World Press Photo winner disagreements

[c_wyatt]

<p>Apologies if this has been brought up before, I couldn't find where it had as such, although this 'news' is from February. <br /><br />For those unfamiliar, World Press Photo is one of the biggest international photojournalism competitions/showcases, and has an exhibition which tours the world on a huge scale. <br /><br />Recently it came through my city, and I always head to it a few times. As usual, I liked and disliked some images, and was blown away by the quality of some. One I never really 'got' was the winner.<br /><br />A friend recently directed me to the comments attached to the New York Times article (with images) here: <a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/showcase-122/">http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/showcase-122/</a><br /><br />Which include statements like this:<br /><br /><em>The World Press Photo of the Year is stunning for its lack of content or any other journalistic values. The jury’s selection is yet another setback for a profession that is already in deep trouble. If that was the best of the best, they should have made no selection at all, and I’m hoping next year will bring a more professional group of jurors.<br /><br />“The photo shows the beginning of something, the beginning of a huge story,” jury chair Ayperi Karabuda Ecer said of the photo. Right. Well how about showing pictures of the story itself, and there were plenty of powerful images from the Iranian protests, if that was what they wanted to show.<br /><br />A fellow photographer said it was like seeing a photo of Paul Revere putting on his shoes before his midnight ride. There are those of us who still want to see the ride, not the”haunting and eerily prescient” prelude.</em><br /><br />The guy who wrote that is David Hume Kennerly, a Vietnam war photographer and Pulitzer-prize winning photojournalist. <br /><br />Another comment which caught my eye was this:<br /><br /><em>David Kennerly and Derek Hudson express well my astonishment (and I am a former magazine photo editor) of this choice for WPP Photo of the Year. Words are for expressing what already happened, might happen, could have happened. Photography is for expressing that 1/8th, 1/500th of a second slice of time in the form of a unique, powerful, dramatic, arresting “moment” that, informs the reader–when it works its unique magic– in a way that words can rarely duplicate. A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, not need a thousand words to supplement what it does not say. This choice disappoints completely.</em><br /><br />I have no problem with photos that 'break the mold' if you will, images which are not standard photojournalism fare. But at the same time, photojournalists and editors one the whole want images that get the reader/viewers attention, that tell a story, that say something words can't. For me, this shot doesn't do that. I agree it needs so much context added with text, that it seems to lose the point of being a photojournalism image at all. Other issues include that the focus, the people, are so small it would be even less effective in print. One thing to point out is that this image was entered as part of a series, the jurors plucked it out as the photo of the year.<br /><br />Interested in what others thought.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I find it hard to make a direct comparison - as I hadn't paid World Press Photo too much attention in the past as it always seemed to me pictures of people being shot, starving, being tortured, screaming with grief, rioting and so on - stunning and powerful pictures, but ultimately a bit predictable and straight in style. This year I went and looked at it properly and enjoyed it tremendously, most of the entries were much more subtle and interesting than I'd expected, and some amazing photography.</p>

<p>I was assuming that I just hadn't looked closely at it in previous years, but it sounds like maybe it's just changed.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>There are those of us who still want to see the ride, not the”haunting and eerily prescient” prelude.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me, I'd rather see the haunting and eerily prescient prelude. But for someone who specialises in taking pictures of people getting shot, being tortured, rioting etc. - 'the ride', I guess that would be a move in the wrong direction.<em> </em></p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>A jury can be wrong, trial wise or World Press Photo...maybe there was something going on beneath the seam sorta speak. None the less, people do have different background and taste. I bet you if you poll this very thread of, say, the five best photos within the said slide show, I'll bet you would get many different final selections, with none of them having the same final ranking... </p>

[drjoder]

<p>Those last two shots (16 and 17, Nature) were unbelievably great. (IMHO)</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>I agree with Simon, and the comment that caught my eye in this article was:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>“There is no big event going on,” she said, “but you still sense that there is something very particular and quite desperate in these lonely little people of the picture fighting something that you feel is much bigger. And we thought, as a jury, that it was very symbolic of how you can actually add layers to news and how you can view events differently from what we are used to.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a conscious decision to portray a hard news story in a different way I think this image succeeds. We dont need to see the falling glass actually hitting the floor. Sometimes a picture of the eerily beautiful calm that precedes the moment of impact and fragmentation can be far far more powerful because it shows what is about to be destroyed. And that can be far more moving. As in the best cinema, I think there is still a place in news for allowing us to use our imaginations.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I got no sense of eerily beautiful calm at all from the photo...I can understand it might be a subtle act of defiance for a Muslim woman to scream on the rooftop... But I only noticed it after my third or fourth viewing and I did use full screen...</p>

