"video dominates, but the still photograph survives"
video dominates what, who?... ironically video really does dominate indeed but I think in much more perverted and mediocre terms than those intended here, and either way i don't see that as a valid comparison - still photograph survives what? still photograph does not survives, it flourishes and awaits new fields to be explored.
"(...) we were getting our visual understanding of what was going on on the world via (...)"
who's "we", really? and why "visual understanding", why not simply "understanding"?
interesting talk but the rabbit hole goes way deeper than that.
A few months ago, in a Multimedia Storytelling class I'm taking in college, I was asked to critique a multimedia project and interview the photographer. I chose Chris's Silicon Forest and used this interview in lieu of an actual interview (after failing to get a hold of Christopher through the New York office).
I contrasted Silicon Forest and his work in Lebanon and drew the conclusion that they were both valid as photojournalism (as much as he apparently loathes the term). My professors didn't buy my argument, which was that photography was inherently subjective and Christopher, being as transparent as he is in the interview above, puts him beyond reproach ethically.
I guess I feel that I would rather see (photo)journalism that is transparently subjective than (photo)journalism that claims impossible objectivity.
It seems that I'm in the minority though, as I received quite a backlash in class. Objectivity seems to be something only people in the journalism business buy, as no one I know that is not involved in journalism looks at news assuming that it is objective truth.
Maybe at one time they did, but I think that time is long gone.
I think there is a difference in being objective by not taking anyone's party as opposed to being objective by not looking at things biased in some kind of way.
The latter is not possible in my eyes. Even when I not take anyone's party I still see things the way I see them and that is perfectly subjective. As well by making photographs of things I see, I tell others what and how I saw it from my point of view. I do not try to match any other point of view, that is and only can be subjective.
it is a good interview - i would have been interested in a more expanded section upon the flickr generation, the importance of authorship and the dividing line between amateur and professional being clearer than ever - because i agree with chris..
chris - if you're here - any more to add to that branch of questioning?
i think the subjectivity of a photographer is a well established truth within photography in this day and age.. at least it is so to photographers and the very best photographers perhaps move beyond that truth..
they understand that what the edit from reality is their own perception, and may be realise that to educate themselves about the subject of the study - thereby educating their individual perspective - is the way to lend justice and clean ethics to what they photograph.
yes - we are all subjective animals and unable through our own failings as human beings to judge, vindicate or condemn, wholly through the simple act of photographing..
what we can do is report upon what we see.. and control the methods of delivery for that reporting.. because just photographing is not enough..
news agencies and papers who would promote themselves as objective, and who use our subjective visual mumblings, will edit what we show to fit a set of principles which might be at odds with our own beliefs..
so i guess we need to understand being subjective when photographing, because that is the nature of the beast, and careful upon syndication of our work.. because a responsible photographer can have their good work undone through insensitive syndication..
Nice interview - appreciate how candidly you addressed the subjectivity / editorial-dimension of photography.
While all papers go through the motions of trying to separate the 'editorial' page from the 'newsprint' pages, I believe the most powerful editorial statement of newspapers is actually represented in the photos that accompany the texts on the front page and page 3. My feeling is that editors at the world's major newspapers are generally much less concerned about editorializing with images than they are with text. Perhaps it is because presenting nuance in imagery is simply far more challenging than it is for text. Also, I believe it is because in most publications there is a priority to print the 'great' images (which by the way, I love to look at), even though these images may not be the most representative or even appropriate for the written piece.
funny that this kind of distinction still rankles....anyway, great to see your mug again chris :))))...anyone copy your talk in TO last year?...that would have made for some great vid too :))))....remember that dude asking you all those questions about your relationship to Chavev? ;)))))...
that guy (i forgot to tell you that night over beer) reminded me of the great Blake quote....one to which seems more could take heed of....
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."-blake...
I find the notion of being a photographer (full stop) just right - and I especially think Anderson's claim that photographers are not reporters but editorialist very helpful. (One might think of photography on analogy to the genre of writing now called 'creative non-fiction'.)
If we think of photography as a tool for communicating and as embedded in a system or web of communication in which a variety of people participate (contributing text, images and so forth) then the subjective/objective dichotomy begins to recede in importance. What will count as truth will (eventually) emerge as the intersection of all sorts of claims and testimonies and depictions and statements and not as the representation of some 'objective reality'.
Editorialists and reporters can both be photojournalists. No problem with that... But all the photographers are not photojournalists.
