The place of art in journalism

Hey- never posted here before, but I thought this was the best place

to open a discussion

 

I opened the paper today- The Guardian- and was confronted with a

photograph of a young boy wearing a Hamas headband, flames burning

behind him, his face set into a grim expression. It was wonderfully

composed- the angle was wide, the apeture small, the focus on his grey

eyes, and the flames in just the right place to give maximum aesthetic

appeal.

 

The trouble was that it rather unsettled me.

 

Some photographer had gone out and deliberately tried to capture

misery, fear and hatred on camera in it's most appealing fashion. It

was as if the subject matter was subordinate to the artistry involved

in taking the picture.

 

Is this journalism? Is this art? Is this ethical? Is this bullshit?

 

What are people's opinions on this? More and more I see this in papers

and on TV, and I often wonder if it is a good thing or not.

What's the alternative? Only hire photojournalists who don't understand composition? Maybe they should also be given faulty equipment which purposely under or overexposes so we don't get too good of a picture.

 

Images are neutral. Politics is what you do with them. If I were Hamas, I might get a copy of this and use it to recruit. If I were an Israeli, I might use it to justify a hard-line approach that's fighting an ideology and not just individuals. If I were a liberal activist, I'd use it to decry the effects of the situation on children.

<i>The trouble was that it rather unsettled me.</i>

<br><br>

Mission accomplished.

sensationalism sells....

>>Some photographer had gone out and deliberately tried to capture misery, fear and hatred on camera in it's most appealing fashion.<<

 

This is your assumption. Perhaps that moment in reality did have the misery, hatred and fear all wrapped up in one. And just maybe the photographer was smart/lucky/skilled enough to be able to nail the shot. The photographers job is to be there and capture just that essence. To convey it to a wider audience.

 

I've often heard this same issue taken with the photographs of Sebastio Salgado. I don't buy it. The photog is not out there with studio lamps and a hair and make up crew.

 

Fear, misery and hatred often seem strange bedfellows for peace, compassion and humanity - but I doubt it's really so strange a bedfellow. Given the history of humankind I'd say they're integral parts of the human experience.

 

If a photo captures that... so be it.

I don't see your point. Would it be acceptable if the photo had captured misery, fear and hatred in a non-artistic way? Do you object to the content, to the message the photo seems to carry, or to the fact that the photo is wonderfully composed?

Your gripe is not with the photographer but with the photo editor or art director. All the shooters do is shoot and transmit. They have nothing to do with what gets published.

Art and journalism (and politics) are not mutually exclusive else it

would be inhuman or atleast quite boring.

Gritty, grainy pictures of war became something of a cliché. Now that photojournalists all seem to be using auto-focus digitals, I expect we will see more color, no grain and a larger number of pictures such as you describe. There is an element of incongruity in such pictures as you noted. There is also some precedent going back to Vietnam, from which we got some very pretty pictures of napalm in use.

>>>Some photographer had gone out and deliberately tried to capture misery, fear and hatred on camera in it's most appealing fashion. It was as if the subject matter was subordinate to the artistry involved in taking the picture. Is this journalism? Is this art? Is this ethical? Is this bullshit?

 

James Nachtwey has done this all his life and I don't think he was ever bullsh*ting.

"Is this journalism? Is this art? Is this ethical? Is this bullshit? "

 

No, this is the business of selling newspapers. I find overly stylized news images disturbing myself but would expect Mike Connealy is correct. The competition of the marketplace will push image making in unforeseen directions--like everything else I suppose.

How about Parr's photos?

 

He's one of the few that takes ugly photos of ugly subjects But

they are still good imho atleast for a short sitting;O)

Nachtwey, Salgado, Weegee and other PJ's images are sold in photography "art" galleries. In the modern world, art and cultural artifacts (photojournalism, in this case) are often intertwined. If the photojournalist created an image that caught your attention, then he/she did their job. Why should the fact that they did it "artfull" and compelling manner be a bad thing? There's always been a dichotomy when connecting beauty to horrific situations. For example, Robert Polidori just did a photo essay on the recent California wild fires. Awful event...wonderful photos.

