I believe in showing what is there.
<<<<
I agree that it's a laudable goal, an impossible one to accomplish with a camera, though, as it is only a means of capturing light on film. And while this might seem like quibbling, I think that it's important, as it reminds us that objectivity is simple not possible in photography.
>>>>
One of the definitions of journalism in my online Merriam Webster dictionary is "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation." This is what I think any journalist, photo or otherwise, should strive for.<<<<
<<<<
Agreed -- I have no problem with the notion that journalists should strive to present facts and descriptions in the most objective way possible, but of course that's quite different from saying that journalists _can_ present facts or descriptions of events objectively.
>>>>
Truth is, I don't know exactly how Doisneau's image was presented in the magazine-- did an exhaustive search on the internet to see if I could find a reproduction of the actual page or article, but had no success. So, since the context does matter, we really can't get much farther until we know if any explanation accompanied the photograph, and all we can base our discussion on is two actors kissing in front of a cafe. I base my opinion on the fact that this image was staged and I therefore question every other photograph made by Doisneau. He was held up as a model of reportage, but how much of his work really was? How many other actors and staged scenes were there?
This is actually one of the main points that I'd like to make: the photo was in a fluffly impressionistic cultural piece on the theme of "romance in Paris," in which a number of different photos of couples kissing in the streets of Paris were included. Doisneau wasn't even given a photo credit in the original spread, and the whole thing was about as far from journalistic hard news reporting as you can get, and thus the context for judging it, I would argue, should equally be quite different.
Well, since the only way to see the scene without being an eyewitness is to record it some way, we do the best we can with the tools at our disposal. For photojournalism I prefer films that don't exagerate colors and give the most accurate representation of what I actually saw. Excessive manipulation involves things like adding or removing content (things, such as an errant light pole, trash or wires, for example), putting in a blue sky in place of a bald, cloudy one to punch up an image, etc.. The role of a journalist is to observe and record, not to change what is there.<<<<
I have no problems with most of this, although I would say that I don't find it ethically objectionable to use more saturated films.
>>>>
Documentary photography is another genre and shouldn't be confused with photojournalism or reportage (the latter of which Doisneau's reputation was built on).<<<<
I'd be interested in hearing how you understand the difference between photojournalism and documentary, especially given the fact that so many well-known photojournalists/documentarians seem to use the same images in both contexts. For me, it has always been in terms of the goals and length of the project more than the actual practice itself -- documentarians almost always have an idea of what message they wish to get across with their work, even if they do try to make a compelling case for their message without resorting to "staged" photos or evidence.
Much documentary photography, unfortunately, has in its tradition little to do with "truth, objectivity, and transparency." Read about the work of Matthew Brady. Find out how much is staged, arranged to make pleasing compositions or had content added or removed at the photographer's whim. Photojournalism it isn't.<<<<
It's interesting to me that you would say that, since, in my understanding, Brady et al. are considered to be pioneering photojournalists as much as documentarians.
>>>>
And btw, I had a chance to check out some of the photos on your webpage. I especially liked the series on the diner.
Thanks again for the discussion!
Keith
___________________________________________________________
Keith Alan Sprouse / Department of Modern Languages
176 Hampden-Sydney College / Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943
(o) 434.223.6335 / (f) 434.223.6347 / (h) 434.244.0465