What's wrong with he title anyhow? Loaded? It's OK to be loaded once in a while...Has nothing to do with objectivity or subjectivitiy but it does have to do with your attitude towards the event and more importantly towards the people you photograph (respect, honesty).
Photojournalists are not supposed to cheat. Photographers can do whatever they want... They are not as accountable as photojournalists because their responability is not the same.
however, the same is true with the title "photojournalist." The word, and many who wear that title around their neck like an old school tie, is often used to suggest not only impartiality (an untruth) but also a moral higher ground. In other words, "im a journalist and because of this i am objective. therefore, my perspective is impartial and the versmilitude unquestionable." Some still benight themselves and often see the word "photographer" in a pejorative way. I've spent time around photographers who see their role, their importance as plus juste because of that. Incidentally, journalists also cheat. the problem with the description you offer is that the ethic is held to a title and not to the character of the person (Orwellian, as we know from 1984).
You are one of the most ethical photographers i know and yet this hope or this decision on your part to tie an ethic ('don't cheat') has often lead to the problem of perspective. Incidentally, I am a photographer and I don't cheat, i shoot what i see from the perspective of how i see and i am not a journalist. even when (long ago), i use to write for a newspaper, i still found this title (journalist) wearing.
The problem, and the reason for chris' insight, about objectivity vs. subjectivity is that the ethic you describe (don't cheat) presupposes an objectivity (subjectivity is the relm of deceit for many). That's why this whole distinction surfaced. the problem is that there are many many journlists who deceive: themselves, their subject and the audience, begining with their own self-deception: the failure to acknowledge the failability of their pespective.
I agree with you on one issue John. Journalist (be it photojournalist or writer) is simply a title, a construct by which we lable a job. the problem is when people, photographers and other wise, consider it within the real of defining a practice or rather definining a judgement on the nature of how one photographs and it's relationship to versmilitude: because that is at the center of the argument.
I'd ask you, what's wrong with being called a photographer (full stop)? ;)))))))...not loaded enough? ;))))
One last example. Last year i met an African family at the WPP show here in toronto. They were quite upset at seeing the images from their nation because they suggested that the journalists (both the writers and the photographers) had reduced them and their nation to a long line of tactless, hopeless, and utterly without-the-help-of-the-West lost nation. that the stint of colonialist mentality still existed, now only in the reporting of their nation: the perception of both the images and the western audience. So, how does on reconcile their perspective...
banish titles and ask questions about more fundamental issues:
why is it we value so much the image as truth, particularly in the realm of documentary work?...
These are good points, John, but I think you are mixing together several things that I am saying.
On the term "photojournalist": It's not that I loathe the term, as was suggested earlier. I feel uncomfortable with it personally, because part of the loaded meaning does not fit what it is that I do.
Editorialis/ Reporters: I do not suggest that all photojournalists are editorialists. I say that this is a better comparison for what I do, ME, Christopher Anderson. There are photojournalists that function as reporters. A wire service photographer certainly does. His or her role and conscious intent is different.
PJArtists: I do not say that all photographers are photojournalists or vice versa. I say that the distinction is mostly invalid. William Eggleston's pictures are not set up and are real documents of the world. By your criteria, wouldn't that sound something like a photojournalist? Bruce Davidson used a large format camera while making pictures of Harlem. Marc Power is making documentary pictures of Poland with what I assume is a huge view camera.
The problem with the word photojournalist (again, for me) is that it implies that one deals in facts (and only uses a 35mm camera). I do not believe facts exist, I only believe in truth, if we want to take it back to the philosophical fundamentals. on the other hand, the problem with the term "artist" in photography is that some people assume that this means that everything is contrived or created (the opposite of facts (which I don't believe exist anyway)). But I find the best art is able to communicate information to me. Perhaps not literal information, but certainly emotional information or understanding of ideas. This is what good photojournalism also does.
In other words, neither art nor photojournalism can deal in facts, but they can both deal in truth.
Ethics:now we are going to get to the open wound. Cheating? What does that mean? I assume that you are talking about setting pictures up or some variation of that (photoshop manipulation etc.) I agree with you 100%. However, where is the line? If I take pictures in B and W, doesn't that alter reality already? why is it okay to alter reality in some ways? And if I use a wide angle lens? My eye does not see in wide angle or telephoto. Isn't that a way to change reality? What if I vignette the edges like the current fashionable thing to do among the World Pressy photo crowd? Doesn't the fact that I make a choice of when and from what angle to press the shutter imply a controlling of reality? What about what I choose to exclude or include?