 

Perhaps more to your question is this. Does the artfullness of photography or reporting too deeply color the story? Can the skill of the "reporter" overwhelm the facts? IMO, I don't think so. If you ever get the chance, listen to the radio tapes of Edward R. Morrow reporting on the bombing of London during WWII. Through his brilliant skill/voice he created both chilling and compelling broadcasts. They were as captivating as good theater, but the events were real.

Seems we'd need to see the pic to really judge it.

What Grant said is why I have a problem with a lot of it- it's profit from the depiction of human misery. As simplistic a view as this is, the fact is it's a bottom line (no pun intended)that is inescapable.I think this aspect (nowadays more than ever before)far outshadows any good that strong, draw-attention-to-a-situation photographs can sometimes do. In order to get published, a awful lot of PJs must shoot in a style that the mass-media production line will publish.

Tom, that argument is horse pucky. It was horse pucky when first dreamed up and remains horse pucky today.

 

Profiting from the suffering of others is not in itself wrong. We all do it all the time, some more directly than others. The entire funeral industry, for example, profits from grief, yet the service it provides is valuable. Doctors profit from disease, yet the service they provide is valuable. Police officers, private security firms and alarm makers profit from crime, firefighters profit from disaster, and insurance companies profit from fear and insecurity.

 

If you argue that news photography profits from human misery, then you might want to consider where the true profits in reporting the news lie: in publishing newspapers, and in advertising within their pages. Yet I rarely hear arguments that it is immoral to report the news in print, to edit it, to publish it, or to sell SUVs and Coca Cola by placing ads next to it. And the car salesman whose living relies in part on ads placed in the paper, day after day, can be added to the list of people who profit from human misery.

 

The thing that distinguishes news photography from all these other things is that it makes the suffering explicitly visible, in a way that makes people uncomfortable. So they say it is wrong.

 

The only real argument against publishing these photos is that they distort the news in some way, which is what sensationalism is really all about -- playing up stories that sell papers while ignoring the important news.

 

In this case, as Ray intelligently points out, most of us haven't seen the paper so we can't address that question. However, the story is an important one.

While we're at it, you might want to check the photo credits on photos coming out of the Palestinian territories. You'll note that most of them carry Arabic names.

 

You might want to consider that in terms of bias. You might also want to consider that the reason those people are taking the pictures is that it's a lot cheaper for the wire services to hire local talent, and they can pay them much lower wages, usually while denying them any form of medical coverage. Don't assume the people taking the pictures are making all kinds of money, or are insensitive to the misery of the people they portray.

<p>Answers to your questions:

<br><br>

Is this journalism?- Yes, it certainly tells the story very effectively and evoked a reaction <i>The trouble was that it rather unsettled me.</i> I find too often now uninteresting photographs in newspapers, therefore I believe we need more images like the one you described.<br><br>

Is this art?- This all depends who you ask, and you will find many different opinions. You could ask this in the Philosophy of Photography and get many long and thoughtful responses (note to Hans- yes we know your opinion on photography as art).<br><br>

Is this ethical?- In my opinion yes, but again this is a matter of personal discretion. What is there to make this unethical?<br><br>

Is this bullshit?- No<br><br><br>

For my opinon: I believe the image you described was very sucessful, it envoked emotion and showed how the photographer chose to best represent the situation. As I have already said, I beleive that the photography in some of the media today is just horrible. I'd rather have an aesthetic image in my newspaper than a mundane one that shows no creative insight into the making of the photograph. I do not believe that the subject matter was subordinate to the artistry involved in making the picture. The photographer's intention was to portray the feelings of the young Palestinian and the cause he was fighting for, and made a photo which accuratly captured and portayed this. The fact that the image is aesthetically appealing does not mean the photographer compromised the subject matter for the sake of art.<br><br>

 

--Dominic</p>

I have several friends that shoot conflict/war (Chiappas, Afghanistan, East Timor). They cover various assignments for the bigger magazines or the wires(not staff though).

 

They were only making somewhere in the neighborhood of (HKD)$5K per day to shoot this kind of stuff - that's only about - USD$641.52 per day. Given that the average day rate here in Hong Kong for commercial photography is about HKD10K (USD$1,283)per day with expenses and film on top... they're making f*ck all to go what they go through to just to get their shots. Getting paid a half day rate to run the risk of getting disabled/maimed/kiled?!?!

 

guess what... I don't think these guys shooting conflict are after the profit.

