Is photojournalism art?

<p>As part of my university course I am trying to find the an answer to what I thought would be a relatively easy question. Can the work of the photojournalist be considered as fine art?</p>

<p>Possibly... once you decide what fine art is.</p>

<p>Just look at the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson who called himself a 'photojournalist'. Also the other members of the Magnum Agency from its founding to today.</p>

<p>Go to their site and look at their work; you may have to create a login and password to get a good view.</p>

<p>Look at some of the photographers who have taken wartime 'combat' Pulitzers, including great Horst Faas who recently died. Consider the emotional impact of Nick Ut's napalmed girl.</p>

<p>Remember, however, that photojournalism is not confined to 'combat' photos or conflict photos. </p>

<p>At the same time, however, take a good look at the photographer James Nachtway's documentary film 'War Photographer' in which he #and his amazing photographs# were the subject, and some were of war and conflict; some were not.</p>

<p>Your judgment of course is what counts, and your opinion is one you must form, not us, and we can only help lead you to sources from which you can do basic research - to do more is asking us to do your work for you, of course, and to do that would be unfair to your learning process.</p>

<p>And besides, this is a great question and issue -- fun and interesting to research and write about with lots of interesting examples and some very 'not boring' research.</p>

<p>Plus there is really no wrong answer.</p>

<p>It's just your reasoning that counts, like the essay questions on State Bar Exams in which the answer is mostly irrelevant so long as you get there in an intellectually honest way you can explain and defend well.</p>

<p>Most photojournalism produces grist for the mill, but some soars is my personal view.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>PJ is not art per se. Some PJs, like HCB, are artists who happen to be PJs as well. A lot of the work has historical value and is desired by collectors, very little crosses over into the art world.</p>

<p>It is a collaborative craft like cinema that sometimes produces art. It is a graphic historical record that at some point may end up on wall or coffee table somewhere and - presto! Art. </p>

<p>Art is about impact, about the relationship of the piece to the viewer and to society.<br>

<br />Photojournalism is about content.</p>

<p>The two can certainly overlap, but they're two unrelated ways to talk about an image.</p>

<p>"Can the work of the photojournalist be considered as fine art?"</p>

<p>Can a bathroom fixture be considered a fountain?</p>

<p>It can be fine art especially if you stick it in a frame. However if it's digital capture then it's digital fine art to clarify the difference between photography and digital photography. </p>

<p>How'd we slip film/digital into this one? Actually, since this is supposedly Philosophy, <em>why'd</em> we slip it in?</p>

<p>Sometimes even scientific images, such as some taken through a microscope, transcend the observational scientific purpose and become art. While that can happen accidentally, that it becomes art is often the result of the photographer creating the image in his mind, in seeing and making compositions that are effective in the aesthetic sense.</p>

<p>The same thing can certainly happen in what we call photojournalism, which is essentially simply photographs of humanity within various contexts. The input or activity is less important than the output, the result. On the other hand, many who profess being involved in fine art produce images only they can apopreciate or cookie cutter examples (another half dome or aspens lined up like soldiers within an unsnspiring matrix, or the nth example of serpentining sand dunes) of the themes/approaches of more famous photograpghers/artists before them. In any field of photography, there are more who do not make art than those who do.</p>

<p>For those who accept or adhere to art being a communication (aesthetic or otherwise), photojournalism as a theme is no less blessed or disadvantaged than any other form of photography, something that has been recognised, in the 20th century at least, by art museum shows in many countries of the work of photojournalists/people photographers.</p>

<p>Much depends on the known intent of the photographer. Photographs occur by intent. And the intent of photojournalism is not usually the same intent as art. Much as a well-written news story is probably not literature.</p>

<p>I think art occurs when the artist declares it occurs. It is not a requirement to have further agreement or confirmation, in spite of that popular belief. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Maybe . . .</p>

<p><em>Art is about the photo. Photojournalism is about the people, place, or event. </em></p>

<p><em>Art transcends. Photojournalism grounds.</em></p>

<p>[These are not meant to be universally or always true and should be punctuated with question marks rather than exclamation points and, as others have said, there is a lot of overlap in the distinctions.]</p>

<p> </p>

<p><<<I think art occurs when the artist declares it occurs.><em>>> </em><strong>--m stephens</strong></p>

<p><em>"And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw that the light was good."</em> <strong>--Genesis</strong></p>

