Thursday, August 10, 2006
NO, THIS IS PHOTOJOURNALISM
I thought this comment (you have to scroll down; there's no individual link) at this post at the Jawa Report needs addressing, because this commenter is definitely not the only one who feels this way:
To be completely serious. I prefer to address the issue at hand. We aren't talking about governments here, but about wire services and news organizations that purport to present us with news.
Unless he was taking an obviously up close, personal portrait, Robert Capa -- the father of modern war photojournalism -- just snapped photographs. In his shots he didn't covertly pre-arrange the live, the dead, or any inanimate subjects. In fact, on his coverage of the Spanish Civil War, Capa said straightforwardly:
Incidentally, as far as I know, he never worked for Reuters (which is perhaps obvious, given the above).
Above, we see Capa's having caught American soldiers slapping and kicking just captured German snipers in Leipzig in April 1945 -- photos that military censors did not permit to be published at the time. Staged? Hardly. News? Certainly.
You've probably seen that photo somewhere; it is perhaps the most famous piece of war photojournalism ever: Capa's having snapped the moment of the death in action of Republican soldier Federico Borrell Garcia, probably around Cerro Muriano, just north of Corboba, September 5, 1936. Every real news photographer DREAMS of nailing that sort of "moment in time" photo, for THAT'S what news photography is about. I had not seen it before, but Nachtwey's September 11, 2001 cross photo appears to be a similar sort of "lucky", at the right place at the right time, combination.
What Mr Hajj's problems, and the wider issue of "staging" proves is actually too many "news photographers" and even their editors today have no "inkling of an understanding of what news photography is about." It is not about creating anything -- as was apparently done by Mr Hajj and is still being done by who knows how many others. It is about a photographer's attempting to cover news, and at its most gripping in the pursuit of news, and in war in particular, aims especially to freeze forever a singular moment in which words just aren't sufficient. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 10, 2006
I thought this comment (you have to scroll down; there's no individual link) at this post at the Jawa Report needs addressing, because this commenter is definitely not the only one who feels this way:
When buildings are bombed, fires start, things burn, people get killed, and photojournalists try to get interesting pictures. Which part of this chain of events can't you grasp? Or do you dispute that the buildings are being bombed?
Here are some photos from September 11: http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Check out the one with the Cross? You think it was staged in Universal Studios?
You think a group of fighters in a war-zone have hundreds of special effects people running around to make up scenes that are no doubt already there to be found anyway? You guys obsessed with the photos are filling up 50% of the news section with spam. And it's clear that none of you have an inkling of an understanding of what news photography is about. Hint: it's not about taking and publishing boring shots that don't sell newspapers.
If you're truly interested in propaganda, take off you f--king horse blinders and start looking at the propaganda of the world's most powerful governments.
The photo-conspiracy frenzy has clearly made all of you morons mental.
Posted by: ThisSiteIsFullofNonsense at August 9, 2006 01:55 AM
Here are some photos from September 11: http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Check out the one with the Cross? You think it was staged in Universal Studios?
You think a group of fighters in a war-zone have hundreds of special effects people running around to make up scenes that are no doubt already there to be found anyway? You guys obsessed with the photos are filling up 50% of the news section with spam. And it's clear that none of you have an inkling of an understanding of what news photography is about. Hint: it's not about taking and publishing boring shots that don't sell newspapers.
If you're truly interested in propaganda, take off you f--king horse blinders and start looking at the propaganda of the world's most powerful governments.
The photo-conspiracy frenzy has clearly made all of you morons mental.
Posted by: ThisSiteIsFullofNonsense at August 9, 2006 01:55 AM
To be completely serious. I prefer to address the issue at hand. We aren't talking about governments here, but about wire services and news organizations that purport to present us with news.
Unless he was taking an obviously up close, personal portrait, Robert Capa -- the father of modern war photojournalism -- just snapped photographs. In his shots he didn't covertly pre-arrange the live, the dead, or any inanimate subjects. In fact, on his coverage of the Spanish Civil War, Capa said straightforwardly:
"No tricks are necessary to take pictures in Spain. You don't have to pose your camera [i.e. pose your subjects]. The pictures are there, and you just take them. The truth is the best picture, the best propaganda."
Incidentally, as far as I know, he never worked for Reuters (which is perhaps obvious, given the above).
Above, we see Capa's having caught American soldiers slapping and kicking just captured German snipers in Leipzig in April 1945 -- photos that military censors did not permit to be published at the time. Staged? Hardly. News? Certainly.
You've probably seen that photo somewhere; it is perhaps the most famous piece of war photojournalism ever: Capa's having snapped the moment of the death in action of Republican soldier Federico Borrell Garcia, probably around Cerro Muriano, just north of Corboba, September 5, 1936. Every real news photographer DREAMS of nailing that sort of "moment in time" photo, for THAT'S what news photography is about. I had not seen it before, but Nachtwey's September 11, 2001 cross photo appears to be a similar sort of "lucky", at the right place at the right time, combination.
What Mr Hajj's problems, and the wider issue of "staging" proves is actually too many "news photographers" and even their editors today have no "inkling of an understanding of what news photography is about." It is not about creating anything -- as was apparently done by Mr Hajj and is still being done by who knows how many others. It is about a photographer's attempting to cover news, and at its most gripping in the pursuit of news, and in war in particular, aims especially to freeze forever a singular moment in which words just aren't sufficient. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 10, 2006