Now, I know that I am begging for some dogmatic replies. So before people start going after me for condemning black and white photography, let's create a dogma which will state all of the things a photographer would not be allowed to do in order to stay this side of truth and objectivity. And then let's agree to only submit photos to World Press contest that fit this dogma
1. obviously, no setting up pictures
2. no BW because the eye only sees in color
3. no wide angle/ telephoto
4. you're not allowed to bend your knees or look for a higher vantage point. only eye level because it is the most honest
5. no flash, or maybe ONLY flash, but not TTL
6. you are not allowed to look through the viewfinder because then that would mean choosing to include or exclude and "compose" the picture which is not subjective
7.you are not allowed to choose when you press the shutter, one must walk around with 50mm lens at eye level, color film, pressing the shutter at random in order to be objective. whatever happens to end up on the flash card would be the only pure, factual, honest and objective photojournalism.
Oh wait, I forgot, one's presence has already altered the reality. Still subjective!
So now we are back to the idea of the photographers' intent, code of ethics, responsibility etc, etc. How is this measured? Certainly, when that idiot photoshopped more smoke into the sky above Beirut he crossed the line? But what about the more subtle forms of lying: having an agenda, for instance? or, the desire to win a World Press (is there any other profession that likes to congratulate itself so much? do we need 5000 different photo awards?) which is an incentive for a photographer to exaggerate... the false dramatization of everything in life using both "false" moments (when the person looks sadder than they are) and heavy handed composition and retouching to give everything that ominous look. My stomach turns every year during contest season when I see the world reduced to a cliche that has more melodrama than a Ridley Scott film. The truth is that real life, even in moments of great tragedy, is often more banal and nuanced than what our profession makes it out to be.
So, I sound like a photographic nihilist. No, I am not! I do not believe in fact, but I believe wholeheartedly in truth...and honesty. And I believe that even the non photographer recognizes it when they see it. wether it be in slightly over exposed 8X10 view camera of people with blank stares on their faces or in grainy black and white with the sky burned in to look like storm clouds and all the people turned into silhouettes. You can just smell it when it is honest and when it is trying to be clever.
BTW, when I talk about over dramatized contest winners, I am not referring to a specific image (I liked Tim Hetherington's picture last year) and I am not showing solidarity with the Adam and Oliver article, which was, as someone else put it, like their photography: done well enough, but in the end not that interesting.
"the problem is that there are many many journlists who deceive: themselves, their subject and the audience, begining with their own self-deception: the failure to acknowledge the failability of their pespective."
I agree, many do deceive (hence indeed your African family at loss when confronted with the journalists' Africa)... But they shouldn't... Because of their accountability, because of the contract they have with their audience. Who is to blame? Themselves first, the "media system"? Does it really matter? A journalist/ editorialist is branded. He says: I am going to tell you what I see, or what I think, my way, and if you don't agree or if what I say or show you is dishonest, or if my ideas are propaganda, you can put me up against the wall (well maybe not that far...). That's exactly what accountability is there for: to have the person you photographed tell you "that's not how it is" and that he can reach you. And again: has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity. You can be honest when being subjective... No problemo... In fact that's probably the only way to be honest. And being accountable makes you vulnerable: annoying but rewarding because yes: you have to "acknowledge failability of perspective" once in a while... THAT is what journalism is about to me. It pushes you to dig further into your story because you are accountable. Because you have a contract. Believe me, where I live now, presenting some sort of reference backing your work is IMPORTANT. I am surrounded with journalists/ crooks. It doesn't make me important. It makes not selling crap important.
A photographer, the normal one (the one without free access to museums) doesn't have the same level of accountability. Doesn't make him superior or inferior. He is just not exactly the same. He can only be judged upon who he is as a person, but there, that's it. He is free. No contract. No limits. One doesn't agree with the guy? So what? Each one has his own opinion. You can't blame him if he sells crap. You can only trust the guy's story if you know him. Do you?
There is nothing wrong being called a photographer full stop... There is nothing wrong being called a photojournalist either... I always thought, and still do, that the rules with which I play the game when being a journalist clarify certain things. And I never felt they were a limitation.
More clarification:
I am not going after WP Photo specifically. And, I am not faulting anyone's ambition or desire to win an award. That is healthy and normal.
