what documentary photographers do you admire?

Hi Guys!

I like Eugene Richards. He creates multilayered images which can be

read like poetry, with metaphorical symbols and codes. Very difficult

to do. Something about the honesty and humanity of the man, which

allows him to get exclusive access to his subjects. Sadly his work on

the Sept 11th atrocities wasn't up to standard.

I agree, his work on ER/Trauma and crack cocaine is really exceptional. I have no idea how he got the access he did, especially to the dealers and "lookouts" brandishing full-auto weapons.

<p>I'm partial to James Nachtwey.

"I'm partial to James Nachtwey." gotta love that war porn - on which note (though he works little at it these days) I am still in awe of Don McCullin.

 

As for others? If you are talking of still living/working - Sternfeld, Misrach, Peress, Towell, Lynne Cohen, Shore, Basilico

 

Of the past and gone - Atget and Evans

Lauren Greenfield and Abbas, for me, are the gold standard.

I too am think the work of Natcheway is exceptional - His work in Indonesia and the work in Chechnya are quite good. I am interested to find out more D. Kevin Gibson's missive about 'war porn'. How about it? Care to enlighten us as to how your arrive at that description? I am truly interested.

 

Anyhow - Sebastio Salgado is also impressive. Not only in the scope of his work but in his commitment to his work. And there is the work of just about anyone in 'Requiem' by Horst Faas and Tim Page - I dunno... it's definitley combat photography so I guess it could be 'documentary'as well.

A good read is this book:

 

Witness in Our Time: Working Lives of Documentary Photographers by Ken Light (Editor), Kerry Tremain (Introduction)

 

Reading through this is very inspiring. Though unfortunately it only has one image per photographer for the whole book. LOL. That's got to be design botch of the century for a book on documentary photographers!

 

But it does give a very interesting insight into the different approaches there are out there. Some of the characters are right out of Steinbeck. If you go to the Amazon Books website you can view pages out of the book - the 'contents' page will give you a good idea of who's in the book.

Philip Jones Griffiths' work on Vietnam. I can't decide whether it is opinionated or confident.

"I too am think the work of Nachtwey is exceptional - His work in Indonesia and the work in Chechnya are quite good. I am interested to find out more D. Kevin Gibson's missive about 'war porn'. How about it? Care to enlighten us as to how your arrive at that description? I am truly interested."

 

Nachtwey (along with others) consider themselves not really to be war photographers, but rather anti-war photographers. There seems to be a belief held that their (oft times horrific) photographs bear witness and will ultimately make a difference - change things. Yet there is little or no evidence that this ever happens. As someone once said - hoping that war photography will stop war is like hoping pornography will stop the abuse of women (which is in part where the phrase "war porn" comes form - though it has a simpler more visceral meaning. As nice and sincere a guy as Nachtwey might - he and has (often brave) compatriots are often addicted to this form of work. In many senses the "I hope it makes a difference" statement is in good part a justification for them to keep doing what they are driven and obsessed to do. They are doing it because they enjoy doing it, get paid to do what they enjoy and, in the end result, the pictures look great.

 

Which arrives at another strand of the "war porn" issue - these photographs printed beautifully and presented either on the gallery walls or in luscious big "coffee table" books. Art, decor, coffee table books... maybe the pictures show up first in Time or The Sunday Times or whatever - in between pieces on celebrity news, read over a morning coffee while we move on to the homes and lifestyles section or the business report. A little moment of mea culpa, self flagellation, our society is so terrible isn't it dear - then we move on.

 

In the end result they almost never change anything - but they certainly are beautifully photographed and look lovely on the gallery wall (btw Delahaye is the current master of this, now he has stated his wishes to be known as an artists rather than a photojournalist - and his photographs of Taliban dead are printed several feet wide and sell for high gallery prices...).

 

Call me cynical - I've been to war and experienced it first hand. None of the pictures I ever saw of it a) came close to the reality or b) changed any of it.

 

For a slightly softer approach would be the sentimental voyeurism that Salgado has been accused of:

 

"Of course his photographs are exploitative. Most good photojournalism is. As Cartier-Bresson once said: ''There is something appalling about photographing people. It is certainly some form of violation. So if sensitivity is lacking, there can be something barbaric about it.'' Mr. Salgado chooses to sentimentalize his subjects -- all those beautiful children staring back at us and smiling despite their horrific conditions -- to avoid seeming barbaric and to demonstrate his sensitivity toward them. He is conveying some essential faith in humanity, too; in that respect, his work is sentimental voyeurism and unabashedly manipulative (but not hectoring, which is important). And that is why people respond so strongly to it, for better and worse... Michael Kimerman (who ultimately tries, unsuccessfully, to debunk this)

 

Beautification of tragedy results in pictures that ultimately reinforce our passivity toward the experience they reveal..." Ingrid Sischy

The notion that Nachtwey et al produce a sort of "war porn" because their photos become art objects is essentially an assertion that some aspects of human experience are not proper subjects of art. That's where the whole argument falls down, no matter how many appeals to authority are dragged in as quotations. The same assertions can be made about almost any subject -- off to the art gallery we go, we look at the pictures, have a momentary reaction, and then leave.

