Does photojournalism make you verklempt?

Presentation may have a lot to do with it. James Nachtwey's project was overhyped ahead of time on the web, which called for a super killer multimedia presentation, not a boring, 1930s voice over slide show. Given all the advance hype, talent, time and money accessible to James, the result could have been a mind blowing mulitmedia trailblazer. I mean, if my friend Bill Ulrich, could do it with my still, on a clamshell Macbook, running OS9 ( http://www.proofsheet.com/motion ), James Nachtwey's presentation should knock us cold dead.

Comment posted by Michal Daniel on October 28, 2008

Michal, presentation might have a little bit to do with it, but even with the niftiest presentation Nachtwey's images would still be the same blunt tool that I talked about in my post. The visual language he uses is dated, and I don't think some cool presentation can overcome that problem.

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 28, 2008

Is the visual language dated or might this not be an example of photography not being the best tool to stimulate awareness in the masses?

Comment posted by Lee on October 28, 2008

@ JM I would be really carefull in announcing the death of classical photojournalism. It may not appeal to you, but I think, even if it is "not my cup of tea" ( the James Nachtwey style) to alot of viewers out there.

I understand the ways and tries to tell a "story" differently behind all the new members of Magnum ( and even in my own photography), but there is another side of the coin. I guess for alot of people out there used to fast moving fox(y) news ....black and white and classical composition maybe new and surprising...did he reach them...that is another point to talk about...and I guess not...in his half hearted attempt to be new/coll and old school at the same time...

Comment posted by Heinrich on October 28, 2008

@ JM I would be really carefull in announcing the death of classical photojournalism. It may not appeal to you, but I think, even if it is "not my cup of tea" ( the James Nachtwey style) to alot of viewers out there.

I understand the ways and tries to tell a "story" differently behind all the new members of Magnum ( and even in my own photography), but there is another side of the coin. I guess for alot of people out there used to fast moving fox(y) news ....black and white and classical composition maybe new and surprising...did he reach them...that is another point to talk about...and I guess not...in his half hearted attempt to be new/coll and old school at the same time...

Comment posted by Heinrich on October 28, 2008

Oh, I'm not announcing any death here. But what I was writing I heard about a lot, and I think it would be foolish for "classical photojournalism" to ignore the rumblings... And to reduce the topic to a choice between either "classical photojournalism" or "fox(y) news" doesn't do the debate any favour (it does, however, serve as a good example of why internet debates often end up being so utterly pointless).

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 28, 2008

I submit the latest Eugene Smith grant winner - Mikhael Subotzky - as proof that photojournalism is alive and well, with all the power and punch it ever had: http://www.imagesby.com/main.html

Comment posted by Michal Daniel on October 28, 2008

I dont have time to reply today. And if I did I'm not sure I'd want to direct my energy to that topic anyway.

Nachtwey's aim was to draw attention to a worldwide medical crisis he felt was under-reported. Maybe he didn't succeed in dazzling internet designers but that doesn't mean his project failed.

Either you feel connected to the world, or you don't. Either you can see beyond your front lawn, or you don't. A good picture can help direct energy and attention but it can't substitute for policy or overcome a lack of intellectual and cultural curiosity on the part of an entire nation. If Nachtwey's project didn't achieve the kind of impact that some people expected, perhaps it is because America is very inward looking at the moment. You could argue that just as readily as you could the other thesis.

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on October 28, 2008

Joerg, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this as 'utterly pointless.' I don't think Heinrich was necessarily setting up an either/or argument. I think he might have a point that Nachtwey's approach might have a freshness when seen in the broader media. For example, this Time Magazine cover makes me want to read the article.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 28, 2008

jmc.. please take the luxury of 20/20 hindsight and one-hundred thousand dollars to describe to us the alternative to improve this message with this subject matter... with still photography.

specifically, spell out your shot list if you could choreograph the shots without constraint to them even being candid.

i’ve heard already an ’in-spirit’ description of the ‘missed’ images, but the in-spirit list was pretty unconvincing; so please with these omnipotent powers offered, describe this list of images in storyboard fashion to improve this message.

please prove to us with this additional massive advantage that this topic James felt so strong about could have been produced much better or admit that surfaces can only tell so much of a story jmc, no matter what wizardry you use.

and this is the important part jmc... think hard about the objective and think hard about the audience, make sure you consider photographers and photography form a very small segment of this demographic when you describe this improved solution.

i appreciate this is an ambitious request, but this sounds like it’s exactly something you might like to think about jmc, then write about jmc, this is your bag, is it not?

Thanks you in advance for your response jmc,

-Joe

Comment posted by Joe on October 28, 2008

It takes five minutes for any style to become overused and dull, including hyper-real-large-format-color-boring-pictures. This has more to do with fashion and fad, short attention span, obsessions with newness and topicality. Web piranhas need a constant supply of newness to masticate on despite the fact that old styles can still have originality. Eat images for breakfast lunch and supper and yes, of course, you will get numb.

Comment posted by jelly on October 28, 2008

I am tired of the constant criticism. Criticize those who do nothing, the rest just do their job. It's not mean that Nachtwey is not the subject to criticism at all. We all are.... if there is a reason to....

Comment posted by marcin luczkowski on October 28, 2008

J. Colberg,
You make me kind of sad. You're seeing a story like this and all you can do is analyze?
When I see stories like this I care about the subjects and the subject itself and forget about the photographs. When we have problems like these, why care about and analyze the photography? Isn't being a witness enough sometimes?
People outside of the photography world couldn't care less if we develop new techniques or make some artsy images. I think that the real danger is sliding away too much from the classical path and making images that ordinary people need a dictionary to understand. When you start to think more about the photography than the subjects it's a real danger. And sadly that it was you seem to do.

Comment posted by Martin Brink on October 28, 2008

Alec, you're right.

Heinrich, I did misread your comment. I'm sorry about it!

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 28, 2008

i think jmc's critique is valid, albeit very unsettling. in a sad parallel to the actual story, there must at some point enter the shock-resistant viewer. in my mind this relates more to the impact of mass media and the incessant pornography of violence, delivered in bite size chewables a la RSS. baudrillard and mcluhan seemed to have known what was coming in this respect. '... in the case of TV, and modern mass media, what is received, assimilated and 'consumed' is less a particular spectacle than potentially all spectacles' (baudrillard). this is in no way a statement about the work, just an idea about the overall context.

Comment posted by corey@hendricksonphotography.com on October 28, 2008

This debate needs more than some quick comment by me, but I do think it is extremely important to think about the visual language - regardless of the subject matter. This might strike some as "analyzing", but the risk is that a message is being created that simply doesn't reach people, because they are tired of the way it's presented.

And this isn't so much about creating "arty" images (or whatever else) as about creating images that resonate with people - people who are incredibly used to seeing an immense plethora of imagery every day.

Whether or not this has something to do with people expecting to see something new all the time or not is then a bit meaningless - because none of us is going to be able to change the media as they are, to bring back the kind of environment where classical photojournalism can easily strive.

I think the most important question - at least for me - is then what photojournalists can do to have maximum efficiency. I actually do think that the internet is an absolutely tremendous opportunity for photojournalism, since it delivers images and sound at almost no cost - and in principle photojournalist are in a unique position, because they could easily use the web to reach large numbers of people. BUT I do think that sticking with classical photojournalistic images (like Nachtwey) is not going to work, for the reasons I outlined in my post.

I'm afraid I don't have a good answer for what to do instead, even though I can think of some recent photojournalistic work that I personally think is absolutely tremendous. For example, Jonah Bendiksen's 'The Places we Live' is a great book. I know this is more editorial work, but Alec Soth's images that went along the articles about "The Eagle and the Dragon" I thought were fantastic (his portrayal of the urban desert that is Detroit are absolutely amazing).

I *do* think that people care, but I also do think that they are incredibly resilient to... OK, let's be blunt and call it manipulation. We are constantly being manipulated (advertizing!), and I think it's part of our survival strategy to consider *all* images with suspicion - and that includes photojournalism. You see an image and deep down you just expect to be manipulated.

I am no photojournalist, and my taste in photography is not everybody's cup of tea, but I think the key to solving this problem might lie in being more trusting in the viewer and his/her abilities to understand. Somebody wrote me an email and said that Nachtwey was whacking the viewer over the head with his images, and I think that might be part of the problem.

In any case, I do appreciate the comments; this is not my blog, so I'm going to refrain from more commenting here (especially in the light of me being a jerk with Heinrich whose comments I misread). I have no good answers, but I think that there's a lot to be gained from asking questions.

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 28, 2008

"but I think the key to solving this problem might lie in being more trusting in the viewer and his/her abilities to understand."

How about mutual understanding, mutual trust? That is what ethics in photojournalism is about: they are supposed to give a guarantee to the reader that what he is looking at has some sincerity in it, that there is some kind of truth in what he is looking at. The problem there is that 1/ the readers are probably unaware that there are ethics inolved (is this something you learn about at school?) 2/ that some photojournalists shoot in their own foot by cheating, 3/ that some photographers pretend they are photojournalists when they are not and 4/ that some photographers deliberately (and interestingly) play with the principles of photojournalism whereas their images are totally set up, making things more true than true, just like feature movies do.

Basically the lines are blurred for the public (and for some photographers as well)... I am still convinced that working according to certain ethical rules still has a meaning, still serves a purpose. There has to be a reference somewhere. It's up to each of you to draw that line between photojournalism, documentary photography, fine art etc... Anything goes as long as it is stimulating. Just be clear about what you're doing and don't cheat yourself... And trust the readers. Once your pictures are out in the open there is no way you can control what's going to happen with them in the minds of the readers anymore...

Comment posted by John Vink on October 28, 2008

Jorg,

I think you aretotally off on this. First, tell us which style has not been "overdone". Sure, bw grainy has been done a lot, but the same can be said for the sort of large format, color stuff you like. I could come up with any permutation and it would have been done already, be it b/w with grain, b/w no grain, high contrast/low cpntrast, large format color, large format b/w..whatever. Any permutation has been done to death. I think the crux of your argument isnt that its a dull weapon but that it isnt your cup of tea. Which is fine, but dont dress that up with fancy language.The weapon isnt dull, its how you use the weapon. Its obvious what you are "into" and thats great, sometimes theres a tendency that you have to expres your opinion and taste as gospel. Id watch that, if I were you.

I think we have to accept that this is Nachtwey. I dont expect Nachtwey to pick up a large format camera and shoot like Alec, nor do I expect Alec to shoot like Harvey. To brush aside the established style when crtiquing a work is silly. Take it for what is its. With Nachtwey you are going to get b/w and grain. Why even bother expounding on this?

I also think you put too much emphasis on style, the surface and not enough on the meat. If theres any criticism to be made is the repetitiveness of the work. The photos though very dramatic and powerful, sort of repeat themselves. What I would have liked is not a totally different style but more depth and breadth in the work. Suffering patients in a hospital seem to me to be a given when doing a story on disease, what I would have liked to have seen is soemthing moe, different...families? Impact on loved ones? I recall the AIDS stories from magnum and especially Alex Majoli's. Even though it was on AIDS Alex didnt go for the jugular, he instead showed more lyrical, intimate things, where the AIDS wasnt staring me in the face, it was there but hidden under the more intimate moments. I think that was much more powerful, because it humanized the problem, instead of machine gunning me down with AIDS patients in a hospital ward.

Comment posted by Rafal Pruszynski on October 29, 2008

First, a disclaimer: Joerg and I are friends and have been emailing each other behind the scenes. I wanted to stay clear of this debate, but Joerg’s emails and comments have provoked me. To put it another way, the conversation has drawn me in.

Let me say that again: THE CONVERSATION HAS DRAWN ME IN

One of the things that pissed me off about the Magnum blog was that there was so little conversation. You had Martin Fuchs working hard to post content and an audience taking time to look at it, but nothing else. No exchange. No juice.

One of the problems with big ol’ institutions is that they often get too comfortable with their prestigious reputation. They close the shutters and turn the town hall into a private clubhouse. It drives me crazy that so many photographers I meet think that Magnum is either (A) a piece of history (B) a clubhouse for eighty year old Leica afficianados or (C) a condom / ice-cream bar.

Magnum is a living, breathing place with an incredibly diverse group of photographers. But one of the reasons the public doesn’t know this is because there is no transparency. The big oak doors might be unlocked, but the windows are closed.

One of my goals with this blog is to open things up a crack. And I’m grateful for people like Joerg who have their hands on the crowbar.

When I first heard about the Nachtwey piece, I didn’t watch it. I’ll be honest: I’m jaded. I’m much more inclined to watch Wassup 2008 than some depressing slideshow about fricking XDR-TB.

But let me say it again: The conversation has drawn me in. More specifically, Joerg’s post and the reaction it generated got me to actually click on the slideshow. And once I clicked, I learned something.

Photojournalism thrives on conversation. An undiscussed picture from Abu-Ghraib is just another fallen tree in the forest. This is one of the reasons I think it is critical for Magnum to have a dynamic and at least partially transparent presence online. Conversation gets people engaged.

But this is where I bring things back full circle to Joerg. As much as I admire the work he does on Conscientious, I’m frustrated that he doesn’t have a place for conversation. “I think that there's a lot to be gained from asking questions,” he writes. Absolutely, yes! But there is just as much to be gained from discussing these questions. Of course it will be messy. Sometimes when the window is open the neighbors will see you naked. But this isn’t a good excuse to hole up like Howard Hughes. (Hypocrite Alert: A year ago I stopped blogging and grew a long beard).

In a way I think this issue of transparency also applies to the photography of Nachtwey. While I admire the work he does, I’m sometimes put off by his iciness. He is like a surgeon. He does good work with the scalpel, but I can’t really see behind the gown and mask. Someone like Eugene Richards is more like nurse who holds the patient’s hand and isn’t afraid to cry. Both players are important, but I’m more drawn to the openness of the latter.

This brings me to my final critique of Joerg’s original post. I’m wary when people say, “It all looks the same” We’ve heard similar things about virtually every genre, be it cowboy movies or jazz. And from a distance it might all look the same. But when you are in the thick of things, Nachtwey and Richards are as different as Ford & Peckinpah or Ellington and Coltrane.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 29, 2008

Fully agree with Rafal on this one. It's not that b&w is sterile, it just hasn't worked to its limits or tried to advance them in this case -at least, that's what it seems to me-. But I wonder if you'd get people like Roger Ballen or Trent Parke to shoot a story on TB... (thinking about people who're pushing it within the very classy tools of the trade)

Comment posted by Joni Karanka on October 29, 2008

@ Rafal--Thank you for telling JMC what he has needed to hear for a long time--to which I add--overly analytic rambling criticism usually speaks louder of the speaker than of the topic on the table.

@ JMC--I'd tell you these things directly if you ever opened up the comments section on Conscientious--to which I add--would probably result in an example of why these photography blogs end up being so 'utterly pointless'.

@ the question--Nactway's style involves action, physical and psychological immersion, danger, foreign impoverished locations...his style was molded over many decades in response to these elements. How anyone like JMC could criticize this mode of photojournalism is baffling. Mainly because I see Nactway as someone who tirelessly returns to the ends of our political earth, while Colberg is content at making work in whatever convenient location he happens to be living/working. Make it in a larger format/color and it becomes a sharp tool to describe the world with, HA! dontthinkso playa!

@ Alec--nice to see you back in the loop, takes me back to the good old days--Snowflake Man, TP unveiled, ambiguous goodbye's..never was a blog like it before, never been a blog like it since...something i'll share with the grandkids one day. fo sho!

Comment posted by pinocchio on October 29, 2008

This blog just keeps getting better and better.

When from the safety of a comment-free tower jmc claims he will show up to thee stadium of photography blogs and boldly wave a red rag to the bulls only to accidently insult a kind guest while getting out of the limo and then at the press conference struggle to show a convincing alternative to the audience, just citing what’s already been said by others; well you know it’s going to be an interesting blog. Thanks jmc, and as Alec has mentioned, maybe there’s some practice to be had by opening up your lobby.

anyways… i don’t have such criticism, more sympathy with the challenges of this topic for James. I mentioned this topic twice in the blog before this not because I love the essay, but because it’s a perfect example to discuss a problem of surfaces, specifically stories where the surfaces reveal little that we’ve not already seen.

Personally i wonder if James approach to ‘honest messaging’.... that is: efficient and in my opinion deliberate PJ.... is a bit self-defeating when purely using still photography as the medium. 35mm black and white or large format colour both have visual merit on the mainstream for different reason, but have little to do with this dilemma.

I think it's an issue of content, variety, texture and the visual pace of the edit used for a given audience, it's the way you release information to your audience so they can piece the story together or not piece the story together, at least not immediately, the latter is often a better result since people are talking about it, figuring it out... and then getting it... and then liking it....and then maybe acting on it… for example how much time did you spend wondering what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction?, did you ever get it?, did you like it?

This is why I totally agree with Joni in that he’s picked two messengers that use very vague, cryptic, and highly cognitive methods to make you reflect and ‘arrive’ at the desired message, verses giving it to you on a silver platter; and with ideas or better yet, convictions, if you think you thought them yourself, you will cling on to their validity with a white knuckle grip.

Of course a prerequisite of using subtle messaging is the attention-span and appetite of your audience. This is where I think James may have done himself a disservice. He has the notoriety and credibility that the masses will come and if they don’t get it they will trust for quite some time that there is something to get, and come back to it, and by the time that gestation effort is complete they will be sitting with a message that is unshakable. Think about how long it takes to get Frank’s Americans… if it didn’t come with such acclaim would you take so long to get it? Is the message pretty unshakable?

I also think it’s easy to dismiss this cryptic, vague or subtle approach to messaging, thinking it can only work on sophisticated audiences. I think the best example to show this works with a very distributed audience comes from the practices in trial litigation; here you have some very important messages and a very indicative audience. My flatmate happened to be a juror on one of the goriest and expensive trials in the British history.

one thing he described again and again after the trial was over was just how clever the litigators were. Specifically they never spelled it out for you as a juror, they laid out some unshakeable details and then you connected the dots yourself and by doing so you felt like it was your conclusion, but really it was more like the same cryptic map that was given to all the jurors, all to the same destination.

So I don't think there's an easy answer to help still photography alone compete in this media spillage, but i think it might be helpful to play into the strengths a photograph has always had over moving pictures and that's the ability to message in a more subtle, un-forceful way. By leveraging the fact that a human can stare, can study, can contemplate what they see and even what they don’t see in a photograph, then there is still a place for paradigm-shifting still photography. Hopefully no one thinks they have to be anything but honest to support this subtle approach.
..

Comment posted by Joe on October 29, 2008

What does 'verklempt' mean anyway? Although from the replies I think I get an idea - bored?

Comment posted by nigel amies on October 29, 2008

>> I’m wary when people say, “It all looks the same”
>> We’ve heard similar things about virtually every genre,
>> be it cowboy movies or jazz. And from a distance it
>> might all look the same. But when you are in the thick
>> of things, Nachtwey and Richards are as different
>> as Ford & Peckinpah or Ellington and Coltrane.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It was time to hear this because I constantly wonder why it is so popular to state "It all looks the same" these days. All I can say to someone who makes that point is, "look closer". The differences are still there.

Comment posted by Ulrich Hilger on October 29, 2008

When I first read JMC's post I didn't look at the link to the Nachtwey
pictures because I knew what I would see. After Alec posted this I
re-read the original post at Conscientious and finally looked at the
Nachtwey pictures and found what I expected. In itself, the tragedy
behind this pictures is important, but when I look at those images,
without the XDR-TB information, these could also be pictures from his
AIDS or famine projects. The pictures themselves don't really give me
any new information, tragic as they are.

I really respect the work James Nachtwey does, but I don't think at this day these
pictures really will cause too much effect. There might be a difference between someone
like me, who has seen his fair share of black and white photojournalism
and someone who is only confronted with the daily mass media and
colorful pictures from around the world who might stop and look at these
pictures which are an exception to the daily stream. But at some point those
people will also have seen a sufficient amount of these images. It's a real
problem in itself for which I don't know a solution. Maybe there needs to be a different approach
to photojournalism which draws the people in, which gives them something interesting
so see but goes beyond the image itself ...

The Martin Paar article on why photojournalism must get "More Modern"
comes to mind.

To quote:

PDN: What do you mean by campaigning photojournalism?
M.P.: The more traditional humanistic approach as personified in the older Magnum, for example. We still have within magnum photographers who take that approach, but even they give it a new spin, like Paolo Pellegrin for example. They make eloquent, poetic pictures that people want to run. I shoot interesting subject matter but disguise it as entertainment. That’s what people want in magazines. I like to play the game where you can get interesting ideas in, but almost in disguise.

Comment posted by jan on October 29, 2008

The differences are only there to the studious observer, that's precisely the point, if you are not a studious observer (Nachtwey's intended audience) then perhaps it's just more of the same old same old.

Comment posted by Ben Anderson on October 29, 2008

Alec, Damn! All this time I thought that when I bought those Magnum condoms and ice cream bars I was helping support the retirement home for those cute old guys and gals with their Leicas.

Comment posted by Stuart Alexander on October 29, 2008

A great debate mixed with a load of overly sensitive, precious, pretentious bollocks being written here! If you don't like the photos its because you don't understand them ... hello that is such a piss poor defensive argument I nearly wet myself! Its like saying I'm sorry you don't like George Bush bombing Iraq but that's because you're not a 'studious observer' of the finer nuances of foreign policy. Have you lived in a developing country and worked with people dying from preventable diseases?

I ran a charity in Ethiopia dealing with some of these issues. There are many, many ways that you could tell this story and the truth is that the photos were in many regards two dimensional, entirely focused on dying with the intent to shock. They threw them up on some art centre in London and no-one wanted to look, only an Emperor in his new clothes would fail to acknowledge this, to properly debate this. As I wrote on our blog (duckrabbit.info/blog)

"I can’t help but feeling that certain sections of the photographic world, in their unquenchable pursuit of World Press award winning misery have blown it.

Think about it ... it’s not even shocking anymore that the shocking no longer shocks. That’s how far we’ve gone."

Martin Brink ... please answer this question honestly. What did you do? What did you do when you saw the photos? What did you give?

All that said i take my hat off top the photographer for trying to make a difference ... no-one has knocked him for that ... the deabte is about the medium, about the audience, not the heroic photographer.

Comment posted by Benjamin Chesterton on October 29, 2008

Well, what do you know, I can now add the terms "ivory tower" and "crowbar" to what has been written about me (which included all kinds of things, half of which - alluding to some mysterious wealth I am supposed to possess - I actually wished they were true!). I live and learn.

But anyway, Alec, given that I have been pushing for people (aka other bloggers) to write more discussions instead of just PR and to also talk about thinks they don't like maybe I should open up comments so that people can tell me I'm sitting in an ivory tower on my blog.

In all seriousness, I do pretty much everybody misses my original point. I don't claim that Nachtwey isn't honest or that his story doesn't deserve attention. That's all stuff that's a given (and not terribly interesting to discuss). What I'm after is that the kind of visual language he uses doesn't work any longer, because too many people don't respond to it. They've seen it before, many times (and, let's not forget that, they've seen the style as part of the general classical photography canon that people are increasingly aware of), and their internal guards - trained to withstand the utter visual intrusions by the media and advertizing - are up, and the message won't come in. A friend emailed me after my post and wrote he hadn't looked at Nachtwey's site, but when he did he closed it after two or three images, because he just didn't think it was any interesting.

So, Alec, that's my point, and that's why I referred to the Magnum blog. When you discuss the subtleties of Richards and Nachtwey you're speaking from the point of someone who is very familiar with their work, someone who has the photographic education to see a bit behind the scenes and someone who probably knows them. Most people (incl. me!) are not in that position. Most people just see the work, and for them to get closer to that work and to the person taking the photographs they have to be willing to let that happen. And for that to be the case, the work has to draw them in, which - as I argue - might not work for many people in Nachtwey's case.

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 29, 2008

Blog is not a monologue no more, I see. Good. Better if you all took your cameras and went for a nice walk and shot something instead of proving to each other who is smarter. However, I love the blog when Martin was active. Alec is right, huge doors open, windows closed.

Comment posted by Gjorgi on October 29, 2008

Joerg,

Please, PLEASE provide empirical evidence that the b/w aesthetic "doesnt work anymore". Id LOVE to see that. I would love it even more if you were honest and wrote that the b/w aesthetic doesnt work for YOU. THEN I think there would be a starting point to this conversation. Its your opinion and it would be far less irritating if you stated your opinion as your opinion instead of trying to elevate it, single handedly by the way, to gospel as you all too often prone to do on your blog. Joerg, tell us which aesthetic people havent seen a lot of, you keep harping on this as if what you present on your blog is some kind of revolutionary new language of photography, which it isnt.

Comment posted by Rafal Pruszynski on October 29, 2008

Its called the law of diminishing returns .. Rambo 4 is proof!

Comment posted by Benjamin Chesterton on October 29, 2008

Rafal Pruszynski ... I think you need to get your eyes tested mate. I only ever read it as an opinion. am interesting amd inclusive one at that.

Comment posted by Benjamin Chesterton on October 29, 2008

Benjamin, that's not a terribly healthy comment for this blog..

before you ask, that is in fact my opinion.

Comment posted by Joe on October 29, 2008

Maybe the matter is wider than some technical choice, bw versus view camera etc.

Sometimes i think that like the way agencies working in advertising fight between each others to produce the strongest images to get the viewer to feel a certain way and therefore buy a certain product, the same way some photojournalists fight to produce stronger pictures to makes the viewer angry, sad or shocked about a topic and therefore to care about it.
If they were all successful we would certainly live in a more concerned world but also a pretty depressive one.

What i mean is that when we consider the actual state of photojournalism we should also consider the social situation it fits in: with the worries of the war, the economy like it is and everybody talking about the environmental disaster that seems to be coming, many people are worried and wants hope, not to be aware of more issues.

I'm not saying that's right but i do believe it's part of our instinct somewhere and should probably be considered in the topic.

Comment posted by Sirio Magnabosco on October 29, 2008

What I'm after is that the kind of visual language he uses doesn't work any longer, because too many people don't respond to it.
------------------------

doesnt read much like an opinion. Infact nowhere in that paragraph does it come off as an opinion. Joerg not only knows that it doesnt work, he also knows what people dont respond to. Infact, if you claim thats an opinion it seems Joerg is not only telling us his opinion, he somehow tapped into a mass consciousness and like the Professor from the X-Men can read the minds of all of us.

Comment posted by Rafal Pruszynski on October 29, 2008

" the kind of visual language he uses doesn't work any longer, because too many people don't respond to it."

My God, so what photographer should do to satisfy a hunger of the audience? Famine, which will never be appeased? If Nachtwey's work "not work" any more what he should do? maybe he should do nothing?
If you see weaknes of his work or even his PR, you should know how make it better, so what documentary photographer should do to keep attention of the audience? More blood? After year it will be not enough. Colorful, 3D, nore shaken, blur? Maybe shows in cinema with popcorn and free print? After year it will be not enough. How keeps humans attention for important things?
or maybe just go out there do The Job and pray for any feedback?

I know photography it is not surgery. It not save any life! But it is just of piece of huge puzzles of better future for sure.

So...., what James Nachtwey should do, if his work is not enough???!!!!

Comment posted by marcin luczkowski on October 29, 2008

Alec, since you (and other mentioned this), maybe I can use Rafal's comments as an example of why there are no comments on my blog. I'm perfectly happy with people who agree with me. In fact, I find disagreements and arguments about things very exciting. What I can totally do without, though, is people who disagree with what I write and then instead of writing why they disagree launch some tirade about me (like I'm in some "ivory tower" and now I'm "the Professor from the X-Men"): If you think I'm wrong tell me why I'm wrong and not what you think I am. I can live with being wrong (because, after all, that's life, and there's more to be gained from being wrong and being able to learn from it than from being right), but I'm not very interested in complete strangers insulting me simply because they disagree with me. That's why there are no comments on my blog. It's as simple as that.

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 29, 2008

Grow up ... of course its an opinion, merely by the fact we're debating it and why do you give the author so much power anyway? Its not written in an academic journal, its an opinion piece in a blog, that's what blogs are for, same as comment spaces in newspapers.

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 29, 2008

See, there's my problem, Benjamin, because I somehow think that blogs can be more than just comment spaces in newspapers.

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 29, 2008

by the way if you disagree feel free to comment on my blog www.duckrabbit.info/blog. I've got no problem printing negative comments (even though I admit sometimes they hurt)

By the way (2) if i write 'photography is dead' on my blog ... is that a fact or an opinion? Wouldn't you be a bit daft to read it as fact or expect anyone else to read it that way ... wouldn't it make sense to show me how I was wrong by pointing to James Natchways photos as an example that clearly photography isn't dead ... just that its got a love affair with dead (or dieing) people.

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 29, 2008

they are much more!

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 29, 2008

It looks like Nachtwey just hooked up with a few NGO contacts, only photographed what they showed him than passed it off as a photoessay. To me it is just under boiled journalism, not bad photography. After all Nachtwey was only ever amazing for his logistics work.

I believe there’s no need to begin to rethink photojournalism's languages (or what ever other label is being used). Good photojournalism is like magic it happens. Just not often enough for you to believe in it, let alone notice it, and most especially know where it fits in the macro of things - you have to deal with the folks that think too much.

Comment posted by LeoC on October 29, 2008

Benjamin, take a chill pill mate. These questions to jmc are a long time coming as jmc has been delivering for ages messages that insinuate he’s in touch with a photographic reality the rest of us are not.

And since we’ve never been able to ask jmc about why he thinks the bold things he says are so true, even if they are opinions, like:

the kind of visual language he uses doesn't work any longer, because too many people don't respond to it.

Then why is it so unfair to ask him about these statements now without feeling like we’re badgering the witness? i mean he did call this meeting.

Sorry, Benjamin, but your acting like a bit of a hockey goon protecting jmc like he’s some damsel in distress, especially when you resort to telling Rafal he must be blind, anyways either you get the point or you don’t, sorry if you don’t, i mean nothing personal to you and I like your transparent style, sincerely, i've faved your blog already.

And jmc you calling out to Alec in a tone like “I told you these guys would be mean to me” makes it seem like you and Alec are in on something no one else is in on and it comes across as a bit unhealthy for this blog. I’m not saying anything is going on behind the scenes, but if there was it would be a bit unhealthy.

I blame this all on you Alec, ;-)) you’re the one that mentions in Magnum’s blog that we get the benefit of photographic literacy Conscientious, well here are the consequences to this…..people have questions for the ordained ;-)

That is a respectful jest Alec, please take it this way.
..

Comment posted by Joe on October 29, 2008

Joerg,

I think it has been pointed out where you are wrong. Your basic premise that "b/w grainy" aesthetic doesnt work anymore is wrong. As I wrote before, it is not the tool that is blunt, its how the tool is used. You seem to want to make an absolute statement and thats your mistake. There are plenty of examples of b/w working quite well to tell a story of a crisis in a way that doesnt bore, Its not the "language" its what is being said, or unsaid, and the subtelty or lyricism of what is being conveyed.

Comment posted by Rafal Pruszynski on October 29, 2008

Joerg, name-calling is silly. So dismiss it. But I would urge you not to be so dismissive of all the comments. I was frustrated when you said, "pretty much everybody misses my original point." This simply isn't true.

The first reaction (Michal) was: maybe the presentation is a bigger problem than the photography. This isn't missing the point, it is questioning the role of medium conveying the pictures. This is similar to the issue that Heinrich was raising.

The second line of reaction (Lee, Joe) was that maybe the presentation isn't the problem, but the medium of photography itself. It is valid to ask if any kind of still photography is capable of dealing with this subject matter in a meaningful way.

The third reaction was agreement (Corey, Jan). “When I first read JMC's post I didn't look at the link to the Nachtwey pictures because I knew what I would see,” said Jan. I think this is exactly what you were getting at.

All of these arguments are valid and on topic. Yes, there is some stupid crap in between. But I think comments like "pretty much everybody misses my original point” only encourages the crap.

But let me say this emphatically: I don’t want the crap. I want this blog to be a place for spirited debate. But if it begins to devolve into name-calling, we’re going back to the ‘press release’ mode of blogging.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 29, 2008

jmc, would you want to see Sebastião Salgado's work rendered any other way than grainy black and white?

Comment posted by Joe on October 29, 2008

Joe, you're right the blind comment was uncalled for ... I apologise.. and of course I uphold your right to have a go and actually I think JMC's blog would be much better with comments ... damn I wish more people would be rude to me at least it shows they are engaging!

I think it says something that a few barbed comments lead Soth to threaten to go back to press releases! Doesn't say a lot about journalistic credibility, as press releases are a has been form of propaganda! Incredibly precious response considering what a really interesting debate has unfolded!

