"I'm doing reportage, not art"

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Jan,

Yes your right of course, also the 'precious diva' remark has some superfluous content . 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

Isn't that what a dictionary is supposed to do? A book cannot ever define and set a standard for a language. Hell, dictionaries didn't even exist until fairly recently in history (last few hundred years) yet languages existed and were defined, then as now, by how the speakers of those languages used the words in them (including the creation of new words and changes in the spelling, pronunciation and even the meaning of existing words as well as the discontinuance of some words that fall out of use).

 

[alistair.o]

Isn't that what a dictionary is supposed to do?

Hi Chris, No, not in the context of this thread. The dictionary is where one goes to find the definition whereas today people go to each other, also to the TV and other assorted excuses for culture to find the definition they want and how (and when) they want to use it.

Al

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hi Chris, No, not in the context of this thread. The dictionary is where one goes to find the definition whereas today people go to each other, also to the TV and other assorted excuses for culture to find the definition they want and how (and when) they want to use it.

Al

Well, yes, if you don't know the meaning of the word, you look it up in the dictionary...BUT the dictionary is worthless, isn't it, if it doesn't stay current with the actual meanings of words as they're used in the actual spoken and written language of the native users of that language? The dictionary does not define words, it merely records the definitions used in the real world and thus serves as a reference to be consulted if you encounter a word you do not know the meaning of or if you don't know how to spell a word you want to use in written communication.

 

[user237428934]

Again some interesting discussion about the term "art". I think in Europe we are more reserved to use the term artist for ourself. At least in Germany artist is not a very positive job description. In the US half of the office employees are (senior) vice president of something, so I think it's part of the culture too that more people use the term artist.

 

[Steve_F]

I always wanted to scream, "I'm a photographer, not an artist!"

Funny enough I did a HNC course at college to study the more arty side of photography. My tutor, a commercial photographer did his nut every time I used the term 'its a bit arty'.
He said my pictures were technically perfect but boring. I just wanted to scream at him too "by nature I'm a scientist not an artist".
It's taken 10 years but I'm slowly coming round to seeing the artistic merit of a light bulb hanging up with a staircase in the background.

Truthfully it's all very subjective. If in doubt at a gallery one must place the right forefinger to ones lips, thumb under chin, tilt head to the left, drop the left shoulder, bring the left arm over the body and place your left palm on the right bicep and say positively "Oh yes, I can see where the photographers' coming from"

Steve.

 

[Turtle]

It is what it is. It does not have to be anything in particular at all. Those are just labels. I can understand HCB's response. I personally see it as reportage looking at the human condition in a fairly wide sense, but if viewers find it has a similar influence/impact/affect on them as 'art' then so be it. That's the viewer's categorisation. HCB saw it differently. But its still the same thing when viewed by the disagreeing parties... which means it just does not matter

 

[jan normandale]

Jan,

Yes your right of course, also the 'precious diva' remark has some superfluous content . 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

Hi Blue, I understand the postion you're taking and that's fine. I just think that this particular photographer has a personal view of what his work is about. I respect that. Personally I look at a spectrum between 'reportage and art' and see his work closer to reportage. Can his work be viewed as art? Of course. I've seen many things from blue prints to lemon juicers become art. What's next? I have no idea.

I'm personally past either 'art' or craft or any other definition because it's all debatable. I used to be concerned but I don't think it matters much. If work is good and people like it it may be art, if they don't well it's something else whatever that might be.

I do think that his photography is somewhat 'shot gun' because he cannot always be certain of what his result will be. Wearing a harness with the camera strapped to his chest and then releasing the shutter as he faces something is somewhat akin Andy Warhol's idea of how to use cameras . He's very removed from his creative process as it pertains to the actual act of taking the photograph. I might as well have a 10 year old with me and give them a Canon MkII 5D and tell them to just push the button a lot. Then take the images and manipulate them for the final prints.

Both processes will work, both give images... but something is missing from these types of processes in my opinion.