I am speaking more in terms of how the whole industry is geared to encourage the production of photographs that are exaggerated: the more dramatic or sensational a picture is, the more likely it is to be published and/or win an award. The incentive for the photographer to make increasingly dramatic pictures is pretty powerful. And this can eat at the integrity and truthfulness of photojournalism.
that's a fair and powerful argument, indeed. And i agree completely that the "contractual" obligation (by this I mean the same as you've described, the agreement (moral, sociological, documentary) we make as story tellers is critical, because unlike writers pers se (though, as a writer too, i can tell you that's also filled with conumdrums), we as photographers "use" the people and moments around us, or rather, without them we and our work is nothing, though their lives and their stories still exhist. And i agree, i too feel an obligation to "tell it like it is" in the idea of trying to share my experience and relationship to the moment, to the people i've photographed as a way of documenting this life, with the hope that if there is any talent in the work (and my "talent" is totally negligble) it is that the work might offer to another that all our lives, inelluctably are bound.
The "pressure" of obligation, I agree, forces us to understand that we are connected and that we have an obligation, an ethic, to understand that we are not separate but born of one another. I agree with the accountability part. On the flip side of the equation, it's what always troubles me with "fine art" work, the same way im troubled by many of the "journalistic" approach. Having to try to negotiate these two streams, it's been imperative to me (to stay sane and to feel that the work matters to those who have entrusted me to photograph them) to keep that responsibility front and center....
and the accountability issue is a critical one. one that depresses me profoundly (that's why i showed quest for land at the beginning of that lost projection project, to try and make people understand, other photographers undestand the importance of both your work, your ethic and more importantly the lives of the people in cambodia), 'cause not enough understand that...
so how to reconcile this?...
for me, it is with, again, the banishment of titles, and hope that the key lay in the discussion and the enactment of a practice that lay at the center of all we do the real and way too easily extinquished lives of all that we connect with...for we are nothing without that contact, each of us, photographer and non-photographer alike ....
it's a tough call....incidentally, the african family's oldest son is studying Journalism (ironciallly), to rid the perceptions of how he felt his family and place were depicted....he asked me at the end of the show, "how come there isn't a single african man laughing"...interesting observation from a 17 year old....
keep the dialogue up between you and chris: it is a wonderful and essential converation :)))
I simply meant that you loathed when the word was applied to you, not the word in general (and I may still be mistaken, I apologize). Thanks for jumping in.
Chris, a lot of assumptions on my behalf in your post...
I believe I clarified a few in the post which I was writing at the same time as yours.
The only thing I am saying, and I am repeating myself here, is that as a photojournalist you work (or are supposed to work) with certain values/ ethics and you go public with it right fom the start.
When you are a photographer you might work with the same values or principles but you don't necessarily tell people you do.
You can't blame a photographer for having an agenda. You could blame a photojournalist for having one...
This distinction, given todays context, the context of "western" or "civilised" media, may indeed seem invalid. But in other parts of the world, the ones which haven't reached the high level of self-destructive mediatic sophistication of the "West", that distinction might still be extremely relevant. I hope you agree on that. The press and journalists do have a watchdog role to play in places where human rights are threatened, where corruption is all over the place. You have to give your reader some kind of guarantee so that he can trust you.
35mm, large format, grain, B&W, verticals, out of focus, fisheye (yechh), opinion? I couldn't care less by which means you tell me the story. Tell me how the others are living... Without cheating...
"The truth is that real life, even in moments of great tragedy, is often more banal and nuanced than what our profession makes it out to be."
Exactly... And that is what I found out being a photojournalist. Dilemma, paradox? I can live with those. They make me reposition myself constantly when I am tempted to drift away.
Hey John, yes, we are on the same page. I was going to write more about how I agree with this posting, but it is 11 and my turn to feed the baby...and I have an early flight to Arizona tomorrow to put my objectivity to use at McCain's concession speech.
Reader comments (20)
"video dominates, but the still photograph survives"
video dominates what, who?... ironically video really does dominate indeed but I think in much more perverted and mediocre terms than those intended here, and either way i don't see that as a valid comparison - still photograph survives what? still photograph does not survives, it flourishes and awaits new fields to be explored.
"(...) we were getting our visual understanding of what was going on on the world via (...)"
who's "we", really? and why "visual understanding", why not simply "understanding"?
interesting talk but the rabbit hole goes way deeper than that.
Comment posted by tomé on November 1, 2008
Good to see this interview on the blog.
A few months ago, in a Multimedia Storytelling class I'm taking in college, I was asked to critique a multimedia project and interview the photographer. I chose Chris's Silicon Forest and used this interview in lieu of an actual interview (after failing to get a hold of Christopher through the New York office).
