Photo Journalism....non Art?

Eirebear

After reading the piece elven posted about Ansel Adams it raised a few thoughts for me that iv been grappling with for a while.

"photojournalists are non-art people" was the line that set me off, why is it that so many people in and around photography circles are so quick to write off the poor journalistic photographers?

is it because so many people are just as ready to write photography as a whole off when talking about art?
For me Art is something which brings out an emotion, or a feeling within me, something that makes me want to look at it again and again....and again.
Something that will leave a lasting impression on me.

How many people can say that the pictures of the young children escaping the Napalm bombings in Korea, dont have that effect on them?
You couldnt have set that photo up, its real, its factual, but it also has a message, as any good art should have.

Think of some of the pictures taken in and around ground zero after the september 11th attacks on the twin towers.
Sure some of the are just snaps of people running here there and everywhere, but there are also some photographers who planned their shots, used the lighting and the mayhem in order to portray the FEELING and get a MESSAGE accross about what was going on

So if there is a thought process in terms of the lighting, and the mood and the tone of a photograph, surely it becomes art?

Spyral

Yes but maybe she means the paparazi style 5 zillion pictures of a celeb no talent types stuff. (well there is talent in finding and stalking and so on )

Also photoshop annoys me, when someone goes OOOH thats a great photo but its been photoshopped to bits. Im not opposed to a bit of contrasting (but you could've shot bracketed shots anyway !) but the whole mental radical rechangin is really going into digital art not photography

//rant

elven

Uh oh. Can open, worms everywhere...

I fear this is going to require longer than then 12 minutes I currently have remaining at my desk - I shall reply later on

sineadw

Pfft.. its like saying journalistic writing is not writing. Ok, maybe the Star is not exactly Dickens but a good journalist is every bit the writer anyone else in print is. I was thinking of the Korean photo too, and those ones posted here last week from Iraq, and that Afghan girl from National Geo.. I've been blown away by work like that. How can one say an image like that's not art.

Its snobbery - this preconception of art in the still image. Again, pfft..

Eirebear

elven wrote:

Uh oh. Can open, worms everywhere...

I fear this is going to require longer than then 12 minutes I currently have remaining at my desk - I shall reply later on

Hmmm....have i just stepped in something?:cool:

In that case i shall await the abuse with baited breath!

mathias

"photojournalists are non-art people"

I Would definitely disagree with that ,

Have a look at this book , some incredible shots , I was given it for my last birthday , There is some truly stunning work in it

http://www.amazon.com/Great-LIFE-Photographers-Editors/dp/0821228927/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7687309-2581545?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177086450&sr=8-1

The preview on Amazon only shows the introduction , Almost the entire book is high quality full page shots.

elven

I remember being blown away by some press photography from the Guardian, a good few years back now. I think that it's a seriously amazing talent to be able to take graphically strong images that could stand on their own as purely visual entities, but also that they are pictures of significant events and manage to convey a sense of the drama as well.

Here's a few just from this week, that I think are excellent examples:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/2007/apr/20/2?lightbox=1

There are a lot of pictures that show a scene and not in a visually stimlating way, so it's just a visual recording of what happened and I think this is less about photography and more about being in the right place at the right time and being competent enough to produce a correct exposure of the scene in front of them... but that's possibly something others will disagree heartily with...

hot fuss

It seems to me that most people's opinions on what does or doesn't constitute art is often related to their own taste. People who are very into painting, might not even recognise photography in any shape as an art form. Fine Arts Photographers on the other hand look down on so called 'camera club' photography, street photography or photo journalism.

Photo Journalism is a very broad term anyway. Someone mention paparazzi and celeb photography. I wouldn't consider that to be an 'art', but serious photojournalism by the likes of Tom Stoddart or Robert Capa definitely should be recognised as an art form in my opinion.

Suppose it depends on people's definition of art really doesn't it?!!

Eirebear

elven wrote:

I remember being blown away by some press photography from the Guardian, a good few years back now. I think that it's a seriously amazing talent to be able to take graphically strong images that could stand on their own as purely visual entities, but also that they are pictures of significant events and manage to convey a sense of the drama as well.