Anyway it's an interesting clip and the photographer "has his views", like the rest of us here at this thread...

 

[user237428934]

Here is an excerpt of the list of persons/organisations who got the Erich Salomon award before. More reportage than art here I think.

1985 Robert Frank, New York (USA)
1986 Peter Magubane, Johannesburg (Südafrika)
1987 Josef H. Darchinger, Bonn (Deutschland)
1988 Sebastiao Salgado, Aimores (Brasilien)
1989 Barbara Klemm, Frankfurt (Deutschland)
1990 Cristina García Rodero, Madrid (Spanien)
1991 Robert Lebeck, Hamburg (Deutschland)
1992/3 Don McCullin, Batcombe, Somerset (Großbrittanien)
1994 Mary Ellen Mark, New York (USA)
1995 Gilles Peress, New York (USA)
1996 Regina Schmeken, München (Deutschland)
1997 Peter Hunter, Den Haag (Niederlande)
1998 René Burri, Paris (Frankreich)
1999 Eva Besnyö, Amsterdam (Niederlande)
2000 Arno Fischer, Berlin (Deutschland)
2001 Herlinde Koelbl, Neuried (Deutschland)
2002 Menschenrechtsorganisation „Reporters sans frontières“, Paris (Frankreich)
2003 John G. Morris, Paris (Frankreich)
2004 Will McBride, Berlin (Deutschland)
2005 Horst Faas, London (Großbrittanien)
2006 Martin Parr, Bristol (Großbrittanien)
2007 Letizia Battaglia, Palermo (Italien)
2008 Anders Petersen, Stockholm (Schweden)
2009 Sylvia Plachy, New York (USA)

 

[ampguy]

well

well

one scenario is if you took a photo for an assignment on starving kids in a region of the world where suffering could be helped with just political changes or a few cents per child for vaccinations etc., but then your photos were photoshopped into happy healthy kids and sold for a lot of profit for Enron execs.

Would you be a happy artist in that hypothetical scenario? I hope not.

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?

 

[Colin Corneau]

With respect, that scenario has no bearing on reality...I mean that it simply wouldn't happen.

Your point, about the context or intent of an image being twisted against one's will is a valid point but I think something that egregious would have legal consequences.

Ultimately, art is part of life...and reportage is the documentation of some aspect of life. It can't be too strange to have the two overlap.

 

[ampguy]

Ok

Ok

Agree with you that my first hypothetical scenario is unlikely, but what about wildlife, especially wildlife near extinction?

Moose Peterson, whose has many great images that I would consider candidates for "art" doesn't use photoshop, becuase biologists in the future would not be able to tell reportage documentary images of the extinct animals from manipulated images.

With respect, that scenario has no bearing on reality...I mean that it simply wouldn't happen.

Your point, about the context or intent of an image being twisted against one's will is a valid point but I think something that egregious would have legal consequences.

Ultimately, art is part of life...and reportage is the documentation of some aspect of life. It can't be too strange to have the two overlap.

 

[robert blu]

Alec Soth

Alec Soth

jan normandale says : "I might as well have a 10 year old with me and give them a Canon MkII 5D and tell them to just push the button a lot. Then take the images and manipulate them for the final prints. "
It is what Alec Soth (magnum photographer) made in Uk, you can read the story here . Just for your information and comments...
robert

 

[st3ph3nm]

Moose Peterson, whose has many great images that I would consider candidates for "art" doesn't use photoshop, becuase biologists in the future would not be able to tell reportage documentary images of the extinct animals from manipulated images.

Many would call Frank Hurley's photos of the Shackleton Antarctica expedition "reportage", but don't be fooled - many of his images were manipulated for dramatic effect (one plate of a dramatic sky overlayed on another shot of the ship, for example).

But we're not talking about manipulation of the image, more about an artist's reaction to being called an artist.