It was Salgados photos that turned me on to photography. Then I went to see his exhibition about migrants, or refugees and it was (opinion coming) rubbish because 'we'd seen it all before'. Representations of Africa tend to be really piss poor, I think these great photographers have done their thing and its unwise of us to expect them to move things forward but there are a new breed of photographers who are listening to the world ... its not their voice I'm seeing, its what they're hearing.

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 29, 2008

i have a question that apparently is off topic, but actually is not.
Would a kind of photography like Alec's (and others' ) be possible with other than a large format camera? with a 35 mm or even a point- and-shoot?

Comment posted by luzz biteyear on October 29, 2008

"My, my. Hey, hey. Rock and roll is here to stay."
When something withstands the test of time it usually means that there is some element of truth in it. I think that this element in documentary photography is that of human emotion, which people respond to. The visual language of the images has always been secondary to this. So when we ask "why is this stuff still around?" I think the answer is that human emotion affects people, and that emotional connection is arguably what art is all about.

That being said I think that taking art to the next level from where you inherited it does have some merit.

Comment posted by mjd on October 29, 2008

I suppose it's pretty obvious by now that this whole commenting environment is not one I'm thriving in (and that phrases it somewhat mildly). I'm much happier arguing loudly about things over a beer or two, or having a heated discussion via email.

In any case, I added some follow-up thought on the topic on my blog, and I'm sorry if any of you feel like I misrepresented or misunderstood what you wrote here.

Comment posted by JM Colberg on October 29, 2008

Peace at last ... quick slip that in a press release and get it out!

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 29, 2008

by gum! never remember your blog being quite this fiery and feisty Alec. Maybe you can sooth us all with a poem at this point, its nearly friday after all?!

Comment posted by mario on October 29, 2008

Nachtwey's visual language may be a bit dated but that's only because he is a product of 1960s Vietnam era photojournalism. He has been working for a long time and it is not as if he can just change his style. Simply put, he photographs the way he photographs. So, I am not sure how you can really criticize his photograph--it is what it is. I wonder if Joerg would say the same thing about Koudelka because Koudelka continues to move me much more than other b&w photojournalism I see out there?

Comment posted by Davin Ellicson on October 29, 2008

Interesting second post:

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/2008/10/some_more_thoughts_on_the_visu_1.html#more

I see your point and I have heard Broomberg say exactly this--that he no longer sees the power of traditional b&w photojournalism, hence his criticism of Tim Hetherington's winning Afghan war picture in World Press last year. Interestingly though, that image by Majoli from his project Leros was done when he was only 25, and although the project is what got him into Magnum after Ferdinado Scianna saw it, Majoli, as well as Pellegrin, have been on the forefront of pushing b&w photojournalism in recent years and I think their current aesthetics are new languages and do have the power to communicate (their images also are no longer grainy due to them being digital!) Their work always makes me take notice and inspires me in a way that classic b&w photojournalism no longer does.

Comment posted by Davin Ellicson on October 29, 2008

As for the all-to-common feeling of "haven't I seen these pictures before?" when looking at WPP, NPPA, POY winners year after year after year (and specifically to address one horrible cliché that just doesn't seem to ever go away) click here. I'm just sayin'

Comment posted by John Clever on October 29, 2008

jmc i dislike your no-comment climate at Conscientious just as much others; i suppose it’s because you get the benefit of such wide-spread influence and citation without real vulnerability. Of course this makes you a likely target when you do come out into the open, but that was then and this is now. The air seems to be cleared and Alec has set out his stall that unconstructive attitudes will not be tolerated.

I think it would be silly to not now use this forum as your halfway house, sort of a place where you can extend your opinions when you care to and when this happens we can ask about them.

But no one that’s active in forums with agendas as complex as this one is supposed to thrive, it’s more about sharing and surviving with the anxiety and pressure that comes from putting your opinions out on the line for scrutiny. It’s sort of like a hermetic vessel where once in a while your views are annihilated, but you get the benefit of reinventing your paradigm; the alternative is to petrify.

So basically i hope you’re not serious about going back into solitary confinement, only taking visitors that take tea. It would be a bit embarrassing for the blog that it seemed to run a valuable source of information ‘out of town’ and more selfishly it would prevent us from having access to your mind ;-) *** how do you type evil laugh? ;-)
..

Last sorry for speaking about you so impersonally and with medieval metaphors. :-)

-Joe

Comment posted by Joe on October 29, 2008

What makes me verklempt is that we've lost the ability to argue critically. No longer taught? Too difficult? What? Why? I'm so verklempt I'm gonna plotz.

Comment posted by mike on October 29, 2008

I encourage you to read this post. Also note Jim’s Comments Policy.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 29, 2008

I think TED was very smart to give Nachtwey this prize and and grant him his wish to raise awareness of the crisis and mobilize efforts to eradicate the problem. And, in that regard the project was a success. 8 pages in Time magazine all because of Jim's reputation and relationship with them. Do you have any idea what it would cost TED to take out 8 pages of advertising in Time? $100,000 wouldn't cover 1. Beyond that with all the blogs and other coverage I'm sure the awareness surpasses what anyone could have pulled off without Jim. Call the style he uses blunt and outdated all you want. There are very few people on this planet who can get a story nobody wants to see in front of that many people. Hell, there are very few people who can get stories made on name and reputation alone. I should know. When I worked at a magazine and told my editor that Jim wanted to go here and shoot this, the story was instantly given the green light. Do you think we had any problems finding a top shelf writer to go along for the ride? No way.

My point here is that you can be the most compelling original photographer in the world but if no one will publish or come look at your work it's utterly worthless for getting the message out and if that is the goal then it fails.

Now on the other point about blog comments, I kind of like how Joerg has the comments off but will gladly join in the discussion elsewhere if someone wants to debate one of his post or call attention to it. I have to say it's difficult to understand unless it happens to you but once you get a few comments that get under your skin it's difficult to keep being honest in the posts.

Comment posted by Rob Haggart on October 29, 2008

hi folks,

its nice to see a blog related to photography that actually features a discussion about photography, rather than self indulgent navel-gazing.

there was an interview with simon norfolk in the british journal of photography recently, that relates to this issue. i think he has developed a very eloquent method of portraying the issues that would normal fall within the realm of traditional photo-journalism. his pictures from iraq for example, convey what life there is like at the moment in, for me, a far more engaging way than the tradition photo-journalistic method. his work on the insidious side of modern warfare - the relentless thirst for information, economic war etc., shows the full spectrum of modern warfare. something the traditional photojournalist seem to miss.

not that i think that photojournalism in the traditional sense is dead. i most certainly think it has a still has a role to play, and there are photographers who work in this mode that i like a great deal. however, i think its time to realise that it is now much of what is out there is becoming somewhat dated. harping back to the good old glory days is fine, if thats what people want to do - but i think in many ways we've reached saturation point. how many black and white images of human suffering can anyone look at before the message becomes diluted? if the point is to deliver a message, to engage an audience, then the images must be aesthetically stimulating, perhaps even aesthetically pleasing - even if they do relate to the horrendous subject matter that photojournalism usually covers.

thanks,

Jason

Comment posted by Jason Hobbs on October 29, 2008

speaking about some comments that can get under your skin, some blogs can really get under your skin :-) like the one Alec has just referenced...

when you boil out all the intelligent speak in the linked blog's effort, it's basically a challenge to the success of Jame's mission statement:

“I’m working on a story that the world needs to know about. I wish for you to help me break it, in a way that provides spectacular proof of the power of news photography in the digital age.”

the irony of all this intelligent speak is that it misses the simple point, broken down this way:

“I’m working on a story that the world needs to know about. – Ok, that’s pretty self-describing and upon reflection it is about a disease that doesn’t really need to exist and more people know about it now than before.

I wish for you to help me break it, in a way that provides spectacular proof of the power of news photography in the digital age. - Ok, here’s where unfortunately the blog in question and JMC have missed the boat, sorry JMC, but it's true. A photographic Icon has called on you to help him promote a purely altruistic piece of news simply by letting the announcement be broadcast in places like your blog… get it….digital help…. And the blog in question and JMC treated him with the skepticism of a used car salesman verses the master that you know with out a doubt he is… I mean what did you think? He was going to push porn on your blog?

luckily most of the people gave James the respect he deserved and the simple objective stated above was achieved and it was easy to find the essay and learn about the issue in loads of places so digital was in fact employed in a new way.

i think it's a bit sad that we're now confusing the success of his objective with whether or not classical journalism moves the masses. I hope the people that refused James simple altruistic request are actually a bit ashamed now. And as i've mentioned please describe something better before condemning the deliberate and honest approach of classical journalism for this topic with still photography.

Comment posted by Joe on October 29, 2008

Adam Broomberg and Olivier Chanarin's observations on being jurors on the last round of the World Press Awards are interesting:

"Unconcerned but not Indifferent"
http://www.foto8.com/home/content/view/377/216/

This should be swallowed with an equal dose of the follow-up commentary by the world press winner that Broomberg and Chanarin discuss; Tim Hetherington.

"By Any Means Neccesary"
http://www.foto8.com/home/content/view/451/216/

Comment posted by Jonas Bendiksen on October 29, 2008

I think that there might be some (other) irony at work here.

Joerg featured my work on Conscientious a while back but had some reservations about the portraits of crack addicts I'd been doing. In a nutshell: he thought that drug addicts shouldn't be photographed because.....well, they've already been photographed. End of story.

I'm kool with that, even though I totally disagree.

The irony is that, because of Joerg's mention the hits to my work went way up. Seems like the same thing is at work here. I've read quite a few comments above where the commenters have gone to see the work in question because of the kerfuffle. And who doesn't like a good kerfuffle?

I say, photographers take pictures, critics criticize them. And that's the way it should be.

I'm all for free speech. No censorship. Do what you do and let the chips fall where they may.

Thank you to Magnum for allowing this to happen.

Comment posted by Tony Fouhse on October 29, 2008

Joe I am glad you mentioned that. I have been thinking about it this afternoon.

It is not just that it is hard to reach ordinary people who are overwhelmed by daily
noise and ad clutter. Photojournalists should also jingle the jaded neurons of
slightly bored photographer-bloggers who put such a high value on their virtual
space they can't even bring themselves to give James Nachtwey a one time BLOG
POST to help him raise awareness about a worldwide medical issue.

A marvelous level of self absorption combined with lazy cynicism to create some stupendous navel gazing.

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on October 29, 2008

I want to come to Jörg's defense a bit here.

First, having kept a blog myself I can attest to the fact that many people have an extremely expansive notion of what counts as 'conversation.' While I take comments on the blog, I moderate them and discard many that are simply abusive. I can understand why one would decide not to take comments at all instead of appearing arbitrary by rejecting some and publishing others. In short, people can be cruel and bigoted and ... well, you get the point, but there is no real reason why one should have to put up with abuse.

Second, several contributors to this thread have criticized Jörg for offering rambling or overly analytic or long-winded 'opinions' or for being dogmatic. My own reading of Conscientious is that he is way too often very reluctant to offer more than passing comment on work. He often directs readers to the work of this or that photographer with minimal comment. Maybe I'm missing something? In any case, I find that Jörg provides an incredible service to his readers by constantly bringing attention to the work of photographers who, unlike Nachtwey, do not have ready made platforms.