<p>It might be an awesome series but as a stand alone picture, there's not enough context to draw anything (no less emotion) for me except ???</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>I don't know if it just me but I've been to a few WPP shows now and all the top ones were something to do with war or conflict. It seems the judges just pick stuff that makes you feel uneasy. There were so many photos of people getting shot and stuff that it just got boring and nauseating. Its like they were chosen because they featured something that was immediately distressing to us. Kind of like taking a photo of a homeless guy on the street. Probably a third of the photos at the show featured some kind of gore or other violence. I think its overdone and its not interesting. I much preferred the more "mundane" stories like the nature ones and some of the political shots were enjoyable too. Is there a rule that says that a war related photo has to win?<br>

There was one shot of this swarm of birds which I thought was really fascinating. It was by far my favourite of the show.<br>

The winner was an interesting departure for me though. It was subdued and a nice enough picture. However I couldn't see the point of the picture without reading the description. I usually look at the picture and then read the description and with most of the photos you could read some sort of meaning from them but some, like the winner were just a pretty picture in the end. As a press photo, I think it failed because it didn't tell a story on its own.</p>

<p>I guess the reason it did win is because the judges thought it was good but I guess that just shows how different people have different views on things, like Leslie said.</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Well, I've lived for 59 years...saw lots of things in my life...colour TV, Neil Armstrong, went to Vietnam, fall of communism, the 60s music revolution, saw the death of all three Kennedy's, Martin Luther King....etc etc.<br>

All I can say is that each and every one of those photos sent a chill up my spine, and made me ask the question: How would it feel to have captured ANY of these images. What would I give now to turn back time and do that for a living. How good would that be people?</p>

 

[aran_watson]

<p>Hi, wanted to add my 3 cents. With the particulars of the winner, I have to agree with Leslie that outside of knowing the whole story being signaled to which specific moment in time this was, the image is nice, but really nothing special at all. I appreciate the conversation of moving beyond shock value images to something more closely proximate to a real lived experience, subtle or not. The sad fact is that war is very much a part of the human experience, and one that photography and filmmakers have played a special role in highlighting, I think mostly to useful effect. But I agree that when images are marketed for the most blood or anguish, it feels almost like a mockery of the real human experience. I don't mean to judge any photographer's attempt to portray an event their experiencing, but as an industry or community, subtlety is fading. With that said, this particular image doesn't do it for me, either way, and there were certainly many powerful images to choose from! Thanks for starting the thread, I find this useful to reflect on.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>To the poster; I wonder what does not get your attention in the chosen pic? Maybe that is Your problem. Have you ever been in such a situation as epicted? In the former east block? Dealing with corruption to get onto a plane you must take ... Addressed an assembly of Chinese apparatshicks and mentioned Tieneman Square in public without them realizing it, but everybody else did ... <br>

Or has your life so far been squeeky clean, removed from history in a way? That is what I hear from your objection to the choice. Sorry if i am wrong, my apologies then!</p>

<p>This is a stunning picture, not without danger for the portrayed women, nor for the shooter him/herself.</p>

<p>FATHOM that and you will understand the choice.</p>

<p>They all could all have landed, still can land in dungeons.</p>

<p>And that courage does not grab you? Too many CIA type flicks may have made you callous, dear poster. So sorry for that, I am.</p>

[aran_watson]

<p>Interesting perspective, Frank. I appreciate your passion and thoughtfulness. Yet you seem to postulate that anyone with a sense of history or comparable lived experience would immediately recognize the photo chosen as the best choice for this particular award. I disagree. The moment, from a human perspective, is a powerful own, and hopefully gives us all pause as human beings and social/political participants in our world. Likewise, we cannot as photographers take ourselves so righteously or to be beyond critique that any image of any said moment is beyond evaluation or conversation as to what and how it portrays something. It is an image, after all, not the equivalent of the moment itself. Critique is a bizarre and uncomfortable, yet I think necessary, element of our work and should never be overlooked. Including how best we might attempt to convey to someone who is/was not there the reality/impact/importance of something as it occurs. What are your thoughts?</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>Frank, I do not what to confuse the moment or events with the <em>image.</em> It's the image I don't think is powerful enough, not the moment depicted. Hence why others (including a Pulitzer winning war photographer mentioned in the first post) have issues with the choice.</p>

<p>I appreciate courage to achieve a shot - but that alone doesn't make a shot powerful. Also, from the World Press Photo choices, many needed exceptional courage on the part of the photographer, this one by no means stands out in that respect (likewise for the courage it depicts).</p>