Magnum Photo - New Direction Good or Bad?

[Turtle]

I am finding the general change in philosophical direction of a number of photo agencies and photographers (in the wake of the relative collapse in traditional photojournalism quite interesting). If one ignores the importance of bringing in the money (as all agencies must), what do you all think of the changed direction of Magnum, from an artistic and philosophical perspective.

There seems to be a dramatic reduction in the sort of work this famous and coveted agency built its name on. At the same time, 'fine art photography' seems to be replacing it, even in the form of what I would call 'fine art documentary.' Personally, I find the proportion of inspiring work is dropping off.

One of my concerns is that the realm of fine art is quite transient and relatively inaccessible. While great Magnum work 40 years ago looks great now and is part of the name of the agency, what about the more fine art orientated work in ten let alone 40 years? Will the Magnum name devalue as it loses its identity - is this even a risk? I am just confused about how Magnum hopes to maintain the integrity of its reputation while moving towards an area of the market which is notoriously fickle and non-cohesive.

Photojournalists seem to be very much a minority group in Magnum now and while there are lots of old books from Magnum or their photographers that I own or would buy, much of the new work leaves me cold. Much of it I can see what it is regarded highly, but it just is not the sort of stuff that I am drawn to look at again and again. Am I alone?

 

[antiquark]

I remember reading somewhere that Magnum can no longer compete in the field of instantaneous journalism photography. Basically because everyone and their dog owns a digital camera or camera phone. As a result, they have to take on long-term projects with artistic interpretations.

 

[PKR]

I remember reading somewhere that Magnum can no longer compete in the field of instantaneous journalism photography. Basically because everyone and their dog owns a digital camera or camera phone. As a result, they have to take on long-term projects with artistic interpretations.

I think I read last week that Michael Dell (computer) bought Magnum's print archive. Did you see this? p.

 

[Turtle]

The artistic interpretations would be right, but I am a bit confused as to what the market is for these pieces? Some seem a bit 'fine arty' for magazine publication and I am not sure how they square in the main fine art market as 'fine art.'

I can totally see the inability to compete in the main PJ arena. Magnum and all the others are affected of course, but what is the market for their new genre?

 

[35mmdelux]

I prefer to study the Pulitzer Prize or the Leica Oskar Barnack Award entries.

 

[mackigator]

I bought Magnum's recent book, "Georgian Spring," which is a sort of arty photojournalism where several different Magnum photographers traveled to Georgia to capture views of the conflict and country. I like it. No idea if the project actually made them money though.

Someone has to do longer term projects. I'd like to think that Magnum could be one of those players, producing results something like Dispatches magazine or even Good magazine. I can't think of any way for them to compete with everyone else for on the spot coverage, except where a news agency wants to rent out one of Magnum's big names for a special project or two.

 

[PKR]

The artistic interpretations would be right, but I am a bit confused as to what the market is for these pieces? Some seem a bit 'fine arty' for magazine publication and I am not sure how they square in the main fine art market as 'fine art.'

I can totally see the inability to compete in the main PJ arena. Magnum and all the others are affected of course, but what is the market for their new genre?

Go look at the "Getty Images" model. It's just a lot of $$ buying up "stuff". Bill Gates owns the publication rights to Jim Marshall work. Jim retained the "Fine Art" rights. I think he received $ 3M for the rights. What will gates do with this work? Gates also owns a da Vinci Codex. It's reported to be on display in his home. Got me.. I'm sure Leonardo is rolling at high speed. I would think that the Codex would be set for public viewing. I guess you have to know Bill if you want to see it. p.

 

[Turtle]

Sure, I get that Magnum has moved into long-term projects, but the fine-art orientation is independent of that, surely? After all, Salgado's work was/is extremely long-term and I so not see a link between the term of a project and the style assumed. Salgado's long term projects are arguably of a style that is more in keeping with old school Magnum, but with his own spin on it. The new Magnum work is more akin to individual or short series associated with the fine art market IMO. Sure, there are still some very strong 'traditional' shooters working under the Magnum banner, but many have moved towards a very contemporary style which many people would consider somehow less 'lasting.'

Regarding Georgian Spring, I agree. I would like to get my hands on a copy at some point as it would show all the different and contrasting styles under the same project.

 

[antiquark]

I think I read last week that Michael Dell (computer) bought Magnum's print archive. Did you see this? p.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aT3azruCPKhc

Not sure what the result will be, though.

