of the human life.
Enough about Mr. Carroll for I've digressed enough.
This series of work, including the NH work is remarkable. To begin with, it is both beautiful (i dont get how this can be termed ugly at all) and insightful. These two series (NH and now Michigan) speak as much about the political process and the campaign trail as I've seen. As I mentioned, I once worked on these kinds of events and I can tell you that they are often physically, emotionally and spiritually exhausting. Many of the candidates feel the same as well. This is one of the brilliant insights from this essay. The picture above, shows Romney in a near-terror fit of odd exhaustion. He may not have been, but the picture (for me) evokes so much: the assassination of JFK (the seemingly antiquated car, the harsh white flash, the anonymous hand on the wheel), the weariness of the campaign road, the cluster of isolation that accompanies these kinds of events. The audience whipped into a strange and odd frenzy (this year more than ever) as they pin their hopes upon figures for whom they long for redemption. I have stood beside politicians and listen to people in the audience tell them that if not for they're success, they'd abandon their dreams. This kind of weight and delusion is what marks profoundly our body politic. Moreover, Chris story is really a Lynchian dream. Anyone who has attended a high school reunion understands this squarely: hopes pinned on the negotiation of a bent-out past. Under the seepage of "warmth" (we once were warriors all those years ago) of sharing class graduations and hopes and aspirations, the harsher and more important and indelible truth comes: we're rarely a shade of what we'd hoped to be and this quite and desperate truth IS THE HUMAN condition. We aspire and in the oddly-lit rooms retire to our quieting and disquieting sadness and openings. these pictures really are our of a David Lynch film or a class reunion. I love their exuberance and their sadness, and their sadness is not reserved only for the candidates, but the audience and the press who cover the campaign as well. The distancing, the lens use as alice-in-the-looking-glass, the incredible use of flash (which is like a Wegee pic, or even a Pinkhassov photo), the other-universe-over-the=hill of class reunions, proms, political promises, ..oneiric and, one wonders, the investment we grant ourselves in our beliefs and yet seldom expose them for what they entail: often the disbelief of the fallout....
but more than the Aestheticization that has been argued about, I want to suggest that actually Chris has achieved a reportage of a singular nature. Has anyone NOT READ writers who've spoken of this process? The vacuity, the emptiness, the irony of the well-heeled politicians and the bedraggled electorate as they sift and drift and drive away from these events? All the arguments that have been tossed at Chris are seldom thrown at writers and reporters who offer similar insight. Chris' language is photography and he uses all the syntax and grammar and technique of that medium to speak about the process as he witnessed and experienced it. Most photographs of the political process highlight the grandstanding and the tumult, the pomp and pageantry, the inordinate wealth and spectacle and the aspirations and the drama. Seldom does, except when being written about, does campaign photography offer this perspective: the loneliness and the distancing emptiness, the vacuity at the centre. The use of the flash and the wane colours, the halos of light and shadow and the contrast between the isolation of the politicians and the audience further highlight and distinguish the crux of the problem of what plaques our electoral process. Amateurish? Irresponsible? A bane of journalism? You have to be fucking kidding me?
This work is remarkable and will be seen as brave and brilliant and honest and eye-opened (and eye-opening) work. I might add that Eugene Smith was often pilloried by others, especially by the purists, accused of "aesthetizing" truth/life. His work on the country doctor and later the work on albert schweitzer and his magnum opus, Pittsburgh, was criticized and gawked at as an instance of "what was wrong" with Magnum photographers....how quickly, people forget.....
Above all, Chris work is a soul-sifting, voice-evincing, sting of human eloquence, reaching out against both the darkness of the shadow and the wing of light to capture what lay inside the negotiation of life. It is not a rare achievement to make photographs that speak of life lived; it is not a rare skill to harness light and shadow, color and penumbra to report events. It is, however, a rare and distinguishing ability to speak out wide and make the specific universal in such incontestable ways. Poets tie the yoke of their language to the beast of their living and so too Anderson. That a commentator above as asked for something more soulful from a photographer who has continually invested himself in the lives of those he has photographed, that a commentator has above has asked for something less "soulless," that is an indication to me that he is less "thoughtful" of a reader of photographs that he is as a listener to his own, 15-year trained "acumen" as a photographer.
Forgive me for saying, but Mr. Carroll your pedestrian reflections about the work and your subsequent diatribe about everything photographic (the new "alienation", the magnum forefathers vs. the magnum babes, the exegesis of "ugly" vs. "pretty", your sirens' call to Elliot) is pretty paegentry but devoid of substance.