Here's a few just from this week, that I think are excellent examples:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/2007/apr/20/2?lightbox=1

There are a lot of pictures that show a scene and not in a visually stimlating way, so it's just a visual recording of what happened and I think this is less about photography and more about being in the right place at the right time and being competent enough to produce a correct exposure of the scene in front of them... but that's possibly something others will disagree heartily with...

Is the problem actually with the newspapers then?
I do a bit of work with a local rag (and when i say rag i aint lying) and have submitted some fantastic shots to them, only for them to use the less interesting shots i give them instead.

the perfect example is sports, i cover quite a lot of football matches for them and the two main photos they want is of the respective teams.
Action shots are secondary to that, and depend on wether they need space filled.
I find this crazy, as i would rather pick up a photograph of two over weight sunday league football players going into a crunching 50-50 than a picture of 11 overweight sunday league players standing looking at me!

The explanation for this is simple, get as many local faces into the paper as possible, and then aunties grannies mums wifes dads cousins etc, will hopefully buy the paper to look at the picture.
fair enough, but surely anyone with any vision will know that outside of the immediate circles, noone gives a toss, whereas if the match report includes a picture of an 18 stoner horizontally flying through the air, then people will be far more interested?

Maybe a little bit of vision is whats missing from the press in general these days?

Morlar

The role of the war or news photographer is to expose correctly, focus correctly and capture bulk of the action in the frame (often while in dangerous situations). Thats not the same as an artist using his/her imagination and whatever tools are at their disposal to express an emotion/feeling or whatever.

Those 2 different kinds of photograpers fill a very different role - saying that what they do is different isnt downplaying the importance or value of either one.

For my money making the comparison (between celeb & war photographers) would be more disrespectful to a news or war photo-journanalist than saying that what they produce is a historical record and not art.

Eirebear

Morlar wrote:

The role of the war or news photographer is to expose correctly, focus correctly and capture bulk of the action in the frame (often while in dangerous situations). Thats not the same as an artist using his/her imagination and whatever tools are at their disposal to express an emotion/feeling or whatever.

Those 2 different kinds of photograpers fill a very different role - saying that what they do is different isnt downplaying the importance or value of either one.

For my money making the comparison (between celeb & war photographers) would be more disrespectful to a news or war photo-journanalist than saying that what they produce is a historical record and not art.

I think your over simplifying things here.
A good war photographer will get the shots that portray a real emotion in the viewer.
they will see the shots that get the message across and take them.

A shot of tanks rolling through the desert may look good, and would adequately portray tanks rolling through the desert.
But a shot of tanks rolling through the dessert, with a small village, or town on the horizon portrays the power of the people controlling those tanks, brings out emotions of fear for the people of the town on the horizon, and ALSO portrays tanks rolling accross the desert.

For me the human element makes it art. the ability to pull it off makes the photographer an artist.
I do agree however that the debate does hinge on your opinion of "what is art" as a whole though.

Fionn

i was going to respond to this but i don't have enough drink in me!!! and i'll forget later on

oh well :rolleyes:

Spyral

I think your over simplifying things here.
A good war photographer will get the shots that portray a real emotion in the viewer.
they will see the shots that get the message across and take them.

keyword : good

magicbastarder

sineadw wrote:

Pfft.. its like saying journalistic writing is not writing.

no, as previously pointed out by another poster, it's like saying that journalistic writing is not literature.
why does everyone around here assume that the opinion that something is not art is an immediate criticism?

Eirebear

Spyral wrote:

keyword : good

obviously theres been threads on this before i aopologise if it bores anyone,
i dont agree with this either though spyral.
A run of the mill sculptor, painter whatever can still legitimately call their work art cant they?

elven

I think there are a lot of people in 'arty circles' that like to make themselves look better by devaluing anything they don't like. That's where it's obvious that it's purely a matter of taste. And also it gets tangled up talking about this, whether you mean something is good, whether it's art, or whether it's good art... in any case there's only opinion and opinions can't be wrong, they aren't facts. Hmmm I read that somewhere recently I'll have to dig it up.

