The place of art in journalism

[andrew_somerset1]

Ed, the reason I say it's not an appeal to popularity is that news is a valuable service. The common denominator of all the jobs I listed was that they are providing services that people need, and for this reason people don't see them as vultures.

 

Journalists, on the other hand, are seen as vultures. To a certain extent this is justified -- since (I take it from the fact you're reading the Guardian) you're in the UK, you're insulated from the worst news coverage in the world, which is local TV news in the US. Their constant barrage of consumer exposés, investigative pieces about nothing of importance, and general panic-mongering has pretty much trashed public goodwill toward journalists in that country.

 

But that's not valid for all. Without wanting to sound like a first-year journalism student, without news a democracy can't function. So rather than viewing it as a case of someone taking pictures of the suffering of others just so they can sell them, I view that person as part of a system that provides that service. And there is nothing wrong with profiting from doing so -- although there is, perhaps, if you degrade the value of the service by publishing garbage.

 

The point needs to be reiterated that, although public ire is always directed at the hapless photographer, the real profits belong to people much farther up the chain, and ultimately to the advertisers. The fact that the photographer (or reporter) always ends up being criticized for making money therefore strikes me as a case of shooting the messenger.

 

If this really is about filthy lucre, then we have to ask if the compensation a brain surgeon receives for his work is "fair" or not, and ask if perhaps his relatively high wages might be viewed as extortion. And what about profits in the pharmaceutical industry? If we actually start thinking about profiting from others' misfortune, we get into a quagmire. It is obviously not as simple as it looks.

 

But I don't think this really is about profiting from others' misfortune. It's about whether the photo deals with its subject or is created purely as an art object.

 

The Reuters shot you posted doesn't, to me, have much value as a news photo -- it is really a feature photo shot on location and included with a news story, and wouldn't be the best illustration for the story. The photo you originally described, though, sounds (because we can't see it) as if it effectively conveys the state of mind of Palestinian militants following the assassination of their military leader. So I would suggest that it may be as much about its subject as anything else.

[mg]

"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."

<p>

Very interesting statement.

<p>

Does beauty or aesthetics mean lack of authenticity, in fact ? Or is that a pre-conceived or acquired notion...? And could there be beauty in suffering...? I personally think so. I'd say there is dignity in suffering and that dignity *is* beautiful. (Please take this as a general statement, since I haven't seen the picture you are refering to.)

<p>

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

<p>

I don't think it's BS. Unless proven otherwise, I don't see anything unethical to portray for example the dignity in sufering in a beautiful manner. Nor do I find it unethical to simply portray beauty in an environment that suggests awful suffering. I'd rather say that this kind of photography is extremely powerful, precisely because it opposed good and bad, beauty and horror - and that's what the world is made of.

<p>

Now is that journalism or art ?

<p>

Why do we need to pick ? Can't it be both ? If the aesthetics lead the content somewhere, and if you end up with an image that raises much larger questions in your mind beyond the scene depicted, then I'd call it artistic photo-journalism - and to me, that's what great photo-journalism is all about (again, generally speaking). Regards.

[mg]

To me, it is by no means, without context, a depiction of misery. It is not, imo, a highly aesthetical picture either, nor is it art. It may be a journalistic image, but I can't even tell that without context: as it is, it tells me no story at all. I'd say it's a not so well composed postcard-like photo, and pretty much an "empty" photo. If other photos in the same article or the words used as a caption make this an emblem of something more significant, then I'd perhaps start to wonder whether or not to call it BS**t...:-)

[mg]

While there are of course number of photo-journalists who do just that, I believe many others are not doing so - at all.

<p>

I believe some photo-journalists have a genuine concern, interest, and even a genine love for suffering and for the dignity that comes with about any efort for survival. At least it was always my case when I was a photo-journalist. And as a foot-note, I have SPENT a lot more money to meet and photograph people who were suffering (or not), than I have ever earned with the resulting photographs. The point for me was never to EARN, but to LEARN - to learn how to understand human beings who are faced with difficult conditions, or simply who live a life that is very different from my own.

