In a message dated 1/6/03 17:19:23, ksprouse@hsc.edu writes: << At 05:22 AM 1/6/2003 -0500, Rich wrote: 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. >> Keith, Perhaps it would be easier to think in different terms. Maybe it would be better to think of objectivity in terms of material, fair, intention or purpose. And subjective in terms of illusory, biased, phenomenal or personal. << 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. >> So, are you saying the whole piece was a sham? What of the other images in the spread, were they staged as well? Perhaps the whole premise of "romance in Paris" was fraudulent. It may have been a false notion cooked up by an editor. How are we to know if the facts presented in the piece (fluff piece, or not) are real if the only image whose details we are familiar with was phony? Why should we judge the context differently because it's not hard news? Facts are facts, even in style pieces. << 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. >> The documentary tradition has exactly that in its past--staged (rearranged, altered, etc.) photos and evidence, not to mention the lack of objectivity in getting across the photographer's (usually preconceived) message. This is not to say that all documentary photography is, or was, practiced this way, but much of it is. Reminds me of the joke about a guy crawling on his hands and knees who, when asked by a passerby why he was doing that, replied "I'm looking for a quarter I dropped around the corner." The passerby asks "if you dropped it around the corner, why aren't you over there looking for it?" "The light is better here." <<...in my understanding, Brady et al. are considered to be pioneering photojournalists as much as documentarians. >> Pioneering, maybe, but certainly not to be held up as pillars of ethical methodology for future practitioners. Glad you enjoyed the diner images. Cheers, Rich Mason Photographer-at-Large <A HREF="http://www.richmason.com/";>http://richmason.com</A> See the new section: Rich on the Road Dans cet environnment banal qui était le mien il m’arrivait d’apercevoir des fragments de temps l’univers quotidien parassait liberé de la pesanteur. Montrer ces moments--l’pouvait occuper toute une vie (In these ordinary surroundings which were my own I happened to glimpse some fragments of time in which the everyday world appeared freed from its heaviness. To show such moments would take a whole lifetime.). --Letter to Peter Hamilton from Robert Doisneau, January, 1992 And to stage them would, apparently, take much less than a lifetime.