Third, I don't see how one can read Jörg's initial post - or his follow-up on his blog or here - as anything but an invitation to think of issues that Nachtwey's campaign raises. JN is not simply trying to get a story 'out there' - he is trying to effect some change, to spur some sort of remedy to an epidemic. Do you think he would mind if, by discussing his campaign in a critical way someone might identify more effective ways of pursuing that task? Jörg is asking us to think about the way we might use photography. There seems to be an awful lot of defensiveness in the responses in this thread.

Finally, thanks Alec, for putting in the time here!

Comment posted by Jim Johnson on October 29, 2008

I don't understand the big hope for Nachtwey's campaign- granted I am a doctor and I have been to South Africa in a professional capacity, so I have some knowledge of the problem that the lay public might not have. I'd be very surprised, however, if the lay person did not think of AIDS as a huge problem in large parts of Africa. TB and HIV are so intertwined; they are parts of the same problem. These are large and complex problems, rooted in endemic poverty, health system collapse, governmental neglect of certain populations and public health epidemiology. There is no easy answer- and I am not sure how these images are going to effect change in the general Western/Developed population. I think it's much easier for photojournalism to effect change when there is an easy answer- ie, in a famine we'll just airlift a ton of food in, set up distribution and people will stop starving. Are people really going to look at these TB pictures and think- no problem, we'll just go in there, work on their economies, lift people out of poverty, fix their health care and public health system, improve public hygiene, train some health personnel, distribute free meds, directly observe therapy for TB and HIV for months and years and everything will be great in a few years? When the problem is this complex, I don't know what the shocking images Nachtwey put up will accomplish among the general population. They re an admirable attempt to record history, and it's a story that needs to be told, but effect change? I'm a little doubtful.

Comment posted by Nick on October 30, 2008

I've been a great fan of Mr. Nachtwey's (still am), but even I thought his images from his recent project were "interchangeable" with previous projects. But then, his job was to publicize a little known epidemic, not start a major new movement in the photo art world. And create attention and publicity for a little known epidemic, he did.

If we're going to clamor for something new, then let's have at it! We have every variety of tool available: small format, medium format, large format, digital. B&W and color. Fact is, the medium is limited. There's only so much one can do with that two dimensional still image. Styles, changes, movements will develop of their own accord, in their own time. Not long ago, several photo trend setters announced the resurgence of a triumphant black and white revival. It never happened, it was never there.

We have many new technologies which have changed the speed and manner of how we view and disperse images. But the essential language of the medium is unchanged. The same large format color images that hang on gallery walls today are not all that different from those that could be seen some twenty five years ago- talk about interchangeable.

As for Joerg, as he himself stated several years back, his taste for B&W is limited to "extremes." Take him at his word, you won't find much of it on his blog. So no great surprise he's not raving about Nachtwey's latest. That said, I give him all the credit in the world for what he has accomplished for photography via the internet. No small accomplishment, though as has already been brought out here, it does come off a bit high and mighty when you constantly offer your opinion- with no room for recourse.

Comment posted by Stan B. on October 30, 2008

people are dying in iraq and afghanistan, and we are here discussing about photographic styles.

Comment posted by luzz biteyear on October 30, 2008

@luzz biteyear - are you saying that because people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan we should discuss nothing else? Seems spurious to me. That Natchweys subject matter is serious does not put it beyond discussion.

Comment posted by Dave on October 30, 2008

Wow, late to the party ;))))...

scribbling over the last 3 days to try to write something strong and cogent that addresses both JM Colberg's concerns (some of which i share) and JM Colberg's language of the discussion (most of which i have a great deal of problem with) of Nachtwey's work (specifically here) and the extant work of photographic Journalism/Documentary dominating the profession at the moment. ....after preparing a long comment, i see there are already 70 posts....many of which cover many of the ideas i'd wanted to write about as well...so, in a very un-bobblack like move, i'll not both to blog the blog down with a long bobblack post...

and with the ressurection of the Broomberg and Chanarin's essay, it felt as if i'd been shuttled back into a karmic fall ;))).....only to be brought back to life by Tim's counter essay, which I'd not been aware of until this morning (thank you Jonas).....

in the end, i'll leave y'all only with a small thought:

what and how does it mean to see and to operate upon our seeing and how is this redered, for good and ill, upon the surgical table of language....

that we have continued to harness ourselves to language as a way to codify, promulgate or declare absolutely on the merits or demerits of something (in this case 'traditional' photographic journlism/documentary work) rather than investigate the divide between what we see, how we know and the way this divide is reported and told is still something that leaves me often feeling bereft at the end of these discussions...

it is, still often, even amid conversation, the leap toward entombing an idea rather than the seeding of it that i feel at such a loss....

and did i read the same book by Barthes as Broomberg and Chanarin...how could my reading of that book been so different than theirs?....

at the heart of the matter is a very simple, though often couched in very smooth, ambiguous and overly complex language (im totally guilty as presumed, eeee god), question:

why is it that we still presume to universalize the peculiarity of our individual experience of this passing world and the events that unfold around and inside us, and presume that the universal voice is the most universal....

what distills and how is it that we are still so unsure as to demand a working understading, or rather, an agreement on what and how things should be.....

"This continent, an open palm spread frank before the sky.”--agee

cheers
b

Comment posted by bobblack on October 30, 2008

in other words:

is it not the peculiar that is the true universal

and is that not why we employ language (words, images, dance, music, tastes,) to be our hymns....to unveil that which sits the most oddly and that which somehow, and miraculously, speaks to each of us.....

b

Comment posted by bobblack on October 30, 2008

Alex Webb just posted a comment here that is relevant to this discussion.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on October 30, 2008

"I shoot interesting subject matter but disguise it as entertainment."

That's what Matin Parr said in a PDN interview. Parr is the perfect example for a photographic style, that tries not to bore the viewer. Especially in photojournalism a style or a single images is good, when it doesn't let the viewer go, makes him think about what he sees. There are many ways to create that kind of visual moment. Parr's way is entertainment. Others could be to present a subject in a way that was never done before or to be extraordinary informative or to tough someone emotionally with an image. However it becomes harder and harder to get into the head of the modern viewer that is facing a constant steam of mass medias.

In his post on the two differnet photos that deal with mental illness Jörg Colberg wrote: "It's probably not hard to guess which image I think works better as photojournalism with today's audience."

Bertold Brecht said: "Think with the head of the audience."

However b/w photojournalism will not die. Who ever visited the Visa pour l'Image festival in Perpignan knows that there are legions of young crisis and epidemic photographers with the same acient role models waiting to get assignments. And the digital revolution has fuelled and globalized this situation.

I think it is manly a question of your personal photographic socialization and education what you prefer. As a photogapher it lies literally in your hands what you make out the power a camera can give you. And it is the same for the viewer. His background decides wether he feels connected to an image or not. There are hugh difference concerning this between countries. In France for example the classical photojournalism is still alive and kicking. In Germany on the other hand there is only the STERN left who publishes grainy b/w war images from Sudan.

Comment posted by Jörg Brüggemann on October 30, 2008

Dear All,

This is a long and interesting discussion thread, and though I must admit that I haven’t been able to read every comment, here is my response. I sent the Nachtway link and this blog link to my mother who is a medical doctor working in public health clinics in South Africa. She emailed me the following….

---------------

“I must say I'm taken aback by the picture series and the message.I am working in the heart of the TB/MDR/XDR epidemic here and the reality is so far from sense I get from the pictures. The problem is huge and really hitting us now, but so much more nuanced and complex and chronic. The people portrayed all looked end-stage and somehow depersonalised in their suffering. Their surrounds also appeared uniformly squalid, which is not necessarily the reality. Although there was one cohort of HIV co-infected patients in Tugela Ferry who all died soon after diagnosis that is not often the pattern. We are dealing with a very scary form of an ancient disease which infects and effects all kinds of people, not only the abject poor or prisoners or addicts. Unlike HIV it is spread through the air, so leads to a particular kind of stigma and fear of contagion and challenges us ethically and morally as well as medically.

I think my patients would hate to see themselves portrayed in the way those pictures do.(even though it may be 'for a good cause'). I don't get a sense of individual people and their particular lives and stories. My experience is that loss of dignity is the worst fear in disease and the camera is not respecting these peoples dignity.

This is my immediate response, but having written it I want to go back and look again more carefully and will then write again.
I started reading the blog and skimmed through most of the discussion, but found it quite difficult to understand the technical stuff and issues.

I must say that as a 'member of the public' the images did not work in they did not move me to compassion. Probably because the were so extreme and depersonalized in a way they are quite crude also, especially the ones making the point of how awful the pills and injections are.”

Comment posted by Mikhael Subotzky on October 30, 2008

Nobody has commented on the failure of these photographs to entertain.

To me its just a bit silly to suggest that they couldn't be bettered by a different approach. The masses don't go to the cinema to watch black and white films that don't have sound anymore. That's not a criticism of making films that way, just that the audience has moved with the technology. Photographers need to do the same. Look at THE PLACE WE LIVE as a great example of a Magnum photographer who is leading the leap ... more about this on the blog www.duckrabbit.info/blog

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 30, 2008

Well we have come a long way here. I see a lot of germane connections between this discussion and the dilemmas of postmodernism. It seems to be a constant background theme in this group. I think it's fascinating. When we find a way forward in one area I think we will find a way forward in the other and I do think it will mark some kind of turning point for both humanity and photography. We are not quite there but it feels like we are getting close.

Does anyone else sense that or did I put too much crack in my coffee this morning?

The various opinions and viewpoints that emerged here (photographic, medical, laymen) were really interesting and added a lot to this discussion.

Comment posted by Agirlphotographer on October 30, 2008

Mikhael,

Thank you so much for your mother's words... an unimpeachable opinion, I'd say, that speaks volumes.

That the photographs and reality are very separate things comes as no surprise... That all photographs lie is a tired cliché. That Nachtwey would choose to describe the problem as melodrama makes perfect sense.

I mean melodrama, not in the popular or negative or dimissive sense, but (I keep driving this point) as a rhetorical strategy. The photographs tell a tale of stock characters, innocence, life and death, heroism and virtue meant to persuade the viewer to action by calling on extreme emotion... offering catharsis in exchange for "awareness".

The "visual language" of the work is, in my opinion, subordinate to this moral message. Nachtwey is a master of using the photographic dialect of "traditional photojournalism" to appeal to his audience... and I'd guess Jim knows his audience well. The dialect isn't dull, just specific.

Comment posted by mike on October 30, 2008

"I mean melodrama, not in the popular or negative or dimissive sense, but (I keep driving this point) as a rhetorical strategy. The photographs tell a tale of stock characters, innocence, life and death, heroism and virtue meant to persuade the viewer to action by calling on extreme emotion... offering catharsis in exchange for "awareness"."

The photos and commentary have something in common ... they are sterile and alienating.

Listen to people who have been there and seen it. To many in the field of development these photos can do more harm then good. They stigmatize and alienate and as forms of persuasion they belong in the past. As for extreme emotion, these photos leave many people cold, only a meager scrap of a story is told.

