Photo journalism and personal bias

[jtk]

<p>Sticking with Beck for a moment longer...some here have bought totally into his act, pro and con, which is exactly what he wants.</p>

<p>His act is his money-maker, after all: responding strongly one way or another simply makes him richer (Limbaugh says the same thing about himself, and openly). Love Beck or hate him, it's cash in Paul Rand's pocket, along with Sarah P's and the GOP's (unless you actually think Tea Party isn't GOP).</p>

<p>As a performance artist, Beck would be a brilliant charmer or demon subject, depending on what the photographer's market wanted. I doubt many photographers could make him seem "normal" or catch him unaware. Ka-ching!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes. Some of us are less distanced than others. </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>What's the editor want? You're on his dime. If you want to play games, then you're not a real journalist, you're just another paid for entertainment or controversy commentator. </p>

[jtk]

<p>I don't think this has to do with "distancing" oneself from feelings/values, rather it's a matter of photographic integrity.</p>

<p>Intentionally making someone look good or bad according to non-photo values doesn't seem honest...though I'll cut a little slack for Newman/Krupp because I admire the rest of his portraiture so much ... and what he did to Krupp was so evocative. Lost integrity was evidently the price that cried out to be paid.</p>

<p>I admire the work of Robert Capa (another of Gary's Jews). That he didn't try to make the French army, retreating in humiliation from Vietnam, seem either good or evil showed the integrity most of us expect from photojournalists.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Sticking with Beck for a moment longer...some here have bought totally into his act, pro and con, which is exactly what he wants."</em></p>

<p>This was the distancing I was referring to. Remaining passionless. Nothing to do with photographic integrity, which makes sense only when applied to a photographic situation. </p>

<p>Intentionally making someone look a certain way is honest and doesn't automatically show a lack of integrity, especially if that's the way you feel and that's what you want to express and you are in a position to do just that. Some will judge you for it, but making a genuine photographic commitment overrides those kinds of judgments from others. Making photographs is not always pretty.</p>

[jtk]

<p>"Some will judge you for it.."</p>

<p>Yes. That judgement distinguishes propaganda from journalism.</p>

<p>If we're talking about advertising or some other type of photography that doesn't pose as journalism that judgement isn't necessarily appropriate. For example, we don't expect papparazi to tell us truth.</p>

<p>Carelessly engaging certain types of manipulators can do more harm than "good" if we imagine that we see through them by bringing the happy wonderfulness of <em>"the way you feel" </em>and <em>"what you want to express" </em>to the task. Narcissism isn't inherently a bad thing, but it can be a problem if one forgets that "the way you feel" and "what you want" doesn't reliably serve well, ethically or politically. We might also remember the distinction between "feel"/"want" and "intend"/"have-the-capability"</p>

<p>My perspective has partially to do with work experience involving literally crazy people...fascinating, deceitful, and genuinely evil...with a certain glitter in their eyes that may or may not warn one adequately to avoid their games.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Why assume carelessness or narcissism in self-expression? </p>

<p>Portraits, even journalistic ones, serve many tasks. The task of a portrait is not singular, nor is it pre-defined in the abstract. It is on the table when the photographer takes up his camera in the presence of his subject. The photographer will decide genuinely what goes into the task. A rule book will not determine how the picture is to be taken or not taken. If it were to be decided based on pre-defined rules, the camera might simply serve as a recording device. The rule book gives the photographer an out. Someone else would have determined what should or shouldn't be done.</p>

<p><em>Commitment</em> requires something else of me. I make the photographic judgments when I take the photograph. Others may have influence or sway, and they may judge what to use of my work and when to use it, but I don't become an arm of someone else's machine.</p>

<p>Journalistic integrity may mean objective detachment but it doesn't mean indifference. That can mean channeling one's feelings and ability to express, not dismissing or trying to deny them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Addition:</strong> Were I to pretend not to dislike Glenn Beck I would risk being disingenuous in making his portrait. By acknowledging my dislike, to myself, I have a greater chance of using that to create something I can commit to. It doesn't mean I will photograph my dislike, by any means. And even if I could, my dislike might well translate through photographically to something of greater significance than that dislike. I may say I photograph my feelings and I may say I photograph with them. And I photograph honestly. I won't objectify Beck by making him into a generic or abstractly-approached "photojournalistic" portrait. He's flesh, blood, and more than just lighting and props. I will use my dislike to dance with him.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>I will use my dislike to dance with him.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> A good way to think of it, Fred.<br>

I managed to work with some folks in the DOD agency I did not much admire as people. And a few I did not admire as professionals and we accomplished work together.<br>

I guess I may have cultivated a way of compartmentalizing things when I interacted with them. Now I have more freedom, (and as I wrote there is no editor behind me to pull strings,) I can do the dance thing. Or if I choose to, do the dance thing.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Could you,or better yet, would you, clear your mind of personal poltical or moral repugnance and just " do photography?" .</p>