I contrasted Silicon Forest and his work in Lebanon and drew the conclusion that they were both valid as photojournalism (as much as he apparently loathes the term). My professors didn't buy my argument, which was that photography was inherently subjective and Christopher, being as transparent as he is in the interview above, puts him beyond reproach ethically.
I guess I feel that I would rather see (photo)journalism that is transparently subjective than (photo)journalism that claims impossible objectivity.
It seems that I'm in the minority though, as I received quite a backlash in class. Objectivity seems to be something only people in the journalism business buy, as no one I know that is not involved in journalism looks at news assuming that it is objective truth.
Maybe at one time they did, but I think that time is long gone.
Comment posted by Jared on November 2, 2008
I think there is a difference in being objective by not taking anyone's party as opposed to being objective by not looking at things biased in some kind of way.
The latter is not possible in my eyes. Even when I not take anyone's party I still see things the way I see them and that is perfectly subjective. As well by making photographs of things I see, I tell others what and how I saw it from my point of view. I do not try to match any other point of view, that is and only can be subjective.
The 'truth' as I see it if you will.
Comment posted by Ulrich on November 2, 2008
it is a good interview - i would have been interested in a more expanded section upon the flickr generation, the importance of authorship and the dividing line between amateur and professional being clearer than ever - because i agree with chris..
chris - if you're here - any more to add to that branch of questioning?
i think the subjectivity of a photographer is a well established truth within photography in this day and age.. at least it is so to photographers and the very best photographers perhaps move beyond that truth..
they understand that what the edit from reality is their own perception, and may be realise that to educate themselves about the subject of the study - thereby educating their individual perspective - is the way to lend justice and clean ethics to what they photograph.
yes - we are all subjective animals and unable through our own failings as human beings to judge, vindicate or condemn, wholly through the simple act of photographing..
what we can do is report upon what we see.. and control the methods of delivery for that reporting.. because just photographing is not enough..
news agencies and papers who would promote themselves as objective, and who use our subjective visual mumblings, will edit what we show to fit a set of principles which might be at odds with our own beliefs..
so i guess we need to understand being subjective when photographing, because that is the nature of the beast, and careful upon syndication of our work.. because a responsible photographer can have their good work undone through insensitive syndication..
Comment posted by david bowen on November 2, 2008
Nice interview - appreciate how candidly you addressed the subjectivity / editorial-dimension of photography.
While all papers go through the motions of trying to separate the 'editorial' page from the 'newsprint' pages, I believe the most powerful editorial statement of newspapers is actually represented in the photos that accompany the texts on the front page and page 3. My feeling is that editors at the world's major newspapers are generally much less concerned about editorializing with images than they are with text. Perhaps it is because presenting nuance in imagery is simply far more challenging than it is for text. Also, I believe it is because in most publications there is a priority to print the 'great' images (which by the way, I love to look at), even though these images may not be the most representative or even appropriate for the written piece.
Comment posted by stefan R on November 2, 2008
nice interview...CBC?....
funny that this kind of distinction still rankles....anyway, great to see your mug again chris :))))...anyone copy your talk in TO last year?...that would have made for some great vid too :))))....remember that dude asking you all those questions about your relationship to Chavev? ;)))))...
that guy (i forgot to tell you that night over beer) reminded me of the great Blake quote....one to which seems more could take heed of....
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."-blake...
hugs man, stay safe...
running
bob
Comment posted by Bob Black on November 2, 2008
I find the notion of being a photographer (full stop) just right - and I especially think Anderson's claim that photographers are not reporters but editorialist very helpful. (One might think of photography on analogy to the genre of writing now called 'creative non-fiction'.)
If we think of photography as a tool for communicating and as embedded in a system or web of communication in which a variety of people participate (contributing text, images and so forth) then the subjective/objective dichotomy begins to recede in importance. What will count as truth will (eventually) emerge as the intersection of all sorts of claims and testimonies and depictions and statements and not as the representation of some 'objective reality'.
Comment posted by JJ on November 2, 2008
Editorialists and reporters can both be photojournalists. No problem with that... But all the photographers are not photojournalists.
What's wrong with he title anyhow? Loaded? It's OK to be loaded once in a while...Has nothing to do with objectivity or subjectivitiy but it does have to do with your attitude towards the event and more importantly towards the people you photograph (respect, honesty).
