"I'm doing reportage, not art"

His work is more documentary photography. He said his venues were books and galleries, so that means not news outlets. In fact, I would say there is very little breaking news in the stories he covers. Showing in a gallery or through books is pretty much the standard for art presentation, so there is no wonder that his work would be compared to art photography. However, I would say that it has little to do with contemporary art photography which tends to be more about photographic concepts and self-reflection than documenting people and history.
 
Thanks for the link. Some very cool work this man does. Call it whatever you like, me likes it. That camel photo is kick-ass. And the huge prints. Just awesome.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed both the videos and the photos are exceptional. Most of the photos can be classified as reportage...

But if the information behind those photos is hidden from the viewer who has no knowledge of what is going on in the photo or where was it taken...its hard to believe that the viewer will classify them as reportage.

Now, art is....
 
tom.w.bn said:
At the end of his tour at photokina I asked him if he sees his photography as reportage or as art. He almost got upset by the word "art". His message was that he is doing reportage photography and art is something what others do with his photos. He was absolutely no friend of the term "art" and he didn't want to be viewed as an artist. Interesting.
Click to expand...

I suddenly have a big man crush for this guy..

Dave
 
Nikkor AIS said:
Thanks for the link. Some very cool work this man does. Call it whatever you like, me likes it. That camel photo is kick-ass. And the huge prints. Just awesome.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The huge prints in the video are absolutely amazing. Prints in the exhibition were not that big but very impressive too.
 
Last edited:
ampguy said:
perhaps he was trying to say that he takes photographs, captures images, but what is on the walls and is for sale are photoshopped, framed, and matted glossed up stuff that is what others are doing. The latter, of which he wants no part of.
Click to expand...

But in one video you see that he is part of the developing, framing process.
 
I'd be thrilled to have my documentary/reportage/journalism photos be considered art. Then again, I'm not showing at Photokina, so I figure the guy has earned the right to classify his work however he wants.

I'm puzzled by why anyone would be miffed or perturbed at being labelled an artist -- ultimately, you define yourself. If others call your work art, or reportage -- who cares, so long as your message gets out and you have a voice?
 
He says his inspiration was an objective to shoot for National Geographic. Seems plain that he considers himself a journalist. He likes the term "ethnologist," as well. I can understand his objection to being classified as something else. I'm not sure how the definitions relate, though, as you can be a journalist but with artistic sensibilities that influence the results.

Still, it almost invariably comes back to the audience reception and the context. If it's published in a newspaper it's one thing. If it's sold at a gallery perhaps it's another thing. But, what if both happen?

Thanks for posting the videos. I usually think i'm not interested in panoramic images, but lately, i'm finding them to be very compelling. Loved that last image and the huge blowup. And, now GAS will compel me to look into an X-Pan. Thanks a lot....
 
Colin Corneau said:
I'd be thrilled to have my documentary/reportage/journalism photos be considered art. Then again, I'm not showing at Photokina, so I figure the guy has earned the right to classify his work however he wants.

I'm puzzled by why anyone would be miffed or perturbed at being labelled an artist -- ultimately, you define yourself. If others call your work art, or reportage -- who cares, so long as your message gets out and you have a voice?
Click to expand...

that about covers it. call him what you will, as long as you are checking out the work.
 
Interesting thought. I am very definitely doing art, not reportage. I have always thought of myself in terms of being an artist but had not really stopped to think that others on this site might see themselves as reporters. Perhaps that explains the great differerence in approach that I have to them and why we differ iso markedly on such issues as whether its OK to extensively Photoshop images.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
He says his inspiration was an objective to shoot for National Geographic.... If it's published in a newspaper it's one thing. If it's sold at a gallery perhaps it's another thing. But, what if both happen? ...
Click to expand...

It quite often has, Steve McCurry being the most recent.

If this counts as a problem, then brother...I wish I had those problems.
 
All I can say about a Widelux is that 35 mm is for chumps. He needs a Noblex 120! (humour)

I didn't see any art in those two clips, I did see reportage. I think his self assessment is fair.
 
Last edited:
Does it matter?

I take photographs and if people want to think of the finished product(s) as art and hang it (wherever) as such, why should I care?

No precious diva moment from me because of semantics.

I take photographs.

Al
 
Blue Rollei said:
Does it matter?

I take photographs and if people want to think of the finished product(s) as art and hang it (wherever) as such, why should I care?

No precious diva moment from me because of semantics.

I take photographs.

Al
Click to expand...

Al, it obviously mattered to him and that was what the OP was all about. btw: "precious diva"??
 
The playwright, Willy Russell, once commented that many times people had asked him about aspects of his plays that he hadn't considered when writing. Or rather, they got things out of the plays that he hadn't intended at the time of writing. Rather than be put off by this, he felt those reactions quite valid, and helped him to learn more about his work.

Besides, if reportage isn't an art, then journalism isn't either, and if any of you have read Hemingway's articles from his journalism years, you'll know that that's not true. (and if you haven't, then do!)
 
These days, if everyone is a photographer, then everyone are artists too, right?!?!

There is no more true definition, the professional, art and hobby are all now one big pot of mess with no distinction.
 
jan normandale said:
Al, it obviously mattered to him and that was what the OP was all about. btw: "precious diva"??
Click to expand...

Jan,

Yes your right of course, also the 'precious diva' remark has some superfluous content :eek:. If my remarks sound harsh then I apologise but upon reflection I stand by my beliefs i.e. the world will call things whatever it wishes.

The Oxford dictionary is going down this route and allowing the language to be 'modified' by use (or rather abuse) instead of defining the language and setting the standard.

So, photography? Art? One-and-the-same?

Al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom