- This topic is empty.
NY Times article on Philosophy of Photography
-
If you are bored, some high brow reading…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/arts/design/04abroad.html
Martin
It reminds me of the tripe that you feel you need to write in the Leaving Cert with references, dates and quotes…interspersed with big words and waffle to make it fit 2 pages.
Alan
Hey, easy guys, some of those responses were just plain mean spirited and useless. I get tired of that sort of thing. If you critiqued photography like that the site would be empty.
I think I’ll ask Mark if I can be a moderator :lol:Denver Doll: don’t worry, everyones opinion is valid and often a decent argument can be wrapped in high faluting language, as perhaps the NYT article is, but may still be valid.
One may think the article is rubbish and that is fine, but many photos have had a profound effect on the world/people.
Eddie Adams’ famous photo is said to have had a huge effect of US public opinion on the Vietnam War.
Kevin Carters photo, mentioned in the article made a huge change (at least temporarily) on people’s attitude to famine in Africa.
Eugene Smith’s photo of a mercury poisoning victim in Japan is another example.And these are complex photos in the sense that in some way they changed history, but also they are exploitive. There is someone dying or almost dying in these photos.
And they may not be fair, Eddie Adam’s didn’t think his photo was fair in its use.
It is fair to use these photos, or is it just sensation?
Eugene Smith’s photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoko_Uemura_in_Her_Bath) is a strong example as it did so much good, it was in the “Magnum, Magnum”, released recently, even though the subject’s family wish it not to seen any more.Here is an example that first got me thinking on the subject http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-Literature/world_press_photo_4342.jsp
it actually misrepresents the scene. I read an interview of the people in the car, in the British Journal of Photography, and they were not voyeuristic yuppies are they seem to be.On the other hand, for example, Benetton had an add campaign about Aids years ago. I felt it was just superficial and exploitive. Often, but not always, I find photos of homeless or disadvantage etc to be in the exploitive or swallow category. People use phrases like “raising awareness” or “creating discussion” but that is often, I believe, just a cover for getting self publicity. But it is difficult to adjudicate.
Photographs are often not faithful, but are often quite powerful. And people are quick to judge. It is an interesting subject for me. Hope it didn’t irritate you too much with this arty farty, naval gazing, Yankee, ditto, tripe :wink:
Martin
At first I thought ‘This is way too critical’ and i lost interest in it TBH.
But your post above kind of makes sense and I would ask another question
‘Are images now used particularly in newsprint to simply sell copies’
Do the editors really care about the subject or is it another space filled?
you know the saying ‘Paper accepts ink’
I’m not really sure where the arty farty comes from either?!
It’s a subject that has been doing the rounds a bit lately (my rounds anyway)
I think it’s interesting and relevant, there are so many different thoughts about it all.Online newspaper thingys bother me though, I get a headache reading them, (the layout of the page does it)
and I’d have liked it if the actual pictures in question were in the article.Sinead
I agreed with most of what you say Mick, except one thing: that “The argument that you can become inured to the horrors of what can happen if you’re exposed to the imagery often is, I think, quite shallow and disrespects viewers intelligence”.
I think it does happen, an example [not related to photography] would be the Dutch TV game show to win an organ donation. Good causes often have to find more and more shocking ways to raise awareness.
Famine photos surely don’t have the same impact as in the 80’s.
Not that is a bad thing as bad stuff happens all the time and it shouldn’t be sensationalism that’s driving responses.aoluain Well it is often about selling newspapers, or for photographers getting recognition. But I would like to think that there is are noble reasons at work for a good proportion of the photographers/editors.
I guess this debate would better be left to individual photos rather than abstract article, and “objectionable” photos do appear on this forum from time to time.
I wasn’t myself trying to make a point, but the article does detail, as Sinead says, current debate in current affairs photography.
And I think the article is a reasonable summary of the points, if not a good polemic. The exhibition is, the author says, thematically a bit all over the place.Grand,
Martin
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