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 30, 2008

The idea of a paradigm shift in the photographic hierarchy or something as sexy as suggesting we might be in a state of photographic post-modernism just slushes around quite nicely with some red wine, with the right company and more red wine you could make all kinds of interesting connections to that concept, even the fact that we all often think each other’s work is possibly fraudulent or stale. Look at these same polarised factions that have formed just in this thread over gritty black and white and pretentious medium format ;-)

It does seem like we are collecting a more precise vocabulary to understand the contention and if it becomes more possible to talk about the concepts with terms independent of specific photographers, with words as mutually exclusive as ‘medium’ and ‘messages‘, then that would be one less anchor to shed more light on the agenda.

Maybe some more light might re-order things a bit or maybe we’d just agree it’s all just a cycle as silly as bell-bottoms, but more than likely, in my opinion!!.. in the grand scheme of things.. maybe the medium hasn’t change the archetypal messages we wish to tell and those same messages have never really been bound to the media.

I mean are there really any new human plots left since biblical times? Have advances or changes in the media or two dimensional imagery for that matter really (I mean really) increased the fidelity of the messages told since biblical times?

I don’t know really, but I’m really starting to wonder what those crystal looking rocks are at the bottom of my wine glass ;-)
..

Comment posted by Joe on October 30, 2008

It's a little daunting to join the debate 80 comments in, but here goes.

I'm concerned that Jorg's critique of Nachtwey and photojournalism is rooted in a 'photography for photography's sake' mindset that seems increasingly prevalent. Where photography's main audience is other photographers or photofiles, detached from the substance of the reality they're supposed to be representing and reflecting on.

I realize we're mostly photographers here discussing the problems of representation, but this debate is crying out for the views of people not versed in contemporary photography and aesthetics. Hearing the views of Subotzky's mum is a breath of fresh air, but are we prepared to take in what her and others have to say about the relevance of contemporary documentary to their lives?

To further Jim Johnson's point that "nearly all public problems, actual or threatened, tends to be an aggregate phenomena," I'm amazed at how few picture stories examine the mechanics of social problems. We might be tired of seeing the consequences of those problems and their effects on the human body, the poor and the disenfranchized, but I really don't care whether the mechanics are being represented in black & white, colour, 8x10 or on a camera phone, so long as it's revealing something I can learn from and act on.

With the editorial industry seemingly sinking, all the signs seem to point to photographers needing to get a lot better at reaching out to new partners and audiences. That's going to mean collaboration of the kind that challenges photographers to think beyond the world of photography. I'm thinking here of people like Trevor Paglen - researchers first, photographers second - where the style and aesthetic is in response to the subject, not some signature template that's applied to any given story.

I agree there's a crisis in the representation of suffering and social problems, but dare I say it, photographers aren't necessarily the ones leading the way in overcoming that crisis.

Comment posted by Mishka on October 30, 2008

I tried to write a thoughtful response to this thread, but I am struggling. the truth is, the art versus photojournalism discussion is less interesting than going to the dentist for me. I think the discussion itself is outdated.They may disagree with me, but I see Alec Soth, Mark Power, Larry Sultan, Stephen Shore and Martin Parr as having as much right to the title "photojournaist" as James Nachtwey and Larry Burrows. I see William Klein, Bruce Gilden and Bruce Davidson as having much claim to the artist title as Gursky.

But I'll go ahead and say it: Photojournalism makes me verklempt

I know, I am what most of you would call a photojournalist (I feel uncomfortable with this term...simple photographer is better). And it is true that I function as a "photojournaist" in many ways. AND, much of my work during the past 10 years is in the "outdated" black and white "style".
I am very much a product of the traditional black and white photojournalistic tradition. But I don't look at it very much any more. I still often work in black and white, but I am much more drawn to other types of photography...but that is another discussion.

what gets me verklempt about "photojournalism is not Nachtwey (or insert the name of your favorite Black and white "photojournalist) it is that "photojournalism" keeps trying to mimic and repeat a certain way of looking at things. And more often than not, they are getting very good at the aesthetic precision of the style, but somehow miss the element that makes that photography powerful. We are awash in technically superb, hyperdramatic (melodramatic) photography but without the soul, it is just graphic design and hyperbole. and yes, that looks outdated and boring.

.

Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on October 30, 2008

yo, chris, photojournalism (per se) makes me verklempt too ;)))))...

and listen, no way i would call you photojournalist either (even if frickin' Toronto folk in the know didnt' listen to a damn thing i tried to say to them last year ;))) ):

you are a photog....a story teller...a guy that has tried to spill a few tales upon the wall...

let me tell u this: i've stood (or sat) face to face with both U and Jim and "talked shop" and all that matters is a simple thing:

fucking sing the shadows....spill out that which makes this miraculous and broken world peculiar...be it flash on snow in front of a politicians car ;))), or the guts to offer a moment/life up because all that's known....

oh these words, (forgive me Alec, i guess the wine is seeping through me and I'm on a deadline to send pics, pics of which i dont much like sending, but i gues i have to), that quiver....

Chris, man, u have carved light, u have shifted that moment that rabbit-stepped in front of you, and you have given that to us....and the great thing. it spoke to me...and that aint at all because you've shoot b/w, or because we've shared a beer, but because, you've made it peculiar and odd and given me your damn vision...be it in b/w in the deser or in Lebanon or Venezuela or color in the primaries or fashion runnways....

man, Mikhael's mom spoke more bite than i can now....and I, damn well, stood in front of her son's exhibition 3 weeks ago....

u aint a pj, nor michael, nor jacob, nor shit, all the photogaphers (here at magnaum or elsewhere), who speak to me, u are just tellers of things.....

and those things speak to us....

it aint that that other stuff doesnt speak either....it does...the distinguishing this is this:

how to speak without worrying that it speaks for all folk, 'cause when you do that, it's gone...

maybe that's at the heart of Michael's mom's passionate and get-real letter....

ok, sorry for the embarrassing rant...

back to deadline....

as usual, i too am totally verklempt...

running
b

p.s. Jacob's TOKYO BOOK rocks :))))...like an ode to love, to moriyama, to araki, to hosoe, to all that sits inside us :))

Comment posted by Bob Black on October 31, 2008

After Ryszard Kapuściński's death, one polish writer, I don't remember who, said that Poles destroyed him as an artist. We Poles love or hate ours ikons. That time I loved Kapuściński and hate this guy. But he only said that after Kapuściński became famous, nobody dared to criticize him, and his lastes book are not as strong as when he was not famous. And somehow it is truth. We all waited when he win the Nobel prize, not when he will write next great book, when he dazzle a new philosophical thought, not when he make new reporting masterpiece. Our love was blind and unconstructive.
I hate criticism. Mostly it is nothing more than complaining for nothing. Mostly it is waiting for mistake or a moment of weakness. And we all are weak.

But this discussion is something more, especially after Mrs.Subotzky's comment. I think James Nachtwey should read the post and all comments.

Alec, if you wanted reviving like in this post... good job! :)

Comment posted by marcin luczkowski on October 31, 2008

Hello!!! At this point in the discussion: ethics anyone?

I call a photojournalist -however he is photographing (B&W, medium format, large format, panoramic, Holga, flash no flash, pinhole) -I don't give a dime -someone who tells stories while giving some guarantees to the viewer. Guarantees like being honest with himself, the people he is taking pictures of and the viewers, respect, checking things out etc... You know: all these old fashioned values... All the others are photographers, some good, some bad, some interesting and stimulating, some boring and redundant. That's all there is to it. You stick to some rules (which are in no way preventing creativity) and you can call yourself a photojournalist. It is (was?) supposed to differentiate you from the common mortal photographer. It gives you free access to museums and in Belgium to a 50% rebate on your train tickets.

Comment posted by John Vink on October 31, 2008

In posting my mother’s response, I don’t at all mean to say that the debate around photographic language isn’t important. In fact the opposite. I think that photographic language should primarily be thought of in relation to how it informs representation. And the decisions that follow can either be made very rationally in thinking about representational issues and the history of the photographic enquiry, or very intuitively in relation to what gives photography spirit for oneself on a very personal level. Like Chris Anderson says, photography in any style is useless without a sense of soul… and this soul clearly is arrived at through a synergy between style, intention and content. And I think that it is just as dangerous to think too little and too much about each of these.

Mike, says. “The photographs tell a tale of stock characters, innocence, life and death, heroism and virtue meant to persuade the viewer to action by calling on extreme emotion... offering catharsis in exchange for "awareness".” I appreciate your comments in large, but I am not sure that this is exactly the exchange being offered. I think it is more an exchange of the specifics (context, personal story, variety of narrative) for the message (desire to put a cross something strong enough to pull emotions on the issue). I don’t think that it is blanketly wrong to put a strong message before the specifics of a story. But I believe that if we do this, we have to think very carefully about how this affects our collective understanding of the world – something so strongly influenced by images.

I think that Nachtway is a genius photographer and he has obviously shown great intentions and incredible social dedication through his distinguished career. But I often struggle with how he handles his photographs as representations that, especially due to his prominence, have a very real affect on how those in the West understand the world beyond their immediate surroundings. I have no doubt that he intends to be fighting for the people photographed, but ultimately, this kind of work can too easily represent the subjects as being “other” – as being different to us in their sickness and suffering. In other words, needing our sympathy rather then our empathy. There is so much great photography which elicits empathy rather then sympathy and as you can see from my mothers comments, this is what is badly needed with regards to this particular subject. “We are dealing with a very scary form of an ancient disease which infects and effects all kinds of people, not only the abject poor or prisoners or addicts.”

Comment posted by Mikhael Subotzky on October 31, 2008

I think Jean Gaumy is a perfect example of classic photojournalism. Have you see his book: http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R18ZMKX

What a fabulous book. Perhaps it demonstrates that it is Nachtway's subject matter that is the problem. Try to imagine Gaumy's work in color, that would be awesome too. I imagine it in large format, well apart from the obvious impracticalities, something would be lost in the stormy emotion. In this case the subject dictates the style.

Nachtway's in this slideshow makes me verklempt, but not Gaumy?

Comment posted by Jelly on October 31, 2008

This is a fascinating debate and the most refreshing part about it is the commentary from people from outside the photographic community, such as Subotsky's mother. These words really make us think, make me think. But I wonder sometimes who is driving melodrama as against more nuanced reporting - the photographer or the magazines. I'll never forget working in the Sahel during the 1984-5 famine. I was in Sudan and Chris Steele-Perkins was in Chad for Stern. Chris told me Stern returned all his pictures because the people didn't look thin enough.

Comment posted by Stuart Franklin on October 31, 2008

As can't take a photo to save me life (or anyone elses) but have found this debate brilliantly stimulating I returned to my blog entry the day this essay was revealed to the world ( http://duckrabbit.info/blog/?p=323) My feelings stand:

Photojournalists often treat people from developing countries like children,

best seen (sick, starving and shot),

but not heard.

Brutal.

Comment posted by Benjamin on October 31, 2008

@dave - "are you saying that because people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan we should discuss nothing else? Seems spurious to me. That Natchweys subject matter is serious does not put it beyond discussion."