<p>Would that it were so easy.</p>

<p><em>"And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw that the light was good for f/8 @ 1/125th sec."</em> <strong>--Photo-Genesis</strong></p>

<p>Phil, at least on one thing I'm actually going to reply:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what I thought would be a relatively easy question</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not an easy question at all ;-)</p>

<p>Where does photojournalism become documentary? Where does it touch on portraiture, event photography? What is the definition, where are the borders, when is PJ still PJ, and when no more - and how would any of that exclude the possibility of being art?<br /> And then.... what is, and isn't, art?<br /> Maybe the reverse question is slightly easier though: why wouldn't it be considered art? What would be your reply to that question?</p>

<p>+1 Luis!</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p>Morris Weitz:</p>

<p><em>" . . . the very expansive, adventurous character of art, its ever-present changes and novel creations, makes it logically impossible to ensure any set of defining properties . . . "</em></p>

<p><em>" . . . if we try to find some common feature in all works of art -- clay pots, cathedrals, poems, musical operas, painting, and so on -- we will surely be frustrated and come up empty handed . . . "</em></p>

<p><em>" . . . what is special about art is precisely its ability to constantly change and adapt to new situations. By insisting on a fixed definition of art, we would only be trying to limit art, pinning it down and preventing its creative evolution . . . "</em></p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p>IMO, there are problems with all "theories" of art, including Weitz's, which is one among many reasons I had to experience more than the philosophical approach, and started playing the piano and taking pictures. I found out more about art in the doing. And it is still more than doing.</p>

<p>Certainly pinning it down to the intent or declaration of a creator would be an unfortunate limit, since many things that weren't intended to be art and weren't declared so by their creator are considered art.</p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p>My own "theory," were I ever to bother, might include some sort of public consideration (though I think some art is created in isolation . . . see, trouble already!), some level of agreement and expertise, some concept of craft, context, historical and cultural aspects as well as any criteria we may come up with for individual works. But it would not be left to the individual creator or viewer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ross b , Jun 07, 2012; 11:49 a.m.<br />It can be fine art especially if you stick it in a frame. However if it's digital capture then it's digital fine art to clarify the difference between photography and digital photography.</p>

<p>Fred G. , Jun 07, 2012; 12:04 p.m.<br />How'd we slip film/digital into this one? Actually, since this is supposedly Philosophy, why'd we slip it in?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if I can tie this all together? (I too wonder how film/digital slipped in, but there it is…)</p>

<p>Wasn't there once a thread in this forum asking whether documentary photography was art? This seems much the same ground. Well, so what? The seeds look the same, but you never know what fruit the tree will yield. I've wandered along many an interesting tangent thanks to threads like this one.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how we determine "fine art", or "the art world". Luis said little PS crosses over into the art world, that it's mostly a matter of historical value, or what is desired by collectors. I have very little first hand knowledge of the art world, so I can neither agree nor disagree. But I can say that I don't fully understand. Bresson is too special a case, I'd rather use someone like William Klein as an example. (Or is Klein's work documentary, not PS? Is documentary fine art? What isn't documentary? Never mind, my head hurts.)</p>

<p>http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/klein/klein_dance.jpg</p>

<p>If "Dance in Brooklyn" hangs in a museum between a Uelssmann and a Mapplethorpe, or appears in a museum at all, is it there for historical or aesthetic reasons? I enjoy Klein's work for both, but I think much of it can stand on its own aesthetically. What about Robert Frank? Is his work part of the art world? Or is there a hard line between photojournalism and documentary? But these are just labels, aren't they? Does it matter what labels or conditions a photo was taken under? I've seen vernacular images I would consider artistic. Isn't it ultimately the photograph itself that matters, not the initially intended audience or purpose?</p>

<p>As for differentiating digital from analog photography…isn't it time we got past that? On American Suburb X, I came across Minor White's 1957 review of William Klein's "New York".</p>

<p><a href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/01/william-klein-minor-white-review-of.html">http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/01/william-klein-minor-white-review-of.html</a></p>

