The author of that NYT article is in agreement with you I suspect.You really can't compare the amateur photos referenced here with the work of Don McCullin, James Nachtwey or Phillip Jones Griffiths, to name some of my favorites. Yes they are documents of a sort, but they lack the profound meaning delivered by the pros.
From a moderator's point of view, this is a subject bordering on the political.
That and rose coloured glasses about the values of the past.
I get it. If the article (the one I posted today and the OP) had presented an opinion or chose sides about any specific war I would not have shared it, but they seem fairly limited to analyzing the differences between past and present depictions of war. Of course some politics comes in to what people are shown (both now and then) but I’m not sure how to avoid that when talking about war based photojournalism. So delete if needed.
In any case perhaps today’s NYT article offers one explanation about why McCullin thinks “nobody wants the pictures I used to take.”
Oops - I wasn't clear.
I was referencing Alan's post #52 about "truth", and CMoore's now deleted response.
would hate to pick up a camera as a 'War Photographer' ..... only to suffer from Sean Flynn disease.
Oops - I wasn't clear.
I was referencing Alan's post #52 about "truth", and CMoore's now deleted response.
Is a discussion of "truth" political?
Death by....... natural causesWhat disease is that?
I get it. If the articles (the one I posted today and the OP) had presented an opinion or chose sides about any specific war I would not have shared them, but they seem fairly limited to analyzing the differences between past and present depictions of war. Of course some politics comes in to what people are shown (both now and then) but I’m not sure how to avoid that when talking about war based photojournalism. So delete if needed.
In any case perhaps today’s NYT article offers one explanation about why McCullin thinks “nobody wants the pictures I used to take.”
Warden is correct. We have always discussed the truth in photography. There are hundreds of posts throughout the forum regarding truth, veracity, etc. Why is it political when it comes to war photos? Can we discuss truth in photos about the environment, science, advertising, etc? I deliberately did not mention any particular picture or political theme, just truth in general. There is no discussion if you drop truth as a topic.Oops - I wasn't clear.
I was referencing Alan's post #52 about "truth", and CMoore's now deleted response.
Oops - I wasn't clear.
I was referencing Alan's post #52 about "truth", and CMoore's now deleted response.
Warden is correct. We have always discussed the truth in photography. There are hundreds of posts throughout the forum regarding truth, veracity, etc. Why is it political when it comes to war photos? Can we discuss truth in photos about the environment, science, advertising, etc? I deliberately did not mention any particular picture or political theme, just truth in general. There is no discussion if you drop truth as a topic.
Take the quotation marks away from your post to remove the implied irony, and there won't be any issue.
There wasn't any issue at all. Alan was mentioning something that is ideologically-driven, not specifically political, and certainly not partisan. He wasn't saying what that "truth" is or should be, but just that newspaper editors and photographers are going to take or select photos that best align with what they want to present as "true". The quotes demarcate a concept rather than a particular referent. There was nothing "bordering on the political" about it - although the accusation did succeed in diverting the discussion away from its actual topic (namely, how deluded McCullin is to think photojournalism will die with him).
There wasn't any issue at all. Alan was mentioning something that is ideologically-driven, not specifically political, and certainly not partisan. He wasn't saying what that "truth" is or should be, but just that newspaper editors and photographers are going to take or select photos that best align with what they want to present as "true". The quotes demarcate a concept rather than a particular referent. There was nothing "bordering on the political" about it - although the accusation did succeed in diverting the discussion away from its actual topic (namely, how deluded McCullin is to think photojournalism will die with him).
Not to mention that the kind of mass circulation picture magazines we used to have, Life, Look etc., no longer exist.
Yes, but the vast majority are of little or no value. We are talking about the kind of pictures Don used to make. That's very different. And BTW, The Guardian has great pictures.Yet far more photos are "made public" now than ever before. It's just difficult to sort through them.
Yes, but the vast majority are of little or no value. We are talking about the kind of pictures Don used to make. That's very different. And BTW, The Guardian has great pictures.
He was 26 when he died doing that job. What is your point?Taizo Ichinose...
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?