Magnum Photo - New Direction Good or Bad?

[swoop]

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.

VII is the new Magnum.

Everyone owns a car. There are still professional drivers.

 

[Turtle]

I've spent quite a bit of time looking over VII work and it seems that VII is similar to the old PJ core of Magnum, but I do like a lot of the more 'social documentary' work Magnum used to do and to a certain extent still does. VII seems more PJ/conflict orientated.

 

[PKR]

I've spent quite a bit of time looking over VII work and it seems that VII is similar to the old PJ core of Magnum, but I do like a lot of the more 'social documentary' work Magnum used to do and to a certain extent still does. VII seems more PJ/conflict orientated.

Are you talking about the "Bruce Davidson" school?
p.

 

[Roger Hicks]

George Bernard Shaw to Henry Ford: "There is the difference between us, Mr. Ford. You think only of art, and I think only of money."

Cheers,

R.

 

[victoriapio]

They struggled for direction for a variety of reasons, the top reason being that no two photographers agree on anything 😀. Everyone wanted to take pictures, no one wanted to manage the agency, there were plenty of large egos to deal with (large egos.... photographers ... imagine that 🙄) and most of the Magnum founders were avowed communists; so yes, there was plenty of conflict. Throw in a few killed in the line of duty, the feud between American magnum photographers versus the rest of the world, and it all makes for very interesting reading. And yes, MONEY played a huge roll in the history of Magnum. Almost any of the books about the early Magnum days are worth reading...

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

They struggled for direction for a variety of reasons, the top reason being that no two photographers agree on anything 😀. Everyone wanted to take pictures, no one wanted to manage the agency, there were plenty of large egos to deal with (large egos.... photographers ... imagine that 🙄) and most of the Magnum founders were avowed communists; so yes, there was plenty of conflict. Throw in a few killed in the line of duty, the feud between American magnum photographers versus the rest of the world, and it all makes for very interesting reading. And yes, MONEY played a huge roll in the history of Magnum. Almost any of the books about the early Magnum days are worth reading...

Communists? Or socialists? I had the impression it was the latter but it is quite likely that you have researched it more than I.

Cheers,

R.

 

[alun severn]

It would certainly be true to say that a good proportion of Magnum's members were, have been or continue to be left/socialist both in politics and temperament. BUt it may be even truer to say that many were or are simply independent, even contrarian, by nature....

This question of PJ vs. fine art (or art-documentary fusion, as I have heard it called) is an interesting one. There can be little doubt that Magnum has shifted somewhat in that direction -- it has had to in order to try and widen (or maintain) its audience... But probably only in the same way that it has also shifted somewhat on the issue of corporate work (annual reports etc) and advertising/commercial photography. Had it not done this, I suspect it would be in even worse financial straits.

I have grown up with Magnum as a constant reference point -- not just in terms of what I value in photography and photographers, but also in how I think business can be organised and carried out.

I would be desperately saddened to see the agency renounce its social documentary roots in favour of the art market, but I would be even sadder to see it disappear entirely.

I suspect a bigger threat to Magnum than art photography is how it will continue to remain cutting edge and relevant for another ten, twenty, thirty years.

Even now I would be tempted to say that its best work may well be in the past. A good proportion of its members are reaching (or have reached) the end of their working careers and Magnum's wealth I imagine currently lies in its archive rather than in new work. BUt even having said that, I don't feel that Magnum will ever lose its place in my affections, nor those of many others who have grown up looking almost constantly at the work of this renegade co-op of photographers whose visual sense played a major part in making the twentieth century recognisable to us. Sadly, I don't think that is a feat they will be able to repeat for the twenty-first century.

 

[larmarv916]

The Magnum archive is really the only high value resource that is paid for and able to command high fees in different commercial products like books and posters and so on. The world is now being flooded with a mindless stream of images most bad..but some good and many sold for $5 license fee!

I just took my kids to Getty yesterday and looked at the photography that appeared to be exclusively Magnum shooters. 3 HCB prints in the mix. But it is a retrospective of photos you have seen a million times. It seem to be like that for Magnum related projects the same photos over and over.