<p>The afterword by the ASX editor applies just as well to many of the photographic prejudices that we encounter as it does to a final judgement on Klein's work. (It also echoes something Luis has said before in regard to our inability to recognize, right now, that which will be of significance in the future.)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Sometimes it is difficult to see the special until you get some distance down the road. For some, it is particularly difficult. It appears that Minor White fell into this trap, a trap of clinging to an aesthetic that is fading, shifting and losing ground. At the same time, he missed something that was coming and gaining speed. The 60′s & 70′s would mark a turning point and the Minor’s, Weston’s and Adam’s and their focus on the reverent and the spiritual, on the tonal qualities and the zone system, all of this would take a back seat to other, more energetic, tension-filled and exciting variations of this lovely and “vulgar” craft that is called photography."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, only if it was ISO 32 we were shooting with/at....</p>

<p>Remember, Sunny 16......</p>

<p>To paraphrase (or butcher) Kierkegaard: Photojournalism may be understood as art in retrospect, but the original intent must be for this moment.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How'd we slip film/digital into this one? Actually, since this is supposedly Philosophy, <em>why'd</em> we slip it in?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Your right. I was thinking if I were viewing fine art or considering purchasing fine art I would want to know the process used for capture and printing as well as the photographers name. Since photography and digital photography are not the same thing I would want to know what I am looking at. </p>

<p> However the basic question is can PJ be fine art and my answer is basically if you stick it in a frame and call it fine art then that is what it is. </p>

 

<p>What is PS? I said PJ.<br>

__________________________</p>

<p>The definitions are not quantized, with distinct edges. They are cloudy, with fuzzy edges. This is not to say they are useless, just not as discreetly compartmentalized as some would like. By the art world, I mean the recognized art institutions, galleries, museums, auctions, etc., which (edging towards the OOF horizon) is not to exclude what kids did in kindergarten today, Aunt Matilda with her watercolors on the easel in her garden, or the majority of stuff on PN.<br>

__________________________</p>

<p>Documentary work has an agenda, a cause, a vector to change or save something. By the time Klein and Frank got around to making their books, the world was saturated with pretty, cute, exotic and/or saccharine coffee table books. Theirs were different, and clearly not photo-journalistic, though both had done PJ (and fashion, editorial etc). Neither was out to change anything, but to show things (cities, in Klein's case, the USA in Frank's) as they saw them. Klein appropriated tropes from comic books of the day and deliberately defied photographic convention of the day. He was influenced by his time in Paris with Leger. Frank was immersed in the Beat culture of the day, knew many major artists, etc.<br>

____________________________________________________________</p>

<p>On the Documentary front, probably the clearest quote on the fog of demarcation between it and art comes from Walker Evans (whose literary background seems relevant to the thread that drifted into the nature of photo-communications):</p>

<p>From an interview with Alex Katz..."Documentary: That’s a sophisticated and misleading word. And not really clear… The term should be documentary style… You see, a document has use, whereas art is really useless. Therefore art is never a document, although <em>it can adopt</em> that style." - Walker Evans - Art in America, March-April 1971 , World History of Photography by Naomi Rosenblum , ISBN: 0789209462 , Page: 340" (italics mine).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Photojournalism may be understood as art in retrospect, but the original intent must be for this moment."</p>

<p>Daily photos. Yes, the moment/publication is of paramount importance.</p>

<p>However, with co-ops like Magnum, where there are several artists who often work on their own projects or very loose spec, the moment smears into long periods and there are artists on staff, complete with arts educations/credentials. </p>

<blockquote>What is PS? I said PJ.</blockquote>

<blockquote> </blockquote>

<p>You had to embarass me, didn't you? Damned if I know what PS is. </p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>I like (find amusing) the way some of the arguments go, firstly as near categoric dismissals of the possibility of PJ as being compatible with art creation (invoking some sort of qualifier like the "moment"; well, hell, guys, that is what photograophy is known to capture, whether or not it is construed/considered/invented/created beforehand and via multiple cerebral and physical aproaches or not), then gradually, the window opens and one recognizes, directly or indirectly that, well, yes, photojournalists have made art before, and no doubt will continue to do so.</p>

<p>PJ is quite a wide field. If the poster had thought of limiting his statements to that of the capture of a sport event like a Grand Prix race or the documentatiion of a ribbon cutting ceremony or a routine public speech then maybe the evidence would be quite strong that PJ rarely leads to art as its product. But that was not the premise of the OP. It might have been better stated as "Can photojournalism result in art" rather than "Is photojournalism art." Not all sculpting or painting is art, so why must one place the same condition on photojournalism or any other form of photography?</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - </strong>"...or the documentatiion of a ribbon cutting ceremony..."</p>

<p>If memory serves, Garry Winogrand made one hell of a ribbon-cutting photograph.</p>