 

[Gumby]

It's not wise to "ignore(s) the importance of bringing in the money ..." It's all about money.

From a philosophical perspective, it appears to me that Magnum is making a reasonable business decision. It is unfortunate that it won't be the same Magnum that we enjoyed for so many years but it is understandable why they would seek to adapt to the times.

Only time will tell if their name will degrade; it really depends on how smartly they assessed the future market and the prfitability of hteir current approach/direction. It will beinteresting to watch.

 

[user237428934]

Is this a new way for the agency? I'm not a magnum expert, don't know all photographers and only read the book of russell miller. But it seems that since the beginning they struggled for the direction. There were always photographers doing projects, fine-art stuff and there were the reportage photographers.
To which direction do you count the film-stills they did for the movie companies? Ernst Haas was definitely one of the fine-art guys. And there were many more.

 

[Gumby]

Basically because everyone and their dog owns a digital camera or camera phone.

This is now part of our culture. It's not just the cheap and readily available technology, it is also consumer expectations. Most people, both consumers and producers, just want fast and CHEAP (AKA, profitable). It's the "reality TV syndrome". Everyone knows the reality show feature bad acting by attention whores... but it meets the criteria of fast and cheap and profitable. People eat that stuff up... and not only do they not complain, but they seem to ask for more of it even though there are only two or three different scripts being offered... over and over and over again. People say they want high quality entertainment (or photojournalism), but few are really willing to pay for it or wait for it to happen.

 

[Turtle]

sure, it is about the money. Yes the market has changed.... But what do you think of the output? Do you find their work less interesting, more so etc?

 

[Gumby]

Still interesting... just different.

 

[_mark__]

Philippe Halsman Joined magnum in 1951 four years after it was founded, this set the precedent of art photography and portraiture within the agency, it has been present ever since.

 

[jbf]

I love what magnum is doing. I would not say the work is no longer journalistic. It is still about telling stories and narratives. Albeit morally ambiguous at times, but that is what I think the power in it is.

Taking pictures of an event does not itself make give it automatic importance anymore. If you take a look at the vast majority of press photos (whether in a warzone or not) many of those pictures are all the same, yet only from slightly different angles.

Magnum has to evolve or it will no longer be relevant in society. The point is that photography is and should always be considered a tool for artists. Not the art itself. Everyone does have a camera, and everyone does take 'good' pictures. But so what? It has to make me truly question what the meaning is and get me thinking. For me it is far more important for work to have a strong cohesive and inspiring visual and conceptual meanings to it.

Currently magnum's fine art approach is doing it for me. Very well.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

If Magnum is to survive, they have to change with the times. I don't personally like the new direction they have taken over the last few years, but I certainly understand the necessity of moving on . If you can't make a living doing what you do, you won't being doing it long.

 

[PKR]

The artistic interpretations would be right, but I am a bit confused as to what the market is for these pieces? Some seem a bit 'fine arty' for magazine publication and I am not sure how they square in the main fine art market as 'fine art.'

I can totally see the inability to compete in the main PJ arena. Magnum and all the others are affected of course, but what is the market for their new genre?

News Week was sold for $1 last week.. The market is changing. Photo journalism has changed. There are many reasons for this. But some of them are surly WEB and digital photo based. Anyone with a 3MP cell phone camera is a "photographer" and in some current court cases, a "Photo Journalist". p.

 

[ray*j*gun]

News Week's balance sheet is a nightmare of debt and non-liquid assets. Their net worth is negative ergo the selling price.

 

[aizan]

the old magnum is dead, the new magnum is alive.

as for the longevity of the work, it's a wash. some of the old and new work will survive or be rediscovered, some of it will be forgotten.

here's a relevant quote from TOP about Larry Towell's new book "The World From My Front Porch" (emphasis mine):

It might seem perverse on the face of things to introduce a mid-career retrospective from a globetrotting Magnum photojournalist with pictures he made largely at home on his Ontario farm. But Larry Towell, who might be described as a poet and folk musician before the term photographer even turns up (his business card reportedly reads, simply, "Human Being"), isn't really a photojournalist in the classic sense. Rather, he's a type more true to the roots of Magnum: a world citizen who poses as a photojournalist as a cover for work that is in essence artistic and humanitarian.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/06/great-photo-boo.html