<p>That's what it is about really that simple to undestand.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>I do understand and appreciate Fred's view, and referring to "narcissism" isn't as negative as it may appear. Narcissists are sometimes stellar..take Proust for example. "Narcissistic" is however an easily defined and standard way to describe the certainty that some "feel" about their way of relating to the world.</p>

<p>Narcissists revove most of their expressions online around the word "I", for example..that's pretty standard. Rastafarians are well aware of this dimension, so they avoid referring to themselves as "I," using "I-man" instead to refer to themselves as individuals. Authoritarian religious leaders (no names or titles here) are by self-definition ultimately narcissistic. So are "progressives," "tea party-ites," and self-satisfied conservatives.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><a href="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/214912/">Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase.</a></p>

[jtk]

<p>Does someone here actually know Mr. Beck? </p>

<p>I'm not into TV, have avoided cable, only see moments of GB sans sound at the gym. He evidently does have TV-watchers twitching to his beat, which would be interesting except for their two-note songs and the fact that yes, they do evidently waste life watching him.</p>

<p>Is it likely that Beck lovers/haters have the personal abilities to photograph him in ways he wouldn't approve, by which he wouldn't benefit? </p>

<p>Maybe make him seem addled or focused, shallow or deep, a hero or monster. What else is new? How about insight into his lonely soul (I'll bet he's an "artist!"). </p>

<p> </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>John's list is too short. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>To me, it's kind of awkward the list is quite US inspired. Most of the names mean nearly nothing to me. Add Berlusconi to the list, and I'd be back discussing. But I think the names are not what the thread was about anyway. So allow me to skip that part.</p>

<p>Gerry, I'm not sure whether you meant it as a question back when you quoted me on trying to be objective. If yes, apologies for not coming back earlier.<br>

Journalism does uphold this banner of objectivity, but the question is: do we believe in this objectiveness, and do we believe it is even possible? For me: no, and no. Pure objective would mean you can completely shut down your emotions and personal ideas, which already is a complicated thing to ask. Next you'd ask somebody to do something creative, while doing that... now that really seems to bite. And most news coverage is showing opinions, so whoever pays the bill for the photoshoot also has a say, which is not an strictly objective one either.<br>

The second question I asked in my first post piles on top of that. The "totally objective" photo would have no intent beyond showing a person. Like a photo in a passport. No more. No context, no implications, no external references that could be judgemental in any way, shape or form.<br>

Really a picture worth hiring a good photographer for?</p>

<p>So even when you would be able to shut down yourself nearly complete, I'm quite sure you would portray the person as something, as a somebody, giving the photo an intent. That could be a cliché look, confrontational or highly ironic. Any choice has its implications and will reveal it being more than just a portrait. The photo will pass a judgement.<br>

Unless it's the passport photo.</p>

[jtk]

<p>See Platonphoto.com, especially the CNN interview .... he avoids kneejerk responses to subjects....I doubt he'd impose anything on Beck or Berlusconi, would rather deliver his best as a particular kind of photographer...</p>

<p>Platon has talked about photographing from very low angles, even laying on floor and shooting up, specifically to avoid positioning himself as more important than they...he seems too humble to make judgement calls about celebrities who are, after all, fellow humans. You can see this in some of his New Yorker B&W work.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I sometimes like to get down on the floor to shoot. But sometimes it messes up my clothes. ;)))</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"The "totally objective" photo would have no intent beyond showing a person. Like a photo in a passport. No more. No context, no implications, no external references that could be judgemental in any way, shape or form."</em> - Wouter W.</p>

<p>"Total objectivity" has never been pretended-to by journalists. Journalism schools go to great lengths to crush that idea. It's a deceitful concept, like infallibility.</p>

<p>Journalists do mostly try to stay relatively neutral, within the ranges of human practicality and possibility. Editorial writers and papparazi aren't journalists. Videographers documenting the horrors on ships off Gaza couldn't avoid being used by one "side" or the other, but he/she did something photographically honorable...evidently did stay "neutral," didn't attempt to intrude her/his "feelings." The venues (Fox, Al Jazeera and the like) are another matter.</p>

<p>The "balanced" idea touted by cable TV was contrived specifically to dumb-down and hot-button-target the conveniently selected pre-digested "issues" they peddle...viewers are supposed to accept issues as left/right, conservative/liberal in order to inflame the marketing messages they are paid to deliver.</p>

<p>People who love or hate Beck (or Oprah, or LA Lakers) respond in their favorite ways and the marketers know who's been trained to respond which way (one or the other), and they win advertising $$ both ways.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>What John wrote. "Total objectivity" is a straw dog.</p>

<p>From the Urban Dictionary.</p>

<table id="entries">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td></td>

<td id="entry_626716" colspan="2">

In business, something (an idea, or plan, usually) set up to be knocked down. It's the dangerous philosophy of presenting one mediocre idea, so that the listener will make the choice of the better idea which follows.