Photojournalists are not supposed to cheat. Photographers can do whatever they want... They are not as accountable as photojournalists because their responability is not the same.
Comment posted by John Vink on November 2, 2008
thanks for the morning inspiration! to all comments made on this interview
have a great day of image seeing and making
carl warren
Comment posted by carl warren on November 3, 2008
John: :))
however, the same is true with the title "photojournalist." The word, and many who wear that title around their neck like an old school tie, is often used to suggest not only impartiality (an untruth) but also a moral higher ground. In other words, "im a journalist and because of this i am objective. therefore, my perspective is impartial and the versmilitude unquestionable." Some still benight themselves and often see the word "photographer" in a pejorative way. I've spent time around photographers who see their role, their importance as plus juste because of that. Incidentally, journalists also cheat. the problem with the description you offer is that the ethic is held to a title and not to the character of the person (Orwellian, as we know from 1984).
You are one of the most ethical photographers i know and yet this hope or this decision on your part to tie an ethic ('don't cheat') has often lead to the problem of perspective. Incidentally, I am a photographer and I don't cheat, i shoot what i see from the perspective of how i see and i am not a journalist. even when (long ago), i use to write for a newspaper, i still found this title (journalist) wearing.
The problem, and the reason for chris' insight, about objectivity vs. subjectivity is that the ethic you describe (don't cheat) presupposes an objectivity (subjectivity is the relm of deceit for many). That's why this whole distinction surfaced. the problem is that there are many many journlists who deceive: themselves, their subject and the audience, begining with their own self-deception: the failure to acknowledge the failability of their pespective.
I agree with you on one issue John. Journalist (be it photojournalist or writer) is simply a title, a construct by which we lable a job. the problem is when people, photographers and other wise, consider it within the real of defining a practice or rather definining a judgement on the nature of how one photographs and it's relationship to versmilitude: because that is at the center of the argument.
I'd ask you, what's wrong with being called a photographer (full stop)? ;)))))))...not loaded enough? ;))))
One last example. Last year i met an African family at the WPP show here in toronto. They were quite upset at seeing the images from their nation because they suggested that the journalists (both the writers and the photographers) had reduced them and their nation to a long line of tactless, hopeless, and utterly without-the-help-of-the-West lost nation. that the stint of colonialist mentality still existed, now only in the reporting of their nation: the perception of both the images and the western audience. So, how does on reconcile their perspective...
banish titles and ask questions about more fundamental issues:
why is it we value so much the image as truth, particularly in the realm of documentary work?...
cheers
bob
Comment posted by Bob Black on November 3, 2008
These are good points, John, but I think you are mixing together several things that I am saying.
On the term "photojournalist": It's not that I loathe the term, as was suggested earlier. I feel uncomfortable with it personally, because part of the loaded meaning does not fit what it is that I do.
Editorialis/ Reporters: I do not suggest that all photojournalists are editorialists. I say that this is a better comparison for what I do, ME, Christopher Anderson. There are photojournalists that function as reporters. A wire service photographer certainly does. His or her role and conscious intent is different.
PJArtists: I do not say that all photographers are photojournalists or vice versa. I say that the distinction is mostly invalid. William Eggleston's pictures are not set up and are real documents of the world. By your criteria, wouldn't that sound something like a photojournalist? Bruce Davidson used a large format camera while making pictures of Harlem. Marc Power is making documentary pictures of Poland with what I assume is a huge view camera.
The problem with the word photojournalist (again, for me) is that it implies that one deals in facts (and only uses a 35mm camera). I do not believe facts exist, I only believe in truth, if we want to take it back to the philosophical fundamentals. on the other hand, the problem with the term "artist" in photography is that some people assume that this means that everything is contrived or created (the opposite of facts (which I don't believe exist anyway)). But I find the best art is able to communicate information to me. Perhaps not literal information, but certainly emotional information or understanding of ideas. This is what good photojournalism also does.
In other words, neither art nor photojournalism can deal in facts, but they can both deal in truth.
Ethics:now we are going to get to the open wound. Cheating? What does that mean? I assume that you are talking about setting pictures up or some variation of that (photoshop manipulation etc.) I agree with you 100%. However, where is the line? If I take pictures in B and W, doesn't that alter reality already? why is it okay to alter reality in some ways? And if I use a wide angle lens? My eye does not see in wide angle or telephoto. Isn't that a way to change reality? What if I vignette the edges like the current fashionable thing to do among the World Pressy photo crowd? Doesn't the fact that I make a choice of when and from what angle to press the shutter imply a controlling of reality? What about what I choose to exclude or include?