Chris has harnessed technique in the service of story. THIS IS WHAT PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABOUT. His "style" here conveys and propels and evokes story, and it's not simply a "trick" or "cool" technique without emotional and essential meaning.
Chris' coverage of the 2008 Primaries (the extraordinary NH series and now with the Michigan series) will be seen as one of the great recent essay on political campaigning in recent time. Regardless of Mr. Carroll's objections and quite superficial understanding of the work, this work will be understand as a bold and insightful and significantly photographic.
A soulful digression.
the flash, like the pop of a small shadow-step caught in the ice-bridge of snow, the frozen wink of water sprit off the bow of a fishing ship (Pinkhassov), the fly-spit mechanic click of a gun, bullet-less drained, beside the sealed loss of a drunken body dead in the eye of Wegee's
Above all, we sing out against the darkness, each of us, rhyme along the echo of the well that stands in front of us, push (either aggressively or tentatively) against the curtain of annihilation that, like a velvet Lynchian twitch, waves in front of each of us. To speak upon things, to speak up, to reflect upon, to offer as rumination and expression, the countenance, as we see and experience and render, seems to me to be the elemental essence of what each of us do with out lives. If in the beginning was not the word, it surely was the urge to fill out the silence with them: to speak is what makes our human voice human. Christopher's work, here and else where, is filled, soulfully, magisterially, sadly, inspiringly and informatively, with that speech that I, as a human, long and hunger to hear.
He is above all else a story teller, this is larger than the imprimatur of "photographer."
To me, foremost, a photographer's obligation is to his vision and to his craft for within these tools rest each of his, for good and ill, responsibilities. Chuck Close once said that photography is the medium, above all, that is so easy to learn to become adept at but the medium that was the most hard to achieve real authorship or voice, singular voice. As a photographer and a writer, as well as a lover of photography, I would agree wholeheartedly. That much of this body of work (including the NH primary work) has been questioned technically seems to serve as an example of such a statement. I am still in shock that so-called photographers, commentators above who describe themselves as photographers and countenance themselves as knowledgeable, criticize the "technique" of the work without fully having understood the technical achievement of the work, how difficult it is to use flash in a manner that Chris has done and still retain the evocative, emotional, aesthetic and, principally, documenting quality of the story of the pic shows how easy it is to become a photographer, criticize photography, without in truth having understood the first think about the art form, technically or otherwise.
There is very little which distinguishes, which bemires this from that, that
Disorienting, to say the least....and I'm not speaking of Chris story but much of the lamentation expressed above...a lamentation, that ironically, sounds falsely wearied and more specifically disingenuous...so much evoked above by Mr. Carroll that (ironically) I find my self at a loss as to where to begin, so let's start squarely: with the series
It's, frankly, a bit odd to me to digest much of what Mr. Carroll has written, begin with his initial lugubrious and demagogic harangue. The odd quality of his argument (initial) and subsequent argument is that he has couched his displeasure and annoyance with chris work within a nomenclature of photographic argument, while rarely understanding the photographic worth or history (let alone technical aspects) that make this work so striking. Had Mr. Carroll, like others above, simply dismissed the work as an aesthetic orientation that didn't dig, or a story they felt didn't move or affect or infect or inform them, I'd better understand the comments. That the story was taken to task on it's photographic, reportorial and existential orientation is a gesture of grandiosity that it simply astonishing, thought not surprising.
Incidentally, "kill the fathers" was a remark not made by Chris but by another commentator. Just for the record, Chris' work is filled with all kinds of celebrations and allusions to his "magnum fathers and mothers", for a careful and deeper understanding of his body of work shows this, ...
This series broadens our understanding, our insight into the process...
The final image in Chris' magisterial story from Jerusalem is also an technically extraordinary photograph. Those who understand about the technique of photographer will grasp it quite clearly. this photo is not a "straight forward" "warm" photograph, but is also filled with bitter and profound irony: technically and emotionally. This is one of the most "odd" (technically speaking) photographs I have seen in NG is a long long time...the foreshortening, the inverted-like lens center, the blurred trees and wall....and yet, this DISORIENTATION commits even more to the profound heartache of this photograph....this confluence of technique and soul and eye compels:
this photograph should be celebrated and will continue to be understood as the iconic image of the middle east that it is....this is the marriage of soul with technique.....
See image here.
Chris Anderson is a poet. I am happy he is among us.
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
W. Eugene Smith
Comment posted by Bob Black on February 17, 2008
But at least, I would like to thank Terry for one thing.
Thanks to his honest reaction, he spoke with passion and without fear, and then we can find an interesting discussion on this blog!
Comment posted by Eric Perriard on February 18, 2008
I understand Terry Carroll, and agree with him in certain points.