It backfires with some frequency, as the listener (out of sheer perversity) will insist on the straw dog.

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I agree that "total objectivity" is a straw dog, though I don't think it was an intentional one asserted by Wouter.</p>

<p>I also think "he avoids kneejerk responses to subjects" is a straw dog. It suggests that others' personal responses to or feelings about Glen Beck or whoever is the subject of the portrait is dismissible as knee-jerk, as airy-fairy or media-imposed rather than considered. "Kneejerk" is a setup and an extreme when talking about personal responses to people.</p>

<p>I do agree that Platon's approach is objective. It's also very much about his photographic style rather than the person who's the subject of the portrait. While I may be shown the skin and surface of his people, information that shows me what the person looks like, I am not captivated enough to know something about them that's more significant than that. Platon's objectivity is a photographic style and that style becomes the subject. In that sense, I see it as I do fashion photography. The people themselves seem interchangeable. Platon tells me about Platon's shooting. I agree that Platon doesn't make his portraits about himself, he makes them to an almost exclusive extent about <em>his photographing</em>.</p>

<p>This is not as much about photojournalism as it may be about preference and taste: what compels you and what compels me. I will use my own feelings and relationship with my subjects to draw the viewer in, to get you, the viewer, to feel something or know something about the person's personality (or to want to feel something and know something), not just his/her looks and where he/she went on a certain day. I won't tell you what to feel about the person but I will put you in touch with the person. Platon puts me in touch with photography, not people.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>OK, choice of words was wrong. Total objectivity... let's replace it with neutrality, and most of my post stays content-wise as it was....I think it is a bit a waste to now rotate around a rather lousy word choice.<br>

I do agree with Fred's assessment on Platon.<br>

And Platon's photos do prove me wrong, though. The portraits to me look detached from the subject, and not very engaging. Too well made to be passport photos, but <em>emotionally</em>, to me, the same level. However, that's just my taste probably.</p>

 

[don_essedi]

<p>The Platon link is probably a Flash site, but I don't have Flash on this box so the pages are blank. I did an image search and I came across a portrait of his that was not captioned. After awhile I decided it might be a portrait of Putin. I'm not sure. Whoever it is supposed to be, it doesn't appear either "objective" or "neutral". Reminded me of whatisname's Krupp photo.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Nobody is ever "objective." Objectivity is a lie. Journalists have always been open about that, but people ignorant of journalism pretend it's an issue (due to TV's intentionally anti-journalistic "balanced news").</p>

<p>Platon's relationships to his subjects sometimes strike me as personal to the point of being awkward or crazed. I'm thinking of his New Yorker portraits during the Obama inauguration...they initially disturbed me but have slowly sunk in.</p>

<p>That some of Platon's work seems "detatched" may be eye-of-beholder, as some of his work is for me heartbreaking (New Yorker portraits of civil rights heros).</p>

<p>Maybe "detatched" mean un-manipulated in the eyes of some. I just saw Chekov's "Three Sisters" acted by a cast with strong, sometimes comic character actors. Loved it. Previously I'd seen it presented more "seriously" and it put me to sleep.</p>

<p>Platon's work seems erratic to me... some of his B&W was initially downright unattractive for me vs conventional B&W standards. I actively disliked that work at first, but of course "liking" someone's work is as meaningful as claiming it's "not engaging." Rewards may surface if we notice what's there before our egos bury them...that's been my experience.</p>

<p>Photographers do sometimes righteously believe they're accomplishing miracles...Fred, for example, says he will "put you in touch with the person." Perhaps that's not just a brag or figure of speech...he's a fine portraitist of a particular sort...</p>

<p>...still, I doubt someone as overtly hostile to Glenn Beck as Fred reports being is likely to do much "in touch" putting :-)</p>

<p>Don E, your admitted technical inability even to view the photos in question contrasts amusingly with your announcement that they are not something they were never intended to be (Platon doesn't claim to be "objective" or "neutral"). </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>John, I was not claiming anything about his photos, just the one I saw. And not about anything Platon may have said, but this discussion of "neutral" and "objective".</p>

[jtk]

<p>Don, the discussion has NOT been about "neutral" or "objective"...it's been about "personal bias" particularly in photography of celebrities. Several have defended what seems to me to be a desire to employ their bias against (or in favor of) subjects they may know only from daytime TV. </p>

<p>In defense of bias, some argue that it's OK because journalists fail to be "objective" ...despite the fact that they rarely claim to be...and they assert that non-propagandistic portraits are "neutral" "passport photos," evidently ignorant of many of Eisenstadt's.</p>