I just meant "style" is a false debate in all aspects of art, let alone when related to such topics like wars, famine, disease etc.
Read what john vink and chris anderson wrote. Mr colberg probably thinks the kind of photography the audience can react to now has to look like videogames look. I'm happy i'm not part of that audience, i can still be moved by a bw old fashioned photograph.

Comment posted by luzz biteyear on October 31, 2008

Mikhael,

Your mother should have joined Magnum as well...

Comment posted by John Vink on October 31, 2008

I come late to this, and it is marvelous that so much has been posted here, its also a problem as there is so much and the issues go off in all kinds of different directions that I don't have the time to trawl through it all.

The starting point seems to be that "traditional" photojournalism is dead, or at lease a blunt instrument, or the language is outmoded, and so on.

Photographers who express this view are often saying - I do it differently. I do it right. They do it wrong. So I am clever and cool and they are not.

"critics", rather than photographers, who say this have often had their heads stuffed up their Photography Theory arses for so long they only know how to spout the shit they have been swallowing for so long.

Its quite simple - fashions come and go. The plate camera for working in photojournalism (and lets be as eclectic as possible when using that term, meaning the engagement of the photographer with the issues that concern them with an intention to communicate this to a wider public) was considered dead after the development of the 35mm camera. But now its super cool - take it to Iraq, to Afghanistan, anywhere and 10 x8 rules. And why not take it there? But it is not about the medium it is about the message. Boring pictures in grainy B&W are boring and blunt instruments. Boring pictures in 10x8 colour are no better, and there is plenty of boring stuff around. Photographing boring stuff 20 times instead of once; photographing it 20 times in 10x8, does not make it interesting either.

Good, arresting, engaging pictures matter - they are the ones people bother to look at, the ones people stay with, and that is not a franchise that grainy B&W has somehow lost to 10x8 colour, or to Martin's "disguised" picture. I repeat the mantra - Boring is boring -

Yes, photography evolves, and some people want only to appreciate the newest trend, but it does not invalidate the old forms. We, photographers mostly, with a sophisticated understanding of photo-history, can offer ourselves up as jaded by "classical form" if we want to adopt that posture, but most people, our public, can, and still do, respond to it and we should not dismiss them as stupid for doing so.

Our challenge as photographers - as photojournalists in the broadest sense - is not to bicker and preen amongst ourselves about whose style is cooler than whose, but to do the very best with the style we are most suited to, and then find a way, in the collapsing market of magazine reportage, to somehow get it out to the general public to whom we aspire to address.

Comment posted by Chris Steele-Perkins on November 2, 2008

Chris,

Your point is well taken, and I agree entirely, but it then raises a question: Who judges whether a photograph is boring or not? The professionals (you, editors, dare I say it, critics) or us civilians (everyone else)?

Also, I'll apologize now for any comment I've made that has the "gout de merde" of theory. It's unavoidable, really.

Comment posted by mike on November 2, 2008

Well, I'm glad I read the comments right to the end. At the risk of sounding like a Magnum groupie -- thanks Chris, that's an inspiring post...

Comment posted by Paul Russell on November 2, 2008

Chris S-P :

You wrote this: "critics", rather than photographers . . . often had their heads stuffed up their Photography Theory arses for so long they only know how to spout the shit they have been swallowing for so long."

That seems to me to be a load of self-absorbed crap. And I say that not by my admittedly amateur lights, but by your own. What do you mean when you urge photographers "to do the very best with the style [they] are most suited to." How do you decide what counts as "best"? What criteria would you suggest? Ooops that way lurks all the theory you disparage!

Moving on, the next task you mention is to "find a way . . . to somehow get it [the photographer's work] out to the general public to whom we aspire to address." That is not a strictly photographic task at all. And there you might learn something from the reflections of those dreaded theorists too.

Finally, style is not, as you say, just "cool" or "clever" - it is more or less useful and more or less successful. But that of course requires some (gasp!) theoretical idea of what you might mean by those terms. (Or by, say, you incivie criteria of "boring" or "good, arresting, engaging" and so forth.) Otherwise you'll never have a clue whether your work is making an impression on anyone but you and your buddies.

I find the 'know-nothing' view of photography (of which you are an articulate but not unique exponent) incredibly tiresome. If you want to just keep on with your vocation - fine. But if you want to talk big talk about the importance and impact of photojournalism (which is explicitly what, say, Nachtwey, whose work prompted this whole discussion, wants to do) it might help to actually talk to and try to listen to what non-photographers have to say. Just a thought - bluster and intellectual inbreeding hardly are likely to help cash out the big talk.

Best
Jim Johnson

Comment posted by JJ on November 2, 2008

@ Jim

The way I read Chris's post was that the subject matter and the photographer's interest and involvement in the subject matter was the important part of the process, and had nothing to do with being "self-absorbed".

It was interesting to hear a Magnum photographer speak so passionately and, erm, candidly...

Comment posted by Paul Russell on November 2, 2008

Paul,

Did you miss the passage I quoted at the outset? It seems an incredibly hostile remark. I agree that engagement and involvement are crucially important. But the comments Chris made were dismissive pure and simple. I wonder about the response if a "critic" wrote that way about any photographer's work . . .?

I respect photographers. I think their work is not just interesting, but often important. It seems to me, though, that given the glut of images we confront some real conversation about the uses of photography is in order. and dismissiveness is not a useful way to engage in conversaiton.

Jim

Comment posted by JJ on November 2, 2008

“You can't see as well as these fucking flowers - and they're fucking plastic.”
- - John McEnroe (to a line judge)

One of the peculiar pleasures of Magnum is that you can still occasionally glimpse the swash and swagger of another generation. A part of me loves this kind of table-pounding bravado and, like most newcomers to the organization, have had it directed to me more than once. It almost makes me nostalgic for the days of Mailer and Vidal (this made me laugh out loud). The clip I'm mentioning is at 29minutes, 10 seconds:

Watch Video

Comment posted by Alec Soth on November 2, 2008

@Jim

Personally, and with all due respect, I feel sorry for someone who can't look at a photo without applying theory.

Its admitting that you need to load on the intellectual layers before feeling comfortable to respond, which normally makes for a boring and elitist conversation.

I mean what point of 'boring is boring' don't you get ... or have you not read that book yet?

Tonight go home and put on an Ottis Redding CD. You don't need a theorist to work out its great music, that its better then Britney. Its called soul mate.

Comment posted by Benjamin on November 3, 2008

Benjamin,

With all due respect back, I do not need you to feel sorry for me. Nor do I especially need your patronizing musical recommendations.

You. of course, presuppose that a picture should simply evoke some immediate putatively non-cognitive response. Sorry,mate, but THAT is a theory - and not a terribly persuasive one at that. Maybe the plausible claim that photojournalism is less effective that it might once have been reflects that implausible something like your tacit theory. Maybe "Just respond mate!" is an invitation to irrelevance.

If you are relying on your audience to have "soul" it will be a cold day in hell before your work is anything but a decoration, a nice adornment for the coffee table or the gallery wall. (Talk about elitism! Most people cannot afford the former and never make it to the latter.) But that is not the aspiration that Nachtwey and others announce for their work (remember that is how we started this discussion).

Let's just pretend for a minute that you are a photographer. And pretend that I am the sort of person yo might be trying to reach. The attitude you express here (and the one Chris expressed above) make me want to "respond" by telling you to take the fruit of your your hobby and stuff it. Not a terribly effective way to use and promote your craft.

Best,
Jim

Comment posted by JJ on November 3, 2008

PS: Benjamin. One doesn't need to apply theory in order to look at pictures. But to deny that the process of looking at them raises all sorts of theoretical issues and that those are relevant to figuring out how to enhance the effectiveness of distribution and presentation seems silly.

Comment posted by JJ on November 3, 2008

Thanks Jim,

I don't think your post could have done anything more to prove my point. The words shot, foot, ivory and tower come to mind.

Benjamin

ps. I'm sure I've met you somewhere before ... was it in a Woody Allen film?

Comment posted by Benjamin on November 4, 2008

Thanks Jim,

I don't think your post could have done anything more to prove my point. The words shot, foot, ivory and tower come to mind.

Benjamin

ps. I'm sure I've met you somewhere before ... was it in a Woody Allen film?

Comment posted by Benjamin on November 4, 2008

Benjamin,

Oh, I get it, mate! You are the intrepid visual media professional out there doing ... well no one is quite sure, but you certainly can be self-satisfied. To paraphrase one of our American educational charities" "A closed Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste." You're putting yours to good use.

Bye.
Jim

Comment posted by JJ on November 4, 2008

Thanks Jim,

its a shame you had to go. We'll miss your two brains.

Benjamin x

Comment posted by Benjamin on November 4, 2008

Benjamin and JJ, please stop wasting everyone's time. It is a shame that an otherwise mature and thoughtful debate is concluding with your childish bickering.

Comment posted by Alec Soth on November 4, 2008

not at all Alec .. don't you think its indicative of the tension and the divide between art and critic, or in this case theory and practice, ego and expression? Our common ability to willingly and willfully misunderstand and disrespect each other when it suits our point of view (which has been what most of this debate has been about, dressed up in many different ways)? Completely pathetic and meaningless in the wider context which is why I respect what you're saying, but on the other hand you are only one capable of wasting your own time:

'Joerg is dangling the meat over at Conscientious, but I just don't have time to bite. '

Comment posted by Benjamin on November 4, 2008

Alec, No push back. No cheek. You are right. I apologize for my part. Jim

Comment posted by JJ on November 4, 2008

It's so sad that audiences (not to mention the photographers themselves) have become so precious and spoiled... as though style were more of a human concern than subject-matter, as though the immensely valuable act of witnessing injustice in the world and bringing to the forefront of our "collective consciences" should take a secondary position behind making concessions to the art world. The founders of magnum must be turning over in their graves.

Comment posted by james williamson on November 5, 2008

I just want to add: that it's a sad day when a member of Magnum (Alec Soth) refers to James Nachtwey's work as "depressing." Where has our (and his humanity) gone?
Stuart, it's getting to the point where, every time I read one of your contributions to a blog, I become ashamed AND embarrassed -to be frank. Why are you guys in this business again?

Comment posted by james williamson on November 6, 2008

Hey "girl photographer," just want to say: keep up the good work. Your comments are incisive and extremely valuable in this day in age when cynicism reigns... Keep the faith!

Comment posted by james williamson on November 6, 2008

This one makes me verklempt:

http://insight.magnumphotos.com/essay/foreclosures

I've always liked his work, but I never thought a Bruce Gilden essay would make me
want to cry. It was only several hours after watching it that I realized it was made in
the same aesthetic that's been at the heart of this debate.

Szarkowski wrote that photography is fundamentally a means of visual indication, a
way of pointing *at something* (and noted that some people will naturally
point at more interesting things than others). In "On Being a Photographer,"
David Hurn struck a consonant note when he asserted the primacy of subject. And it
sounds like Chris-Steele Perkins is arguing along similar lines: "boring is boring." It's
what is in the frame that matters most.