 

Though - surprisingly (or not) not one of them cares. They realy feel deeply that there is an important story that needs to be told and they see it as their duty to shoot it. The fact that they're good photographers is secondary to what they see as their calling to expose a story they feel is not getting told the way they think it should. Granted this is only 2 guys out of the hundreds of PJ's that shoot this kind of stuff.. but I'd be willing to bet no one is doing it because they're getting rich.

it was a moment. it happened in seconds. just be glad he was

able to capture it. that it unsettled you - it troubled you - means it

served its purpose. was it journalism? you bet. at its best.

Maybe the "sensationalism sells" is so because we live in a world where there is huge proliferation of visual stimulation. The marketplace demands that to be successful, you have to provide images that will stand out from the other sea of images. It seems that in "mass" American journalism and particularly in TV reportage, the overiding need to quickly grab the attention, overides, the classical journalistic goal of informing. Just as most, inept reporters now ask somebody in almost every situtaion, "what were your emotions when you found your wife and family massacared..etc.", likewise, phtographs in the news seem to seek to apeal to that same level.

 

I do believe that the PJ's out in the world in the rough spots are really there to get the story, and really have an idea of what they believe needs to be seen. Unfortunately its the old editorial struggle, as the editors, with their agenda, decides what goes in the daily news. Even in magazine shoots where there is a little more lattitude to fill out a photo story, layers of people with ideas as to what it should be have more control than the photog. As an extreme example, look at the battles that Eugene Smith supposidly had with virtually everyone on his photo stories.

 

No, I want to the best photos one can take, but I don't like media types with agendas of manipulating emotions to garner interest for their purposes to control that imagry. But hey that's the world we live in now.

I haven't been able to get to a computer for a few days- sorry I haven't replied to any of this. I also haven't been able to track down the offending picture, but I have placed one below from Reuters which is almost as offensive. The boy pictured is on the Mekong delta, which as many of you may know is at risk from destruction by Chinese dams built up-river. He is going to lose everything he has.

 

But hey! Look how pretty that sunrise is! Isn't that just a great use silhouette?

 

I hope this clears up some ambiguity- what unsettled me about the picture was not that the execution brought home the horrific realities of war- it was the exact opposite. The photographer might as well have been taking a picture of a bowl of flowers, or a nude model. Instead there was a child in a Hamas headband. There was a callous and uncaring attitude towards the subject matter.

 

Compare that approach to the famous image of a naked child smeared with napalm distubs. Putting that photo besides most of the highly rated photos on this site makes it look quite badly composed and technically inept.

 

What it does offer, however, is an unmediated view of a terrible scene. To me, this is why it is good photojournalism. It does not arrange corpses in the background in an aesthetically pleasing manner. It does not bend the focal length so we can see more than we could with our own eyes. It does not pick out a teddy bear sitting burning in the rubble. It just gives it to us, warts and all.

 

Is this not what journalism should be? Not about 'conveying a message' but about taking a snapshot of what is there.

 

My two cents.

 

I accept the comments that perhaps there isn't an alternative, possibly by the very nature of what photography is, and good composition may be of great use a lot of the time.

 

I also take the point that it is the business of selling newspapers- the vast majority is highly editorialised these days, and if it wasn't, I imagine people wouldn't enjoy reading it so much. I can see that the editors greater sway over what is put in the paper than the photographer herself, so thanks for pointing that out.

 

As for Mr. Andrew Summerset's point: "Profiting from the suffering of others is not in itself wrong. We all do it all the time"

 

Uh... that sounds somewhat like the 'appeal to popularity' fallacy. The fact that 'we all do it all the time' does not necessarily mean that we *should* do it *at all*. Pragmatically, you possibly have a point, at least if you want to perpetuate the status quo- but I won't take issue with that here, because I don't think this is really the place to do it ;)

 

Anyway, thanks for all the responses, it's been enlightening<div></div>

<cite>

I have placed one below from Reuters which is almost as offensive. The boy pictured is on the Mekong delta, which as many of you may know is at risk from destruction by Chinese dams built up-river. He is going to lose everything he has.