 

To the original question, I could make a long list. Nachtwey, Salgado, Eugene Richards etc. are more or less canonized. I think it's more interesting to share non-canonical names. In that vein, I like Allard and Sam Abell from NG, Lauren Greenfield, Ami Vitale ... those are names that jump into my head, but the list changes often. Ed Burtynsky is also high on my list at the moment.

 

Among photographers from the past, I think Werner Bischof is underrated.

A good read to go along with this thread would be Susan Sontag's Regarding the Pain of Others in which she discusses the history of war photography and the way its images are received. She points out situations in which photographs that were intended to horrify and prevent war actually became the evidence for pursuing revenge. She also talks about the way in which images of war both energize a population and create apathy in that same population. And she talks about photographs like Tyler Hicks' documentary photos of the Northern Alliance troops shooting a Taliban soldier vs. say Jeff Wall's creation (i.e. art not documentary) depicting of the aftermath of an Taliban offensive in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion, and a number of others. I am not sure she is presenting a pro/con argument. Really I think she is just trying to figure out why we look and what happens when we do. Pretty interesting.

 

BTW, I like a book of Raymond Depardon's photos that I have, published by Hazan, titled Voyages, as well as just about anything by Koudelka.

While I am not sure I entirely agree with the 'war porn' concept it definitely merits some further reading. Thanks Kevin, I gotta say that was a very concise answer to my query for your viewpoint. As for the porn/abuse of women - war photography/war analogy.. It seems slightly(?) skewed. I guess if one were looking for evidence of change the reaction of the public to images of the Vietnam war would be a start in that direction. While I do believe there is a heavy adrenalin factor with that kind of work I don't think that takes anything away from any belief they might have that their shots can effect change.

 

The self flagellation bent is interesting but I'd like to think that people can move past that. Speaking for myself there are some images that have affected me quite strongly - it's driven me to find out more about an event - to dig deeper and really understand the issues that are so often glossed over in the 'media'. I'd like to believe one small way that changes thing is - the next time someone pops off some absolute uninformed nonsense I won't hesitate to inform (embarrass?) them with the facts of a situation/issue. Facts that I'd not have known unless I'd been driven to find out more facts by an image - a photograph. Generally people will have 'agreeable' or 'yeah that's what I was thinking' conversations and people sometimes just blindly agree with 'uninformed nonsense' for the sake of conversation flow... Being moved by images/photos to understand a situation better and then able to articulate and interject information/viewpoints/facts about a situation I believe helps to stop or dismantle stereo types so often reinforced in 'agreeable' conversation.

 

As for the 'beautification of tragedy' concept by Ingrid Sischy - I wonder what point that leaves things at then? Should documentary/combat photographers do away with good exposure and good composition to avoid 'beautifying' tragedy. How are people to be informed of the realities of war (as best they can without being victim to it or participating in it) without images?

 

This issue sure brings up lots of questions. I feel the library card reaching it limit very fast. lol.

 

Andrew Somerset, Jorn Ake your comments on this are very interesting and much appreciated. Definitely food for thought. Andrew thanks for the reminder about Susan Sontag's stuff.

"The notion that Nachtwey et al produce a sort of "war porn" because their

photos become art objects is essentially an assertion that some aspects of

human experience are not proper subjects of art."

 

 

You make two statements there - which say two very different things, though you try (incorrectly) to make them synonymous - nor is that quite what was said by Gibson.

It's not precisely what he said, but where did I claim it is? That is the common objection to Nachtwey, however, one which Kevin touched on: that his photos become art objects rather than documents about their subjects, and that this is somehow morally wrong.

 

While you apparently don't agree, that objection to Nachtwey's work does essentially assert that it is improper to make art out of suffering. And at that point the argument falls down.

 

It is valid, however, to argue that in becoming an art object, the photo ceases to be "about" its subject, or more concisely, the artistic aspects distract us from the subject. In this way, Nachtwey's work could be said to subvert his aim.

"It's not precisely what he said, but where did I claim it is? That is the common objection to Nachtwey, however, one which Kevin touched on: that his photos become art objects rather than documents about their subjects, and that this is somehow morally wrong."

 

Not at all - I guess what it is more about is the difference between documantary/photojournalism and art. Where is the crossover? Is there one? How grey is that area.