Magnum needs to make money for sure....will they stay alive?

 

[Roger Hicks]

It would certainly be true to say that a good proportion of Magnum's members were, have been or continue to be left/socialist both in politics and temperament. BUt it may be even truer to say that many were or are simply independent, even contrarian, by nature....

This question of PJ vs. fine art (or art-documentary fusion, as I have heard it called) is an interesting one. There can be little doubt that Magnum has shifted somewhat in that direction -- it has had to in order to try and widen (or maintain) its audience... But probably only in the same way that it has also shifted somewhat on the issue of corporate work (annual reports etc) and advertising/commercial photography. Had it not done this, I suspect it would be in even worse financial straits.

I have grown up with Magnum as a constant reference point -- not just in terms of what I value in photography and photographers, but also in how I think business can be organised and carried out.

I would be desperately saddened to see the agency renounce its social documentary roots in favour of the art market, but I would be even sadder to see it disappear entirely.

I suspect a bigger threat to Magnum than art photography is how it will continue to remain cutting edge and relevant for another ten, twenty, thirty years.

Even now I would be tempted to say that its best work may well be in the past. A good proportion of its members are reaching (or have reached) the end of their working careers and Magnum's wealth I imagine currently lies in its archive rather than in new work. BUt even having said that, I don't feel that Magnum will ever lose its place in my affections, nor those of many others who have grown up looking almost constantly at the work of this renegade co-op of photographers whose visual sense played a major part in making the twentieth century recognisable to us. Sadly, I don't think that is a feat they will be able to repeat for the twenty-first century.

Dear Alun,

Hard to argue with a word of that.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

Dear Alun,

Hard to argue with a word of that.

Cheers,

R.

I think it neatly wraps up my thoughts too!

 

[canonetc]

Magnum Photo- New Direction Good or Bad

Magnum Photo- New Direction Good or Bad

The new direction is neither good nor bad. They see the writing on the wall very clearly: the world is full of photographers, but not full of artists. Magazines themselves will get bored (they already are), with the standard, unoriginal crap (recent digital or film) being supplied to them by stock agencies and eventually will turn to Magnum and the other agencies whose shooters not only press a button but provide depth, context and historical meaning to the images they provide. Not every photographer can do that. Magnum, Noor, VU, VII and Contact Press can.

This really ties into another potential thread, but is relevant: why are silver gelatin, platinum and palladium prints made before 1970 by "known" photographers and artists selling comfortably in the tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars price range? Because they have a true archival value and record of history.

I believe this is Magnum's true value to the magazine editors, museum curators, art gallery dealers, journalists, art and history writers who know and appreciate what photography really is.

Magnum is also taking on really awesome, younger shooters who will be able to keep Magnum alive as the senior members retire. Magnum has not survived this long for nothing; Capa taught them well.

There may come a day when the only place we will find true photography will be in books, museums, galleries and our own walls. Or, in the hearts and minds of those who always kept one film camera around the house....and kept on using it.

Annnywayyy.....

 

[Bob Michaels]

Is it possible that everyone is analyzing Magnum using the traditional business metrics? I mean a company that exists as the key entity with the motivation for sustainability and profit with a willingness to change direction as well as change players as the market demands?

Could it be that Magnum is no more than a collective to derive enough cash flow for it members so that they may pursue their own interests? I just don't see Magnum, the company, sending one of it's members to an assignment because there is substantial market demand and thus profit from the results. Instead I see Magnum is merely the vehicle a small number of talented photographers use to insure they have some cash flow coming in so those photographers can feel free to do whatever it is that they want to do.

 

[PKR]

Hi Bob; If I'm not wrong, Michael Dell paid Magnum $100 M for their photo archives. With that kind of reserve, I think they could position themselves for whatever it is they think their next market will be. And, have enough money to fund and take care of it's members. Lets hope it's properly invested in this current ugly world economy. p.

 

[alun severn]

This really ties into another potential thread, but is relevant: why are silver gelatin, platinum and palladium prints made before 1970 by "known" photographers and artists selling comfortably in the tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars price range? Because they have a true archival value and record of history.

And because they have commercial investment value, of course.