No. I think if you pay attention to other things McCullin has said, he mean no one wants photos like the ones he used to take. His photos were up close, immersive, completely focused on the actual violence of the situation. He didn't stand a mile away with a 500mm lens.
A lot of the photos published that you see of the war in Ukraine look like a movie set. Photos from after - it's safe. Here's a clump from the immediate search results for "bombed ukraine"
View attachment 349353
I don't mean there is no value in contemporary photography of these things. I think the type of photojournalism Don McCullin did and was permitted to do - the access he had - is just no longer permitted.
“Photojournalism is dead. We’ve become obsessed with glamour and gloss: footballers, narcissism and gossip. Nobody wants the pictures I used to take.”
Don McCullin: ‘Photographing landscapes takes my mind off all I’ve seen. It’s healing’
The photojournalist, 87, tells Michael Segalov about his tough upbringing in Finsbury Park, early success, the pleasure of reading books in old age and the death of photojournalismwww.theguardian.com
And because no one wants to see those on their Instagram or Twitter feed - where people now consume "journalism" - no one wants to pay someone who makes them.
It is all part of the whole.
Now tell us about those refreshments
Did the general public actually pay for HIS photos, or were they usually part of a large publication magazine or newspaper that people bought regardless.?
Seems pretty easy to snipe from an armchair in Ontario.
Just a caution:
Please don't bring the Alberta vs. Ontario conflict to Photrio!
Civility! Civility!
Edit.... It's easy to snipe from the comfort of an armchair....
And that will get your comment deleted by a moderator.
Civility please.
There are still photographers working in war zones. Any documentation of those violent situations is important work. And to suggest that that kind of photography is no longer being done is a serious disservice to those who risk their lives to bring the wider world documentary evidence. We no longer have the front covers of Time & Life magazines, but the reality is that online news is the current means to reach people. As far as front line photos of the actual fighting, that is only one aspect of the war situation. Photographs and stories of the places and people affected by conflict is part of the deeper story and involves more humans than a single photo of hand to hand combat. Here's a good piece of journalism that considers that aspect. https://time.com/6257802/ukraine-war-photos-anniversary/
You might like to check out the work of Lynsey Addario, a pulitzer prize winning photojournalist who has done work for the NYT, Time, National Geographic and other publications.
Lynsey Addario
Lynsey Addario is an American photojournalist, who has been covering conflict and humanitarian crises around the Middle East and Africa on assignment for The New York Times, National Geographic Magazine, and Time Magazine for almost two decades.www.lynseyaddario.com
To bad he thinks that way
Isn't that what i said.?The general public pays for photos by buying magazines (or, now, by visiting websites). That's how photojournalists make money.
Good photos sold magazines. I think it's less so with websites.
McCullin probably isn't looking very hard.
to suggest that that kind of photography is no longer being done is a serious disservice
The heroic period in photography is dead.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?