Now, I know that I am begging for some dogmatic replies. So before people start going after me for condemning black and white photography, let's create a dogma which will state all of the things a photographer would not be allowed to do in order to stay this side of truth and objectivity. And then let's agree to only submit photos to World Press contest that fit this dogma
1. obviously, no setting up pictures
2. no BW because the eye only sees in color
3. no wide angle/ telephoto
4. you're not allowed to bend your knees or look for a higher vantage point. only eye level because it is the most honest
5. no flash, or maybe ONLY flash, but not TTL
6. you are not allowed to look through the viewfinder because then that would mean choosing to include or exclude and "compose" the picture which is not subjective
7.you are not allowed to choose when you press the shutter, one must walk around with 50mm lens at eye level, color film, pressing the shutter at random in order to be objective. whatever happens to end up on the flash card would be the only pure, factual, honest and objective photojournalism.
Oh wait, I forgot, one's presence has already altered the reality. Still subjective!
So now we are back to the idea of the photographers' intent, code of ethics, responsibility etc, etc. How is this measured? Certainly, when that idiot photoshopped more smoke into the sky above Beirut he crossed the line? But what about the more subtle forms of lying: having an agenda, for instance? or, the desire to win a World Press (is there any other profession that likes to congratulate itself so much? do we need 5000 different photo awards?) which is an incentive for a photographer to exaggerate... the false dramatization of everything in life using both "false" moments (when the person looks sadder than they are) and heavy handed composition and retouching to give everything that ominous look. My stomach turns every year during contest season when I see the world reduced to a cliche that has more melodrama than a Ridley Scott film. The truth is that real life, even in moments of great tragedy, is often more banal and nuanced than what our profession makes it out to be.
So, I sound like a photographic nihilist. No, I am not! I do not believe in fact, but I believe wholeheartedly in truth...and honesty. And I believe that even the non photographer recognizes it when they see it. wether it be in slightly over exposed 8X10 view camera of people with blank stares on their faces or in grainy black and white with the sky burned in to look like storm clouds and all the people turned into silhouettes. You can just smell it when it is honest and when it is trying to be clever.
Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on November 3, 2008
BTW, when I talk about over dramatized contest winners, I am not referring to a specific image (I liked Tim Hetherington's picture last year) and I am not showing solidarity with the Adam and Oliver article, which was, as someone else put it, like their photography: done well enough, but in the end not that interesting.
Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on November 3, 2008
Bob:
"the problem is that there are many many journlists who deceive: themselves, their subject and the audience, begining with their own self-deception: the failure to acknowledge the failability of their pespective."
I agree, many do deceive (hence indeed your African family at loss when confronted with the journalists' Africa)... But they shouldn't... Because of their accountability, because of the contract they have with their audience. Who is to blame? Themselves first, the "media system"? Does it really matter? A journalist/ editorialist is branded. He says: I am going to tell you what I see, or what I think, my way, and if you don't agree or if what I say or show you is dishonest, or if my ideas are propaganda, you can put me up against the wall (well maybe not that far...). That's exactly what accountability is there for: to have the person you photographed tell you "that's not how it is" and that he can reach you. And again: has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity. You can be honest when being subjective... No problemo... In fact that's probably the only way to be honest. And being accountable makes you vulnerable: annoying but rewarding because yes: you have to "acknowledge failability of perspective" once in a while... THAT is what journalism is about to me. It pushes you to dig further into your story because you are accountable. Because you have a contract. Believe me, where I live now, presenting some sort of reference backing your work is IMPORTANT. I am surrounded with journalists/ crooks. It doesn't make me important. It makes not selling crap important.
A photographer, the normal one (the one without free access to museums) doesn't have the same level of accountability. Doesn't make him superior or inferior. He is just not exactly the same. He can only be judged upon who he is as a person, but there, that's it. He is free. No contract. No limits. One doesn't agree with the guy? So what? Each one has his own opinion. You can't blame him if he sells crap. You can only trust the guy's story if you know him. Do you?
There is nothing wrong being called a photographer full stop... There is nothing wrong being called a photojournalist either... I always thought, and still do, that the rules with which I play the game when being a journalist clarify certain things. And I never felt they were a limitation.
Cheers
John
Comment posted by John Vink on November 3, 2008
Chris our posts crossed. Will try and answer tomorrow.
Tired now...