If the XDR-TB are inadequate on some fundamental level, then, it can't be aesthetic.
The problem is not JN's "photographic language" but rather his visual indications, ie.
what he chose to point the camera at.

Having read most of the comments in this thread, it seems that the visual indication
problem was best characterized by that poster's mother who is also a doctor working
in the midst of the XDR epidemic, who made no mention of the pictures being in a grainy b/w that she's too much of:

"The problem is huge and really hitting us now, but so much more nuanced and
complex and chronic. The people portrayed all looked end-stage and somehow
depersonalised in their suffering. Their surrounds also appeared uniformly squalid,
which is not necessarily the reality."

"I think my patients would hate to see themselves portrayed in the way those
pictures do.(even though it may be 'for a good cause'). I don't get a sense of
individual people and their particular lives and stories."

"I must say that as a 'member of the public' the images did not work in they did not
move me to compassion. Probably because the were so extreme and depersonalized
in a way they are quite crude also, especially the ones making the point of how awful
the pills and injections are."

I think this debate is mistaking a problem with indication for a problem with aesthetic. The reason this has happened is that photojournalism has both a traditional aesthetic (the grainy, small-camera b/w at issue in this thread) *and* a traditional mode of indication (manifest in the XDR-TB pictures by the near-monocular focus on people dying in bed). But it's an error to conflate the two. The Bruce Gilden Foreclosures essay, and Majoli's more recent work (the photo of the mental patient that JC used on his blog was made in Majoli's mid-twenties, I believe), go to show that the "traditional aesthetic" is separable from the traditional mode of indication, and that such a decoupling can produce a result that is powerful and revelatory. The tool is not dull; it can be set to new use.

Comment posted by James Hendrick on November 7, 2008

On several occaisions Verklempt seems to have been used to mean bored, whereas actually it means 'choked up with tears and unable to speak', which is surely a good reaction to these photos? But the German it comes from also means 'stuck', which may bring us nearer the point.

It is a little unfair to criticise Nachtwey for a traditional aesthetic - I don't know when that term first surfaced in this very long thread or if it just turned up immediately above me with superfluous quotation marks, but I think it is what Jorg was getting at. While Nachtwey didn't invent traditional photojournalism, he has been one of its major exponents for a good long while so that traditional aesthetic is in part his shaping. That his work is consistent and distinctive enough to have become a typology (as is Martin Parr's of course) is a mixed blessing. After all, he got the grant because TED wanted Nachtwey pictures and Time published because they got Nachtwey pictures and, as Alec pointed out, that Time cover is beautiful.

However, Mikael Subotzky's mother's description is this: 'We are dealing with a very scary form of an ancient disease which infects and affects all kinds of people, not only the abject poor or prisoners or addicts.' and there you have it, that is the story. It's not in the photographs and it's that, rather than any conversation about aesthetics, that needs to be addressed.

Or, rather, we have to ask if that story has been missed because of the aesthetic? Jorg's original argument is really a question of taste: he thinks Nachtwey's images are a blunt tool, the style has been over-used and we are bored, and other people on this thread think the photos are great Nachtwey is great, Jorg you suck and also we are all going to misspell your name, including Alec, who says he likes you. But 'the story has been lost because of the limitations and expectations of traditional photo journalism' is a much more serious problem, and one that all of us, producer and consumer, should consider. Actually, I would say journalism of all kinds shares this problem to a certain extent. Whether it's an inherent problem of the media or something we can think our way out of is something else altogether.

Comment posted by Amy de Wit on November 7, 2008

Just for the record, Alec did *not* misspell my name. In the absence of an o-umlaut on a keyboard I spell my name Joerg (as did Alec) - which is a standard way to deal with umlauts. "Jorg", however, is misspelling it.

Comment posted by JM Colberg on November 7, 2008

"...there you have it, that is the story. It's not in the photographs and it's that, rather than any conversation about aesthetics, that needs to be addressed."

Yes Amy, I think that's exactly it.

The quotes are on "traditional aesthetic" because of connotations I did not want to invite: calling an aesthetic "traditional" implies that it has the property of belonging to a certain time--the past--and, at least in today's art world, that automatically produces an expectation of change. To say something is traditional is basically to say it's deficient, to condemn it. The best that is usually allowed is that the art may be great in spite of its being traditional.

I was thinking that, instead, an aesthetic does not meaningfully *belong* to any time, even as it is a product of a certain time (in the same sense that children, when they become adults, do not belong to their parents); hence "traditional" is in some ways misleading. It can suggest that the thing it describes is less apt for the present than it was for the past. This is exactly opposite the point I wanted to make: grainy b/w is useful today not simply despite its age, but without regard to it. It's useful now in the same sense as it was before; its aptness is independent of time. (I find it depressing to suggest, as from the other side, that advancement in art ought to be guided by a perpetual struggle to outpace our attention spans.) Ultimately it's indication, not aesthetic, that we should be looking at. Where the term "photographic language" might conflate indication and aesthetic (treating them, perhaps, as denotation and connotation, respectively), it does a disservice to the debate.

My friend Hin Chua made a brief list of what else JN might have photographed to tell the XDR-TB story, instead of focusing so heavily on end-stage sufferers. Maybe this list will help illustrate the point about indication:

********************
He could have chosen to photograph:

- Pharmaceutical labs and universities where research is taking place.
- The researchers, scientists, doctors and grad students who are working there.
- The organisations raising funds to combat said disease, the NGOs and
their staff (call centres, people out in the street collecting money,
administration staff).
- The donors to those NGOs (your average person on the street).
- The 'shipment trail' involved in getting these drugs and aid workers
transported from the developed world to the third world.
- The people on the ground in Africa (doctors and carers) fighting the disease.
- The non-suffering people being directly affected by the disease
(farms untended, orphans, widows and widowers, empty villages).
********************

Comment posted by James Hendrick on November 8, 2008

James, that's a convincing list, a convincing list of 'topics', A list of topics for a text-based news story..... but be sure James..... that is not a list of soul-changing images.

Considering the surface-only constraint of photography do you think you could harvest from that list of topics a compelling set of images? A set of self-describing images? A set of images unassisted by text and audio?

If so could you explain some of things we would see composed in these images that would make me sure that this 'was a' photo essay about the 'STRUGGLE' with XDR-TB and 'not' about poverty, or 'not' about any generic disease, or 'not' an invitation to join the peace corps or 'not' marketing material to apply to a university that would enlist you in a not-for-profit crusade?

of course i've seen Hin's list of topics before James...... i asked then, and i'll ask again now, please tell me more about these 'missed' shots.... tell me in movie-director fashion how these shots would be constructed, tell me how i would see the struggle, what features in them will move me.... and then and only then...we can all slap hi-fives for being 'so imaginative'.... do this or admit this is a problem of surface areas and the inability to show a soul-changing 'move the masses' photo essay with this pragmatic encyclopedia approach to an issue.

I hate nothing worse than to condemn someone's views without laying my own views on the line. My feeling is that if the objective is to create a set of images to ultimately educate the masses and ideally move them, you need a tickler to wake them up..... Art and Mood can attract attention, Parr has proven this to us.... the consumers of media.... the second and third quartile of the the population.... 'will' read this Newsweek story and 'will' be provoked to actually read the article.... Job Done!!

In my opinion, as i mentioned earlier, i'd like to have seen more mood and a bit more ambiguity.... exactly the opposite of this pragmatic encyclopedia approach you and Hin celebrate James... this is why i like the idea of Ballen or Parke making an even more haunting set of images..... everything else (e.g black and white, traditional, new-wave), in my opinion is just a bunch of mental masturbation confusing 'media' with 'message'...

this of course is my view and subject to being dismissed as easily as i dismiss this encyclopedia approach to create a soul-changing set of still images.
..

Comment posted by Joe on November 8, 2008

Joe, we've both made our points and I'm content to leave it at that. I don't think our going back and forth will add much here.

Comment posted by James Hendrick on November 8, 2008

Sorry Joerg.

Incidentally, I don't think I made this clear: I don't think James Nachtwey is particularly to blame, or lacking, for a story that didn't include the list of things James Hendrick mentioned. Or even for a story that didn't give the picture described by Mikhael Subotzky's mother. The things he photographed exist and presented with situations that horrific you would photograph them, anyone would, and expect those horrific scenes to have the most impact. Much more impact than a photo of a laboratory, researchers or non-suffering people.

But there is the problem. The inherent need for drama on the page (or screen) causes journalists to only represent the extremes. You end up with a one-dimensional picture of the world that's easy to ignore because it's populated by archetypes rather than people. It's particularly difficult because people at their real physical limit, as photographed here, can become somewhat depersonalised anyway, even to themselves.

The need for extremes is practical as editors and audience need a reason to choose one event over another to put on the page or give time to. To some extent it is an aesthetic decision, or at any rate has an aesthetic result : a description of traditional photojournalism would include extreme misery, poverty and death as part of the aesthetic as much as the grainy black and white, and any parody would include it. So disaster becomes a stylistic device and the aesthetic of photojournalism scuppers the story's impact.

Again I need to reiterate here - I'm not making a particular criticism of James Nachtwey or accusing him of using misery as a stylistic device, or accusing him of doing anything actually. I'm thinking about the effect. Joerg pointed out something important. His reaction is shared by many and I've been trying to figure out why, when James Nachtwey's pictures are great pictures by any normal standard. photojournalism is making so many of us verklempt (and not in a good way).

Comment posted by Amy de Wit on November 10, 2008

Sorry Joerg.

Incidentally, I don't think I made this clear: I don't think James Nachtwey is particularly to blame, or lacking, for a story that didn't include the list of things James Hendrick mentioned. Or even for a story that didn't give the picture described by Mikhael Subotzky's mother. The things he photographed exist and presented with situations that horrific you would photograph them, anyone would, and expect those horrific scenes to have the most impact. Much more impact than a photo of a laboratory, researchers or non-suffering people.

But there is the problem. The inherent need for drama on the page (or screen) causes journalists to only represent the extremes. You end up with a one-dimensional picture of the world that's easy to ignore because it's populated by archetypes rather than people. It's particularly difficult because people at their real physical limit, as photographed here, can become somewhat depersonalised anyway, even to themselves.

The need for extremes is practical as editors and audience need a reason to choose one event over another to put on the page or give time to. To some extent it is an aesthetic decision, or at any rate has an aesthetic result : a description of traditional photojournalism would include extreme misery, poverty and death as part of the aesthetic as much as the grainy black and white, and any parody would include it. So disaster becomes a stylistic device and the aesthetic of photojournalism scuppers the story's impact.

Again I need to reiterate here - I'm not making a particular criticism of James Nachtwey or accusing him of using misery as a stylistic device, or accusing him of doing anything actually. I'm thinking about the effect. Joerg pointed out something important. His reaction is shared by many and I've been trying to figure out why, when James Nachtwey's pictures are great pictures by any normal standard. photojournalism is making so many of us verklempt (and not in a good way).

Comment posted by Amy de Wit on November 10, 2008

Oh man, I always hit the button twice because I'm so impatient and then it comes up twice. I'm such a doofus.

Comment posted by Amy de Wit on November 10, 2008