Yet again...

But how do we view it if (as I believe) it was intended to be staged, but ended up unintentionally real? The journalist has certainly influenced the situation--perhaps to the point of partial culpability for the death--but if the death is real, does that matter?

Click to expand...

Would that not open a really bad can of worms?

2F/2F said:

I am not saying that now that we know it was staged, [...] As journalism, it's a lie, it was intended to deceive (if not by the photographer, than by *someone*), therefore......it could not possibly be used as art? I don't get the correlation.

Click to expand...

Just so we do not get ahead of ourselves: we do not know (!) that the Capa picture was staged.

That's why this thing keeps returning.

The intent of Picasso's Guernica was to show the horrors of the Spanish civil war.

And as such, it (still) is both journalism and art.


Capa's intent was to show us the Spanish civil war, with all the horror and whatever else can be experienced in war.
Whether his pictures are art is another discussion.
But journalism they were, even if this one was staged. It conveys a sense of what war is like. And that's all it needs to do.

So what if it would be staged?
Verbal journalism (even accompanied by pictures) is not any more true. It always conveys a certain view on events.
A faked photo of an anonimous event not captured on film can be as valuable as any eye witness report. It can (and does) give us a sense of what, in the reporter's view on things, is happening.

Not good if you want to know whom exactly, at what place exactly, and at what time exactly, was shot, and how exactly. Sure.
But was that the reporter's goal?

Capa is one of my favorite photographers...but there is lots of evidence that this photo was not what the caption sez, so I speak of it as if it was indeed sold as showing something that it does not.

There is a difference between journalism and news journalism. "Journalism" is an incredibly broad subject.

What this is, as Q.G. speaks of it, is a photo illustration; not a news photo. Photo illustrations *are* used in journalism; soft feature journalism, and they are not captioned with a lie as if they were a hard news photo. They are labeled "illustration", and do not include a false caption. If it was captioned as we know it ("Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano, September 5, 1936"), then even the title of journalism is a pretty poor one, IMO. Like I said, soft journalism if captioned and presented as an illustration; not any sort of proper journalism if captioned "Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano, September 5, 1936", except in reference to the original title. You'd see an illustration used for stories, usually features, in certain publications, but nothing held in high esteem as a NEWSpaper.

I do not agree whatsoever that the "Guernica" is journalism, or that the Capa photo is journalism even if it was staged; at least not news journalism.

The real thing this should illustrate is that journalistic ethics and standards were FAR different then. Thus, the whole situation (this thread, for one) should emphasize the importance of applying them to today's news.

Q.G. said:

The intent of Picasso's Guernica was to show the horrors of the Spanish civil war.

And as such, it (still) is both journalism and art.


Capa's intent was to show us the Spanish civil war, with all the horror and whatever else can be experienced in war.
Whether his pictures are art is another discussion.
But journalism they were, even if this one was staged. It conveys a sense of what war is like. And that's all it needs to do.

So what if it would be staged?
Verbal journalism (even accompanied by pictures) is not any more true. It always conveys a certain view on events.
A faked photo of an anonimous event not captured on film can be as valuable as any eye witness report. It can (and does) give us a sense of what, in the reporter's view on things, is happening.

Not good if you want to know whom exactly, at what place exactly, and at what time exactly, was shot, and how exactly. Sure.
But was that the reporter's goal?

Click to expand...

Now Capa could do it with PhotoShop!

Steve

2F/2F said:

Fine art need not have any redeeming quality. It can be a total lie in every way.

Click to expand...

That is a very odd statement since an high purpose in Art is the search for Truth.

But It is not my intention to define Art because nobody ever managed to do it and nobody ever will and a thread inside the thread is bound to start if we keep going at it.

Another argument that can be lifted about the image, if it has been indeed staged, is that if you eliminate the component of the capture of the moment of the soldier being hit, there really is nothing special about it.
It is a rather poor image except I repeat the fact that describes the very moment when a soldier hits the ground hit by a bullet.

Now F2/F2 if you describe "bad art" as still being Art then I understand where you are coming from, but there are people who would argue that bad art ( or an unsuccessful attempt to produce Art) cannot be included in the "Art realm".

I totally disagree that art is a search for truth. Art is whatever it is...and the truth is usually faaaar, faaar removed from what it is.

You did make an attempt to define art by excluding something from being it. I don't see the point of drawing a strict definition, especially by stating opinion as fact.

Yes, I do think that bad art is art, whether I like it or not. That was my point. I think that one's opinion does not define it. Is it odd that I don't consider my personal opinions to make the definition? I think that this is proper and responsible, while the alternative (the argument made by the folks you mention in your last paragraph) is arrogant and useless.

It appears we do not agree on some details, but i think you're not wrong, 2F/2F.
Not at all.

I really do not like photographs staged for the sake of publishing news. It is like having Katie Couric as a CBS anchor in place of Walter Cronkite!

Steve

Then let's agree to disagree.

Domenico Foschi said:

Then let's agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Nahh, I am going to take the George W Bush approach to diplomacy and say its my way or the highway!

Steve

Most descriptions of art will infer some redeeming value. The problem with art is that not everyone gets it and therefore it is easily dismissed. It is very likely that someone who studied art will see Ansel Adams as being a skilled craftsman and not an artist and some one who hasn't studied art will look at William DeKoening's work as crap.