<p>

But hey! Look how pretty that sunrise is! Isn't that just a great use silhouette? </cite>

 

<p>

 

Ed, I don't find the picture 'offensive' - not even in the context that it's from. What would you prefer? Some Vietnamese family writhing in anguish at the thought of their livelyhoods drying up as their way of life changes? Maybe there wasn't time. Maybe there wasn't a family willing to be shot. Maybe they aren't writhing in agony at the thought - but as many Asian cultures do - maybe they put on the 'save face' face and are going stoically on about their business the best they can. Realize that there are time/resource contstraints placed on the photographers/photo editors in situations like this - so maybe the shot you feel should be there simply didn't exist. So then what?

<p>

That is what can be so nuts about a war or a conflict situation. There are still beautiful sunsets, beautiful women, wonderful sunrises etc. All of which only serve to underscore the madness that is war.

<p>

FYI the 'napalm' shot your referring to is by the AP photographer Nick Ut taken in 1972 at Trang Bang, Vietnam. The young girl without clothes and hit with napalm is Kim Phuc.

<p>

For more info check

<a href="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0008/ng_intro.htm">here</a>

No, it's not an appeal to popularity. Nice try, though.

 

I pointed out that a large number of people do this all the time in the course of providing valuable services. News is also a service, and the people who are providing it aren't causing the suffering any more than a funeral director causes grief.

 

Nick Ut's picture of the girl running from the napalm attack was a grab shot made in action. You can't make a valid comparison of it to the shot you posted, which obviously is made under very different circumstances. Are you saying that news photographers should deliberately take bad photos, even when they have the opportunity to take good ones? Because good ones are somehow disrespectful or uncaring toward their subjects?

 

Your idea that this is somehow wrong rests on the assumption that the person shooting the photo doesn't care about his subject matter, which is frankly silly. Nick Ut's photo shows no sympathy for the girl hit by napalm, yet you think it is acceptable because it's a grab shot -- my suggestion would be, Ed, that before you start throwing around expressions like "appeal to popularity," you first heal your own non sequitur.

 

Your objection, if I may take the liberty, is that these photos fetishize their subjects. The event or person portrayed is turned into an art object rather than a document about the person. But then the debate has to begin to look at the audience. Capa's Falling Soldier is now an art object, and it shows no attention to composition.

 

And by the way, if you're going to do me the faux courtesy of addressing me as "Mr.," please follow up by spelling my name correctly.

Sorry Andrew, I didn't mean to offend with 'faux courtesy', it's just that I didn't think it proper to call you 'Andrew' as I didn't really know you and was uncertain as to the level of formality on this board. And I apologise for getting your name wrong; accidents happen even at the keyboard ;)

 

I was also under the impression that the naked girl running down the lane had been hit by napalm, so I hope I didn't confuse anybody by making referrence to another picture that I haven't seen. Thanks for information on who the author is, I'm not great with remembering names.

 

Right, that said, here comes the inevitable defence.

 

First, I still feel it may be an appeal to popularity although I think words may be failing us at this point. In my mind there is a difference between recieving compensation for providing a needed service and 'profitting from misery'. The first has no real moral component whilst, for me, the second implies some malign purpose. I would argue that someone taking a deliberately artistic picture of someone else's suffering just so they can sell it falls into the second category.

 

Thus, justifying one by the repetition of the other doesn't work, because the fact that it is morally wrong still remains. But I'm prepared to concede the point- all this could just be in my own head and not what you meant at all.

 

Secondly, I never suggested that PJs take 'bad shots', I was trying to suggest they take ones that are properly informative and relevant to the story. That should be the criteria for whether a picture works as a piece of photojournalism.

 

Calling these 'bad shots' because they aren't deliberately artistic is like calling a news article 'bad literature' because it doesn't read like a text by Oscar Wilde. Sometimes- and perhaps often- the two aims may coincide, but not always.

 

This is what I was trying to illustrate by posting the reuters picture- it has nothing to do with the subject matter it is covering and it is deliberately artistic. It's a good picture, and the PJ was probably right to take it when he had the chance, and as Lucas said it might have been all he could get; but as a piece of photojournalism it completely fails.

 

How quickly they are taken, or under what circumstances doesn't matter in the least. It's about having a proper attitude towards the subject matter driven by the desire to inform, and not publishing pictures that don't. Hell, it might be nothing, but it's certainly something to consider.

 

I hope this has cleared some things up- I've probably been a little clumsy with my language, as I am sure you are all a little more used to this type of debate than I am.