Turtle
Veteran
I agree. But its all about sex. The below is very general and not specifically in relation to the Delahaye's of this world.
The market and the resultant impact on the position it leaves the photographer in from a commercial and personal marketing perspective has been profound. There is not only the pro/commercial marketplace but the amateur one too and the line between the two is increasingly blurry.
Photography used to be a miracle all by itself. When photographers took their controlled magic into the realm of the unknown, you had an intrepid character who brought back images that changed people's lives and shaped their perceptions. There was huge power associated with that and the status came with it. Now that every man/woman and his dog (certainly the odd cat) is a photographer, the magic - the competitive edge - has to be generated at another point in the process... either for commercial viability or (and here I get Darwinian) in terms of what photography is as a reflection of the person doing it. For some it is 'conceptual' and for others it is more orthodox, but unless it is put forward as art in some form (or technical achievement, this area being very competitive of course but not relevant to photojournalism) it is now no longer discernable from other services... just like fixing a sink and that does not snap knicker elastic.
The commercial reality needs no further explanation and for those not working on a professional basis, well, it just isn't sexy enough on its own any more. Sure, millions of amateurs do it for pure enjoyment, but every hobby/label we wear has a public aspect to it as it says things about who we are to our own and the opposite sex. Just as few would mention a passion for fantasy re-enactment wargaming on a hot date, what photography 'is' does have an impact on all photographers whether they like it, admit to it, or understand it or not. No longer does 'I do photography' necessarily mean Einstein meets Indiana Jones meets poet. It often means 'I have a DSLR and can hold down better relationships with computers than people.' It needs explanation to be sexually relevant and art has always been sexy (I am sure a good evolutionary biologist could explain why in very simple terms). This might all sound ridiculous, but I don't think it is. Millions upon millions of people are shifting in response to a changing environment and it is not just the mainstream professional realm that is driving this. How can it be? After all, its the amateur/semi pro areas that are partly responsible for the assault upon mainstream photojournalism!
So I guess what I am trying to say is that this is marketplace (environment) induced photographic speciation! 'Just' being a regular generic 'functional' photojournalist is commonly regarded as being a fairly crazy career choice if you are starting out because of the pool is now both small and full of big fish. What's more, it won't make you money as a pro and it won't win you honeys either - the girls/guys just aren't impressed anymore because it no longer says what it used to about the person saying it!
One needs to be a technical/creative maestro or an artist to have any currency since the basic act of picture taking/making became so easy. The artist route is much more accessible in many respects, because you don't have to be good at anything apart from self-promotion (so it is open to people with one or both of two talents). You certainly don't have to have any photographic ability (in the hands on sense because you can work using other people's images, 'found' work or using casual snaps). Personally, I think this explains the epic proliferation of 'conceptual photography.' Digital media has provided a chimpanzee proof means for increasing your 'fitness' with bugger all investment. Any member of the human species should leap at the opportunity. The natural world is full of ruses and strategies to increase competitiveness and art is a wonderful hidey hole for such antics. Digital photography has simply made it easier to play for that egde. The fact that I have relatively little interest in conceptual photography either means that I lack the genetic flexibility to survive in this changing environment, or that I have some other photographic talent to trade upon. As to which it is, only time will tell. Thankfully, I met the mother of my children when just being 'into photography' (with no elaboration) still carried some weight.
Disclaimer: Not all of the above is entirely 100% serious, however, most of it is. I'm just not sure which bits.
The market and the resultant impact on the position it leaves the photographer in from a commercial and personal marketing perspective has been profound. There is not only the pro/commercial marketplace but the amateur one too and the line between the two is increasingly blurry.
Photography used to be a miracle all by itself. When photographers took their controlled magic into the realm of the unknown, you had an intrepid character who brought back images that changed people's lives and shaped their perceptions. There was huge power associated with that and the status came with it. Now that every man/woman and his dog (certainly the odd cat) is a photographer, the magic - the competitive edge - has to be generated at another point in the process... either for commercial viability or (and here I get Darwinian) in terms of what photography is as a reflection of the person doing it. For some it is 'conceptual' and for others it is more orthodox, but unless it is put forward as art in some form (or technical achievement, this area being very competitive of course but not relevant to photojournalism) it is now no longer discernable from other services... just like fixing a sink and that does not snap knicker elastic.
The commercial reality needs no further explanation and for those not working on a professional basis, well, it just isn't sexy enough on its own any more. Sure, millions of amateurs do it for pure enjoyment, but every hobby/label we wear has a public aspect to it as it says things about who we are to our own and the opposite sex. Just as few would mention a passion for fantasy re-enactment wargaming on a hot date, what photography 'is' does have an impact on all photographers whether they like it, admit to it, or understand it or not. No longer does 'I do photography' necessarily mean Einstein meets Indiana Jones meets poet. It often means 'I have a DSLR and can hold down better relationships with computers than people.' It needs explanation to be sexually relevant and art has always been sexy (I am sure a good evolutionary biologist could explain why in very simple terms). This might all sound ridiculous, but I don't think it is. Millions upon millions of people are shifting in response to a changing environment and it is not just the mainstream professional realm that is driving this. How can it be? After all, its the amateur/semi pro areas that are partly responsible for the assault upon mainstream photojournalism!
So I guess what I am trying to say is that this is marketplace (environment) induced photographic speciation! 'Just' being a regular generic 'functional' photojournalist is commonly regarded as being a fairly crazy career choice if you are starting out because of the pool is now both small and full of big fish. What's more, it won't make you money as a pro and it won't win you honeys either - the girls/guys just aren't impressed anymore because it no longer says what it used to about the person saying it!
One needs to be a technical/creative maestro or an artist to have any currency since the basic act of picture taking/making became so easy. The artist route is much more accessible in many respects, because you don't have to be good at anything apart from self-promotion (so it is open to people with one or both of two talents). You certainly don't have to have any photographic ability (in the hands on sense because you can work using other people's images, 'found' work or using casual snaps). Personally, I think this explains the epic proliferation of 'conceptual photography.' Digital media has provided a chimpanzee proof means for increasing your 'fitness' with bugger all investment. Any member of the human species should leap at the opportunity. The natural world is full of ruses and strategies to increase competitiveness and art is a wonderful hidey hole for such antics. Digital photography has simply made it easier to play for that egde. The fact that I have relatively little interest in conceptual photography either means that I lack the genetic flexibility to survive in this changing environment, or that I have some other photographic talent to trade upon. As to which it is, only time will tell. Thankfully, I met the mother of my children when just being 'into photography' (with no elaboration) still carried some weight.
Disclaimer: Not all of the above is entirely 100% serious, however, most of it is. I'm just not sure which bits.
Last edited:
starless
Well-known
People who consider photojournalism to be art, must surely regard news broadcasting as cinema.
Photojournalism is exactly what it spells: journalism (using photographs.)
By definition, it is concerned with newsworthiness or human interest, not aesthetics.
Photojournalism is exactly what it spells: journalism (using photographs.)
By definition, it is concerned with newsworthiness or human interest, not aesthetics.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I should clarify my previous post: I made the classic error of ""I know what I mean, therefore, so should you." I have no problem with a photographer being an artist. It's the people who say, "I am not a photographer -- I am an artist who uses a camera" who really get up my nose. It's the "I am not a photographer" that marks them out.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You lost this argument decades before you made it. The Museum of Modern Art began exhibiting photojournalism in the 1930s and many other museums around the world have done so continually since then.
As for news broadcasts being cinema, that is exactly what it was before 'broadcasting (TV) was invented. Motion pictures of newsworthy events (wars, political events, human interest stories...all the stuff you see in modern TV news) were made by cinematographers using the same movie cameras used for other cinema work and the resulting movies, called 'newsreels' were shown in movie theaters.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Ahh, ok. I don't object to being called a photographer, because I am one. But art is what I use photography for, its what my academic training is in, and my work has been shown in art museums and galleries...so I am also an artist.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Personally, I find nonpigeonholing very liberating. That it perplexes or confuses people that other people can do more than one thing is, to me, perplexing. That, and history's debates resurfacing.
starless
Well-known
Well, I am sure there are art museums that would even show gem sweaters and call them art.
My point was that by definition photojournalism is not and should not be art. It should be an objective and unpassionate reporting of a newsworthy event or a human interest story. Any journalist (photo, broadcast or print) who's concerned with being an artist is undermining his credibility as a professional.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Whose definition?
And anyone who believes that photojournalism is "objective and unpassionate" can't have seen much photojournalism. By that standard, for example, Gerda Taro, Chim and Capa weren't photojournalists when they were shooting the Spanish Civil War.
Cheers,
R.
starless
Well-known
Your information is not factually correct.
The first photographic exhibitions in MOMA were in the late 50s.
Before that photography was not even considered to be an art form.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
By whom?
After all, there are plenty today who say that 'photography isn't art'. But in the 19th century, there were plenty who said that it was.
You're making quite a lot of flat and unsupportable statements.
Cheers,
R.
starless
Well-known
I think their images were objective, provided the limitations of the medium.
Let's don't forget that the purpose of those images back then were to illustrate a written article about the war. They were not published in a book or exhibited in a gallery.
starless
Well-known
Ok, I was wrong about that.
The department of photography at MoMa was founded in the 40s, not the 50s.
Before that, there might have been some sporadic exhibitions here and there. But I would argue that before that time, few galleries would consider exhibiting photographs.
Even now, 70 years later, there are galleries who do not exhibit photography.
Neare
Well-known
You're assuming the news itself is factual... which necessarily it isn't. It is an engineered and single version of the truth and it is always subjective because the reporters are not objective beings.
Therefore, 'news' itself can be art in that sense. Photojournalists communicate their version of the truth through photos. Photos don't tell you anything apart from what you, the viewer wants to see in it which creates another subjective barrier to your 'factual' reporting.
Therefore, 'news' itself can be art in that sense. Photojournalists communicate their version of the truth through photos. Photos don't tell you anything apart from what you, the viewer wants to see in it which creates another subjective barrier to your 'factual' reporting.
Nomad Z
Well-known
The fact that newsworthy events were recorded by cinemaphotographers using cine equipment doesn't mean that everything they produced was 'cinema' in the accepted sense of the word (movies, entertainment, etc).
I'm a former painter. When I painted stuff from my imagination, it would be fair to say that I was an artist at those times. But I also made copies of paintings that I like (some van Goghs and a Picasso). I still used an artist's equipment and techniques, but what I was engaging in at those times was no more than craft.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, they were self-proclaimed partisans for the Republican side, which I'd have some difficulty in calling 'objective'. And I'm not all that sure about 'illustrating a written article', either. The words and pictures were both essential; both complementary. You could equally well say that the words were there just to explain a bit more about the pictures.
All good photojournalism is partisan. So is a lot of bad photojournalism, of course. But the same story can be presented as "Look at all the jobs this will being to the area" or "This will destroy a traditional village." For that matter, in my own house, it's a choice between 'picturesque' and 'safe' when it comes to the foliage on the centuries-old garden steps from the courtyard to the upper garden. Anyone who is any good will take a view on what to shoot and how to shoot it: only a wishy-washy incompetent is likely do an equal job on both sides.
As for your other post, I can't quite see your point there, either. The Linked Ring was founded in April 1892 to promote photography as art (and there were already plenty who maintained that it was), and there are still some people today who say it "isn't art". In other words, there have been differences of opinion for well over a century. MOMA is one museum among many: exactly when they founded their photography department is not particularly important.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Personally, I find nonpigeonholing very liberating. That it perplexes or confuses people that other people can do more than one thing is, to me, perplexing. That, and history's debates resurfacing.
So true ... so much so that comrade P managed to paint Guernica before it actually happened
starless
Well-known
Well, I am trying to prove to you that photography was generally not considered art before the 50s.
How can I prove it to you, except by looking at the most influential museums and the years when they started to regard photography as an art form?
Here is a list of the major Modern and Traditional Art Museums I could find info about:
MoMa: Department of Photography founded in 1940
Stedelijk Museum: First Western European museum to collect photographs in 1950s
Louvre: First photographic exhibition in 1954
MET: Department of Photography founded in 1992
Guggenheim: First photographic exhibition in 1993
Tate: First photographic exhibition in 2003
MoMa was the first museum to establish a department for photography. That is why I mentioned it in the previous post.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
So true ... so much so that comrade P managed to paint Guernica before it actually happened
"Before"? .
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I agree with other members that information is not really relevant... And finally all it says is photography is indeed considered art. If you feel photojournalism (or any other photographic field) can't be art even if that's what a photographer/artist decides to do while creating any photograph(s), to understand your point you should better state when any craft becomes art to you...
Cheers,
Juan
starless
Well-known
I personally believe that any form of creation can be considered art.
But my initial reply to this thread was only to say that the objective of photojournalism (and all other forms of journalism) is reporting, not aesthetics. Therefore a journalist cannot claim to be creating art.
Then we got sidetracked by the argument when was photography accepted as an art form.
But my initial reply to this thread was only to say that the objective of photojournalism (and all other forms of journalism) is reporting, not aesthetics. Therefore a journalist cannot claim to be creating art.
Then we got sidetracked by the argument when was photography accepted as an art form.