So, a classic photo from journalist Damien Parer's WW2 images:

I've heard this photo touted as a "masterpiece" with comparisons to great cruicifixion art etc. etc. And there's no denying it's a powerful image, which is really my point. I would argue that as soon as a photographer takes a photo with even half an eye for aesthetics, then it is art. There's nothing, to my mind, wrong with this, and so I share Colin's puzzlement. There's long been a tradition of art and reportage overlapping - just look at botanical illustrations for a start. To me, the idea that "art" and "reportage" or "journalism" or "ethnography" or "an accurate record" are somehow mutually exclusive is quite bizarre.

 

[JayGannon]

I think a lot of journalists have issues with their work being called art because of the intentions of their photos.

When you go to a conflict zome in order to take pictures and raise awareness of an issue you will take pictures that are supposed to allo the world to see the plight of a group of people, they are pictures that depict suffering or poverty or hardships, they are not 'nice' pictures. Their supposed to be pictures that will force someone into actions, their pictures that should elicit emotion and action. Maybe your icture was designed to elicit disgust at a groups actions, or outrage at the plight of a displaced refugee running from their home.

When taken out of that space of active participation in raising awareness by being in newspapers, magazines and such, where they run alongside articles, and placing them in the clean sterile safe atmosphere of a gallery, where they are regarded (By in large) as works of art and people extoll the virtue of the photographer and the printer over a nice glass of wine it can allow the photographs to become detached from their actual content, now regarded as investments and something to be hung on the wall of a CEO to beautify or enhance a home. THen the photos lose their context and become something else other than what you intended them to be. Some photographers have issues with this, because it can feel (Right or wrong) as if the wprl that went into the photos being part of a story and telling a tale can be stripped by having them purely as a wall decoration.

My (biased) 2c

 

[JayGannon]

With respect, that scenario has no bearing on reality...I mean that it simply wouldn't happen.

Your point, about the context or intent of an image being twisted against one's will is a valid point but I think something that egregious would have legal consequences.

Welcome to the world of modern journalism and art.
Happens everyday by the bucketload.

 

[JoeV]

Is it "art" or "reportage"? Neither. In the strictest sense it's just an optical image captured onto a light-sensitive surface. The illusion of photography is that it seems to present a very accurate simulation of reality, such that we often forget the implicit participation required of the viewer to suspend disbelief. Photography is a meme, a chimera, which we use for all sorts of politicized motivations.

But in fact it's neither art or reality, just a clever optical simulation. Those that are most skilled at photography understand best its underpinnings to be devoid of veracity, while appearing to be just the opposite.

~Joe

 

[jsrockit]

In the US half of the office employees are (senior) vice president of something, so I think it's part of the culture too that more people use the term artist.

Hahaha, so true on the vice president thing... I've seen brokerage firms where all the "vice presidents" sit in small cubes...

 

[st3ph3nm]

I think a lot of journalists have issues with their work being called art because of the intentions of their photos.

<snip>

THen the photos lose their context and become something else other than what you intended them to be. Some photographers have issues with this, because it can feel (Right or wrong) as if the wprl that went into the photos being part of a story and telling a tale can be stripped by having them purely as a wall decoration.

My (biased) 2c

Thanks for that thoughtfull post. It clarifies a viewpoint I hadn't understood (not being a journalist). Still, it's impossible for anyone to have control over how their work (photographic or otherwise) is used to humanise or demonise once it's out in the public domain. Part of the "art" of good photojournalism is crafting a picture that gets attention. So as long as the message isn't "lost", then can't we still admire the art, and the artist, that's inherent in the picture?

 

[250swb]

Lets face it, if somebody finds it important enough to say it, that they 'aren't making art but doing reportage' (and from the OP I'm not sure if its HCB or the other bloke), then they have failed to communicate clearly what they are doing via their photographs, and it just becomes a pompous comment about their own ego.

Steve

 

[Oh Two]

Odd but familiar

Odd but familiar

This fellow works almost the same way I do. Photography is a just a means to meet folks. Art? Are you kidding? Photography is NEVER more than craft, and good conversation is love.