Comment posted by eva mk on February 18, 2008
Very interesting discussion. I feel I understand Terry's Position, even if I don't find a strong connection with these pictures specifically. Photography's fastely changing in these years and those kind of pictures terry refers to are in my opinion part of this change. It's language changing.
We'll see inext years who's wrong (if someone is), but, Terry, The work Chris has till now produced is remarkable and can not be judjed by watching these 'maniera' pictures.
Comment posted by an italian photographer on February 18, 2008
Dear Bob Black --
So does this mean I CAN'T join your sophisticated photographers club?
Comment posted by Terry Carroll on February 18, 2008
My response to Anderson's photos lies somewhere between hopeless and superficial middlebrow readings lamenting ugliness and lack of empathy and a three-thousand-word circle-the-wagons sycophantic ode defending the photographer's skills, motives, and poetic soul.
Instead, I would simply say we live in visually literate and sophisticated times, and these are literate, sophisticated pictures.
Somewhat interesting discussion, given what it is. Nice to read Anderson's comments.
Comment posted by mike on February 19, 2008
Martin, thank you for your diplomatic response. I still believe that comments insulting the photographer's technical ability are, in this instance, nonsensical. However, comments are just that, commentary. My post was an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to arguments that sound to my ears very similar to those originally used to decry photography as mere craft and not art.
Comment posted by Matt on February 19, 2008
Terry,
SInce you keep reminding us that you have been there since way back, I would say this to you: grow up. It is about time after all. Photography is not about repeating what others have done but finding your own voice. Thats visual communication. You don't have to agree with someone else but at least give them the respect their voice deserves. By the way I stopped by your website. All your pictures are in black and white. I do love black and white, but by your logic, do you not know how to tone for color?
Comment posted by Taos on February 20, 2008
Mike:
less than 3,000: this time: it's lovely, indeed, to be called a sychophant...
merci...
b
Comment posted by bobblack on February 20, 2008
Unbelievable... shot....
bravo Mr. Anderson....
Damn.... well thought & executed....
peace
p.s: really, f*****g impressed..."
also...
BOBB, nice to see you here!
Comment posted by panos on February 22, 2008
For what it's worth, I have to weigh in and say I am definitely a fan of this style. I too was in New Hampshire covering the primaries, and in these pictures I see an element of truth. Personally, that is what I look for in a "good" picture. This series doesn't capture everything about Romney's campaign, but it does capture one element that most other photographers did not capture, whether by choice or because they simply did not have the insight. To me, that's important. There were lots of photographers shooting the happy warm feelings exchanged between Romney and his genuine supporters, the frenetic pace of the campaign, the rock star entourage associated with the candidates, but few attempted to articulate the strange emotional distance that comes with forced emotional closeness. Chris did, and did so in a unique, visually compelling style.
Comment posted by Brendan Hoffman on February 29, 2008
Photo fans, dont get upset with Terry's opinion that these photos are 'crap'. It's just his opinion. Different photographs appeal to difffrent people. Thats just the way it goes.
I must say I enjoy reading these comments and love to read the photographers opinion. Thanks Chris you got me thinking with your shots and the reasons behind your method.
By the way Terry thats the difference between flickr's Aunt Glady's use of direct flash and Christopher Anderson of Magnum. Aunt Glady's probably used flashed because it popped up automatically and bam. where as Christopher put some thought into it.
you dig?
Comment posted by Richard on March 3, 2008
It looks like Weegee's technique.
Comment posted by Ermiyas Mekonnen on March 4, 2008
nice shot..
Comment posted by çeviri on March 7, 2008
Chris well done,very impressive, actually your flash technique is superb.
Boza Ivanovic
Comment posted by Boza Ivanovic on March 25, 2008
I'm not one to stroke the ego of any Magnum photographer (there are already far too many sad Magnum sycophants in this world), but Christopher Anderson is one of my favorite photographers, because he seems genuinely interested in allowing mistakes to occur and that approach is very appealing and fresh. Its an approach that I have always strived for in my own photography.
Any aspect of a picture that is impossible to influence (water/snow droplets in this case) is what makes an image take on a life of its own. Using chance to bring immediacy to your art / documentary / photojournalism (whichever 'camp' you feel most in comfortable in) is not a new idea, but ultimately its what most photographers actively avoid. Its the opposite of intellectualizing a picture to justify its meaning - i.e., applying the usual contrivances ("Its about THIS catchphrase... or THAT catchphrase... or whatever the fashionable cause of the day is!")
No amount of meaning applied after-the-fact, can equal what those unplanned graphic elements suggest - a scene that resonates and is visceral because it represent the actual reality of what the photographer experienced, not to mention the physics of photography. That is the most profound statement any photographer can make, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, its hardly crap as one of the earlier comments suggested!
It’s a great picture!
Comment posted by David Axelbank on March 30, 2008
You think these N.H. photos are crap, you should have seen his photos climbing /skiing Tuckerman's Ravine in N.H. - now those were crap. Right Chris?
Comment posted by Chip Strait on August 4, 2008
I prefer pictures that stir questions and intrigue in my mind. I would rather stare at an image that makes me uncomfortable than a perfectly exposed photograph that follows traditional guidelines of photography to present to me exactly what was in front of the camera.
Everything is working against the photographer producing anything but the propaganda-like photos that the campaign wants you produce in these situations. It is an Orwellian scene designed to manipulate and deny truths. Otherwise, why would photos like this one be so feared and attacked?
Outstanding discussion. I appreciate the responses, especially Mr. Anderson's thoughtful response to some rather flippant remarks.
Comment posted by David Albers on October 20, 2008
I really like the first picture. The others are good pictures but I think more ordinary.
That said, the second picture reminds me of some of the pictures in the book 'My America' by Christopher Morris (this is not to say that Morris' pictures are ordinary, I like this book a lot). But I think it is interesting to see how they are both similar and different: same subject matter, and roughly the same kind of framing Morris could have used. Now the light and the perfection of Morris's pictures convey a sense of mystique and, at the same time, highlight the kitsch of these events: the perfect uniforms, the perfect ties, the smooth teen faces... On the contrary, all this is ridiculed by the harsh flash light in Chris Anderson's picture. And look at those pimples on the boy's face. In one way this is more Martin Parr here... In Morris' pictures open mouths denote the ecstasy of Bush admirers seeing their 'god'; here the open mouth of the man is just mundane and anything but ecstatic...
Comment posted by ukaleq on October 20, 2008
What strikes me about this series of photographs is that technique seems to trump substance.
While I can appreciate the use of a hard-edged flash to convey disdain or portray phoniness, artifice and ugliness, there are photographers who have made a career of that – Martin Parr comes to mind.
I think it's tempting to try on someone else's style when you're in a rut or when you're looking for a new approach to a familiar topic. Personally, I struggle with this routinely, so my intent here is not to condemn.
But I think it's a greater challenge to force yourself to work within your own style to achieve uncommon or unexpected results. We know Christopher for his cinematic black and white photographs, for his willingness to travel anywhere and risk his own safety for the sake of a great image, for his story-telling genius.
By contrast, what I see in this series of political photos is a parlor trick, not the voice of Christopher Anderson.
Christopher, I love your willingness to experiment. I appreciate the intent that you expressed with this project. Personally, I would have preferred to see this essay in the established idiom of Christopher Anderson and in the tradition of Magnum. In other words, your authorship would be evident in your ability to identify and capture visual irony, working within your own style to reveal the ugliness and the artifice you speak of without relying on auxiliary technical support, so to speak.
That said, I've appreciated reading all of the viewpoints here. Lots of valid and informed comments.
Comment posted by Dave Getzschman on October 21, 2008
to one person, opinion may be the most wonderful thing ever. to another, it may be the most terrible thing ever. there are so many degrees of perspective available to any one person. the world is a very large place, and i am grateful there are people like the commenters to this blog, and the photographers of Magnum, offering their perspective of the world. if anything is objective, it is that perspective is, and will always be, beautiful.
Comment posted by Matt Caplin on October 23, 2008
Smokin' thread!
The great thing about this photo is that it makes you stop and look - whether you love the aesthetic or hate it.
Comment posted by Thomas Pickard on October 26, 2008
Photography is a reflection of our time, which is always the present. If the images being produced today are not warm and endearing as in the past, clearly there has been a shift in the way photographers and viewers are seeing the world around them.
Comment posted by Mark K. on October 27, 2008
As a young, learning photojournalist, it's good to see the definition of what we do expanded as the tools we use advance. I admire Christopher's work and the long list of comments is a testament to how powerfully his images are felt.
I don't know any photographers that wake up each day wanting to make boring photos... but I know a lot of them who obsess over details enough to overlook the most important part of what we do; the gut reaction. Great moment.
Comment posted by Bettina Hansen on October 27, 2008
Christopher,
Man, nice way to stir it up! Looks like this is ranking as the all-time favorite Magnum blog thread.
Excellent. Brought out the "I hate change" freaks with their cozy rules and taxidermed taste.
Hope all's well in Brooklyn. All's going well in Portland.
Doug at ID
Comment posted by Doug Lowell on October 28, 2008