Alec Soth & work, no work

[jtk]

<p>There's a real world role and application for photojournalism. It's a subset of journalism and is taught along with digital media in journalism schools. "Street" is another concept entirely.</p>

<p>I love Magnum's work but it doesn't define photojournalism or even address the day-in/day-out role of photography in journalism.</p>

<p>Soth worked on location, indoors, relying on artificial light (strobe and fluorescent), on a newspaper assignment with two other journalists (audio and interview).</p>

<p>The team worked for a great newspaper and their important readership, not to feed the habitual expectations of photo critics.</p>

<p>The project had at least two editors. It didn't begin as a Soth project, was never intended to be Soth's, is not a mere photo essay. He would have created his own project, perhaps producing a book if that's what he wanted.</p>

<p>That someone here needed to drag in worries about prices paid in NY art auctions was only a way of diminishing Soth. The photographer didn't need the NY Times assignment, he evidently wanted it.</p>

<p>Not that it matters, but I'm not "enthusiastic" about Soth. I don't actually "like" a lot of his work. I've become more interested thanks to this article because he demonstrated what seem like new directions (for him) . As on this thread, the work goes against the expectations and "analysis" of coffee table photo book fanboys as demonstrated on this thread.</p>

<p>I'm surprised that anybody here needed to assert personal photographic/editorial wisdom superior to that of NY Times, while bragging about their personal failure even to view it more than superficially.</p>

<p>It's not "street," it's journalism: this Forum is the closest thing on Photo.net to journalism.</p>

<p>Soth isn't just (or even importantly) a "street photographer." He does a little, if labels are relevant. He's a studio photographer as well, and many/most of his photos are set pieces on location, often artificially lit.</p>

<p>Someone else said they "hated" this Forum and claimed they were leaving. Wasn't me.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Simon, I mistakenly inferred from your first response that your reading/viewing of the Soth article was like that of several others, who stated directly and proudly that they had viewed the work superficially (but in one case looked again). Some even bragged that they'd blown it off.</p>

<p>I posted the OT thinking that there might be some interest in the project as a whole, centered on a written assignment, augmented by interviews, audio recording, photography and interactive online design. It's not a Soth project, he simply illustrated it.</p>

<p>When others reduced this to a question of "art," coupling that with personal attack against me for defending (bad idea!) a multimedia piece wasn't surprising but I assumed more than one or two here would be positively interested.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>The thing is John, that you often come up with a photographer or a photographer's work, or a link - and which may very well be work worth pointing to, and thanks for that - to hang your own personal low opinions of others on, like the artworld, streetphotographers, critics, curators,...This becomes very transparent after a while, and annoying.<br /> I suspect that Alec Soth by the way is always looking for possibilities of making personal work too when on editorial assignments, and chooses the assignments as such.</p>

[frank_mcconnaughey1]

<p>So according to John if someone criticizes the NYT or its editors they're arrogant. How do you know this: "It didn't begin as a Soth project, was never intended to be Soth's."</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>"coffee table photo book fanboys." We were talking about photobooks. You're misrepresenting what people have said purposefully to put them down.<br /><br />Not everyone is a NYT fanboy like you. If someone dares to criticize the "important" editors and "important" readership of the NYT, you call them arrogant. You've stated multiple times in this thread that if it's in the NYT it's good by default. That's so pompous. Is that something like if you're richer than someone else or more powerful you know better than they do?</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p><a href="http://www.burnmagazine.org/in-the-spotlight/2011/04/big-al/">Interview</a> </p>