 

There is nothing wrong with art depicting suffering - indeed it has a long tradition. But is Nachtwey's works art? Is it legitimate to turn ts into art objects?

 

One simple issue (among many) is that documantary and photojournalism work generally has (one would hope) a certain sensitivity towards it's subjects. A sort of moral or social imperative (for without it, it certainly does become true porn - of the "dead photos of Diana" on the internet sort). Art, by comparison can have these, but requires neither. Art can (and quite often should) be removed from morals and moral or social ideologies - they just aren't necessarily an important part of the equation. So that is one, and only one, substantial difference.

I should add Kertesz and Sudek to my "admired" list

Crispin, I don't think we really disagree. As I said there are legitimate arguments, but the ones most commonly advanced, I see as invalid. Anyway, let's not suck the whole thread off topic.

Eugene Richards;

 

Bruce Davidson;

 

Nicholas Nixon;

 

Robert Adams;

 

Stephen Shore;

 

William Albert Allard;

 

Jodi Cobb;

 

Mary Ellen Mark;

 

David Allen Harvey;

 

Oxford Scientific Films;

 

James Nachtwey, Lauren Greenfield, Antonin Kratchovil, and the rest of the

photographers at the VII Photo Agency (viiphoto.com);

 

Vincent Laforet and Fred Conrad at the New York Times;

 

Robert Polidari

I will have to be partial to Eugene Richards, since I "discovered" him 2 months ago--after almost 40 years of obsessive reading about and doing photography--how I missed him is a mystery to me.

 

What amazes me about his pics (I have "Americans We") is not only their emotional poignancy but their visual impact. Salgado also does this. I think making gorgeous photos about deadly serious things does help the "cause" -whatever it happens to be- because people are more likely to pause and actually look at the events depicted. Sure, the folk who shell out $100+ for a coffee table book aren't out there working for Medecins Sans Frontieres or Amnesty International, but they are at least acknowledging awareness of issues. Maybe that's all you'll ever get out of some people.

 

Browsed through a large compendium of Nan Goldin's work at a bookstore last month; whereas I've always thought of her as a kind of Bohemian Snapshooter, I was amazed at the consistency of style in her images. So many of them are reminiscent of populist Italian religious art. It all seems so very Catholic. An interesting tack for a Jewish girl to take.

The best who's ever been was W. Eugene Smith.

I like Araki. <i>Tokyo Lucky Hole</i> is one of the most amazing documentary works ever compiled. Araki's sense of matching photographic style to subject is amazing. Unlike many photographs about the sex trade, it's both unglamorous and non-judgemental. <p>

 

I also like Christine Garcia Rodero, Ferdinando Scianna, Antonio Turok, Danny Lyons, Graciela Iturbide. And many more. But these stand out.

So, Crispin, I'd be interested in some expansion of:<br><br>

"<i>...Art can (and quite often should) be removed from morals and moral or social ideologies - they just aren't necessarily an important part of the equation...</i><br><br>I can get very irritated by facile moral judgments about something like Sally Mann's work, so I have some sympathy for the idea that moral assessments should not play any kind of significant role in evaluating the worth of an artist's work. On the other hand, when I look at something like Nachtwey's '93 pictures of the famine in Sudan, it seems impossible to avoid the moral issues. No one would contend that we should look only at the compositional elements of a man that is nothing but skin and bones crawling across the ground, would they? And, what of the place of "Art" in fascist societies? Spain has a monument to Franco built by slave labor that looks likely to prove an embarrassment to that country well into the next millenium. It seems to me that the bottom line determinant of what constitutes "Art" must have something to do with truth telling.

Mitch Epstein seems to be constantly overlooked, but he

produces some of the best color work you'll see anywhere.

Similarly Lise Sarfati, if she had testicles and an American

passport she'd be a household name. If you're looking for

intensity it doesn't get any stronger than Richard Billingham's

pictures of his family, his book Ray's a Laugh (pub. Scalo) is one

of the truly great photographic debuts.

This year I'm partial to Brassaï. And Milan Sklenar. Nothing particularly dramatic to his work, just a knack for gently humorous vignettes in various cities. I particularly like a series of photos in which a bottle of Labatts beer is always present somewhere, as if a unifying presence.

Reza and Trent Parke to add couple more here.

I was glad to see Mary Ellen Mark get a mention. Her method of operating - that of living among the people she photographs, in many cases, and, also in many cases, becoming very close to her subjects, truly gives her work a personal touch that seems to come through the photos.

 

Alan

W. Eugene Smith

Bruce Davidson

Gordon Parks

Salgado

 

p.s. Susan Sontag is a elitest boob. imo.