[edgreene]

Why do people ask about "Art" when the topic rightfully is "<i>Photojournalism,</i>" Photojournalists and image capturing ethics? I spent 37 years in newspapers, more than half of it as a PJ. I cannot think of one assignment where I made or tried to make "artistic" shots. <br>On every assignment I did search for the shots that best illustrated the story I was assigned to cover. No "art" there, especially when you're literally up to your butt in alligators.<bR>"Pro" PJs have the fantastic ability to stay on task whereas a non-pro or amateur might be distracted by a pretty woman or flower. "Pro" PJs can zero in, and like athletes, <i>"get in the zone"</i> so to speak. <br>No "artistry" or aesthetics� are involved when the PJ has to balance two pro sized SLR rigs w/flash, upwards of 40 pound of camera bag, radio-cell phone and keep their eyes on the subject.<br><I>And tell me: how I could be "Artistic" or search for �aesthetics� at the Million Man March where I shot 43 rolls of 36 exposure film from 6am to 1:30pm while walking approximately 5 miles from the US Capitol steps to 16th street and back a number of times</I>?<br>Or when the PJ is backing up in front of a moving official they are assigned to cover?<p>The kid you referred to was a "Target of opportunity", not "Art". I'd wager the PJ shot a dozen or so such boys that day.<br> The photo editor, a job I held for 14 years, was the one to zoom in on that particular boy. S/he culled the images and sent the culled shots to the editorial board who picked the shots to be published.<br>That is not "Artistry" but editors choosing images which have impact as in the Pulitzer Prize shot of the Fireman carrying the dead child in Oklahoma City.<p><i>Content</i> is what PJs shot for, not "Artistry" or "Art".<br>Like in another thread in "Philosophy", this thread asked a question best asked of those who have and follow no ethical code whereas Journalists and Photojournalists belong to professional associations and societies that have strict guidelines their members follow.<p>You said: <i> "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</i>".<p>Your question is a near word for word repeat of what a recent questioner in "Philosophy" and mixes "aesthetics" (beauty) and "Artistry" in a question regarding how an ethical PJ works.<bR> You question implies and infers that the PJ found and shot "beauty" and "Artistry" in the face of a child combatant. His face was "grim" you say. The boy <I>was</I> the "subject matter" so what should the PJ have done, waited until he smiled? <br>Did you also wonder how many shots that PJ made that day? As many as I did on the Million Man March in 7.5 hours (1500)? Are you then suggesting either of us had time to be "Artistic" or had time to make a grim-faced boy aesthetically pleasing: "beautiful"?<br>A "Pro" PJ shoots everything in sight-just in case. There is no time for artistry or a search for beauty (aesthetics). And there most definitely are no aesthetics or artistry involved in a situation you described as �<I>Some photographer had gone out and deliberately tried to capture misery, fear and hatred on camera in it's most appealing fashion</I>�.<p>You can�t have it both ways: <p>That PJ had done his/her duty where you put a pejorative spin on it by saying the PJ had �Deliberately� done what an amateur photographer might do:<br> sensationalize or enhanced his/her subject or work.<p>Amateurs and �serious amateurs�, neither of whom have a code of ethics to follow, always try and want to be �artistic� in their attempts to capture the �aesthetics� in a scene. They have time and can plan each shot, setting up the scene or venue, time to �groom the scene�, time to plan how things will be placed or time to pose their models for artistic and aesthetic reasons. <p>Working PJs simply don�t have time for such photographic fluff.

[mg]

Ed (Greene),

<p>

I think you make very good points for newspaper assignments and similar, but take the work of Salgado for example... would you say there's no art in his documentary about migrants or Ethiopia...? I think the key difference here is that an urgent assignment for a daily newspaper or such leaves very little hope for "art". It's telling the story that matters, and with the clock ticking. Large scale documentary work (when the photographer has more time) is a completely different ball game all together imo - and then maybe art can play a more tangible role.

[edgreene]

"<i>Journalists, on the other hand, are seen as vultures. To a certain extent this is justified -- since (I take it from the fact you're reading the Guardian) you're in the UK, you're insulated from the worst news coverage in the world, which is local TV news in the US. Their constant barrage of consumer exposés, investigative pieces about nothing of importance, and general panic-mongering has pretty much trashed public goodwill toward journalists in that country</i>".<p>"Journalists" and "TV news" are nearly oxymorons, in that the "Talking heads" on TV do very little in the way of "journalism". One certainly can't use the Fox network or the major network's evening news as true journalism. "Real" journalists are the "Grunts" of the craft, those who dig out news, go to war, talk to the newsmakers face to face. It is a firt class insult to compare TV's "talking heads" to "journalists".

[boris_chan1]

"There is no time for artistry..........Working PJs simply don't have

time for such photographic fluff."

 

While it might be true to say that the average baseball-hatted

bonehead working for AP or the NY Times is not crossing over in

to the realms of art with their work, I don't have to think very hard

to come up with a healthy list of photographers who are certainly

journalists but can credibly be considered as artists. For the last

40 years how about Don McCullin, Gilles Caron, Josef Koudelka,

Gilles Peress, and Luc Delahaye?