Comment posted by John Vink on November 3, 2008
More clarification:
I am not going after WP Photo specifically. And, I am not faulting anyone's ambition or desire to win an award. That is healthy and normal.
I am speaking more in terms of how the whole industry is geared to encourage the production of photographs that are exaggerated: the more dramatic or sensational a picture is, the more likely it is to be published and/or win an award. The incentive for the photographer to make increasingly dramatic pictures is pretty powerful. And this can eat at the integrity and truthfulness of photojournalism.
Comment posted by Christopher Anderson on November 3, 2008
John :))
that's a fair and powerful argument, indeed. And i agree completely that the "contractual" obligation (by this I mean the same as you've described, the agreement (moral, sociological, documentary) we make as story tellers is critical, because unlike writers pers se (though, as a writer too, i can tell you that's also filled with conumdrums), we as photographers "use" the people and moments around us, or rather, without them we and our work is nothing, though their lives and their stories still exhist. And i agree, i too feel an obligation to "tell it like it is" in the idea of trying to share my experience and relationship to the moment, to the people i've photographed as a way of documenting this life, with the hope that if there is any talent in the work (and my "talent" is totally negligble) it is that the work might offer to another that all our lives, inelluctably are bound.
The "pressure" of obligation, I agree, forces us to understand that we are connected and that we have an obligation, an ethic, to understand that we are not separate but born of one another. I agree with the accountability part. On the flip side of the equation, it's what always troubles me with "fine art" work, the same way im troubled by many of the "journalistic" approach. Having to try to negotiate these two streams, it's been imperative to me (to stay sane and to feel that the work matters to those who have entrusted me to photograph them) to keep that responsibility front and center....
and the accountability issue is a critical one. one that depresses me profoundly (that's why i showed quest for land at the beginning of that lost projection project, to try and make people understand, other photographers undestand the importance of both your work, your ethic and more importantly the lives of the people in cambodia), 'cause not enough understand that...
so how to reconcile this?...
for me, it is with, again, the banishment of titles, and hope that the key lay in the discussion and the enactment of a practice that lay at the center of all we do the real and way too easily extinquished lives of all that we connect with...for we are nothing without that contact, each of us, photographer and non-photographer alike ....
it's a tough call....incidentally, the african family's oldest son is studying Journalism (ironciallly), to rid the perceptions of how he felt his family and place were depicted....he asked me at the end of the show, "how come there isn't a single african man laughing"...interesting observation from a 17 year old....
keep the dialogue up between you and chris: it is a wonderful and essential converation :)))
cheers
running too
bob
Comment posted by Bob Black on November 3, 2008
To clarify:
I simply meant that you loathed when the word was applied to you, not the word in general (and I may still be mistaken, I apologize). Thanks for jumping in.
Jared
Comment posted by Jared on November 3, 2008
Chris, a lot of assumptions on my behalf in your post...
I believe I clarified a few in the post which I was writing at the same time as yours.
The only thing I am saying, and I am repeating myself here, is that as a photojournalist you work (or are supposed to work) with certain values/ ethics and you go public with it right fom the start.
When you are a photographer you might work with the same values or principles but you don't necessarily tell people you do.
You can't blame a photographer for having an agenda. You could blame a photojournalist for having one...
This distinction, given todays context, the context of "western" or "civilised" media, may indeed seem invalid. But in other parts of the world, the ones which haven't reached the high level of self-destructive mediatic sophistication of the "West", that distinction might still be extremely relevant. I hope you agree on that. The press and journalists do have a watchdog role to play in places where human rights are threatened, where corruption is all over the place. You have to give your reader some kind of guarantee so that he can trust you.
35mm, large format, grain, B&W, verticals, out of focus, fisheye (yechh), opinion? I couldn't care less by which means you tell me the story. Tell me how the others are living... Without cheating...
"The truth is that real life, even in moments of great tragedy, is often more banal and nuanced than what our profession makes it out to be."
Exactly... And that is what I found out being a photojournalist. Dilemma, paradox? I can live with those. They make me reposition myself constantly when I am tempted to drift away.
Comment posted by John Vink on November 3, 2008
Hey John, yes, we are on the same page. I was going to write more about how I agree with this posting, but it is 11 and my turn to feed the baby...and I have an early flight to Arizona tomorrow to put my objectivity to use at McCain's concession speech.
Comment posted by christopher Anderson on November 3, 2008
Good luck with that.... (I don't mean feeding the baby...)
Comment posted by John Vink on November 3, 2008