Personally I can see that I'm not saying something is art or not, I think what's in my mind when I make the distinction is whether it's creative or not, and unfortunately I have this old fashioned notion that I like things that are visually appealing.

I've noticed more and more the longer I do this stuff, that there are (very broadly) two kind of people: the first pays attention to the subject of the photo. The second cares about what the photo looks like as a series of marks on a piece of paper (or a monitor...) and doesn't necessarily care about the actual subject. I think people are too quick to argue their point before considering that they might be arguing against someone on the opposite side of that classification, sweeping as it is - and open to fence sitting but still, I think you'll find each person sways more to one side than the other and this heavily influences their opinions on photography.

Fajitas!

Eirebear wrote:

I think your over simplifying things here.
A good war photographer will get the shots that portray a real emotion in the viewer.
they will see the shots that get the message across and take them.

A shot of tanks rolling through the desert may look good, and would adequately portray tanks rolling through the desert.
But a shot of tanks rolling through the dessert, with a small village, or town on the horizon portrays the power of the people controlling those tanks, brings out emotions of fear for the people of the town on the horizon, and ALSO portrays tanks rolling accross the desert.

For me the human element makes it art. the ability to pull it off makes the photographer an artist.
I do agree however that the debate does hinge on your opinion of "what is art" as a whole though.

I completly disagree.

A war photographer/journalist should be aiming to stay away from bringing emotion like you mentioned above into the photograph, otherwise, isn't it just a form of propaganda? I mean, the tanks might not be attacking the town, but because of the composition, people think 'these tanks are attacking civilians'.

Chochese

I've had a very strong interest in photojurnalism for a long time now and I have to say I've never really seen it as being what most would call 'art'. I've always categorised it to being sort of a 'craft' as it's there to get a job done first and to be estethically pleasing second.

Like, when your local master craftsman makes some really beautiful furniture. Sure, it looks absolutely fantastic but you won't be seeing it in any sculpture museums anytime and at the end of the day you'll just be sitting in it! It's there to get a job done first and to be estethically pleasing second.

That's not to say it's not to be appreciated like a work of art though!

Fajitas!

elven wrote:

And also it gets tangled up talking about this, whether you mean something is good, whether it's art, or whether it's good art... in any case there's only opinion and opinions can't be wrong, they aren't facts.

Unless the artist sets out to create bad art...

Eirebear

Fajitas! wrote:

I completly disagree.

A war photographer/journalist should be aiming to stay away from bringing emotion like you mentioned above into the photograph, otherwise, isn't it just a form of propaganda? I mean, the tanks might not be attacking the town, but because of the composition, people think 'these tanks are attacking civilians'.

Is that because, like all art forms in general, in or out of context, it is open to interpretation by the viewer?
I suppose again its down to your interpretation of the what constitutes art in general rather than just forms of photography.

Fajitas!

No, it's because the journalists job is to record information, unbiased, to be seen by the public to make up their minds. Not for the photographer to use his/her sense of artistic creation to create scenarios that may not be 100% true, that will bias the publics opinion.

Eirebear

Fajitas! wrote:

No, it's because the journalists job is to record information, unbiased, to be seen by the public to make up their minds. Not for the photographer to use his/her sense of artistic creation to create scenarios that may not be 100% true, that will bias the publics opinion.

hehe, and newspapers wouldnt want to do that now would they?!?!:D

Nah i get what your saying, still not sure how much i agree, because no matter what you show people they will interpret it in their own way

Fajitas!

Well, it depends on the newspaper, but that should be up to the paper, and not the photographer!

Let the people make up their minds, and not the photographer though!

magicbastarder

to be pedantic, art=artifice. thus for a photojournalist to strivefor art would be a violation of the spirit of their role.

elven

I suppose its just a reflection of the media/journalism today though whether photography or writing that I think it used to be the case where it was completely impartial but if there's a particular story or issue in the papers, you will find that the papers will all pick a side and 'report' the news based on their position. It probably stems from wanting to be more exciting, than just straight reporting - you know, they always want it to be more shocking, to sell papers. Just a thought...