Strange as it may seem, BD, I think we're both on the same sheet of music, though maybe not at the same place in the song. I agree with what you said in the opening statement for your syllabi, though we probably could have a very long discussion about the meaning of "fair," and whether or not it's really possible to be fair in the absence of objectivity. We also could have a long discussion about what "honesty" means in the absence of objectivity.
I think that when we used the word "objectivity" in those earlier posts we were talking about different things. I'm looking for a word to replace "objective" in what I said. "Focussed" comes to mind, and maybe that's closer to what I mean. At the same time, I think you're using "objective," as a synonym for lack of bias. As far as being able to avoid bias, a few days ago, in another thread on Street & PJ I wrote:
"But to me the question 'when is bias acceptable?' almost has to be answered 'always.' Anyone who thinks he's without bias needs to take a closer look at himself, and if you start trying to eliminate bias from human interaction, which a photograph always includes, you end up trying to eliminate human interaction itself."
So, setting aside questions about the meaning of "fairness" and "honesty," I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about what you're calling "objectivity."
But to make a good photograph you need to focus on your subject in an objective way -- there's that word again. I've tried to find a synonym that doesn't carry a connotation of lack of bias, but I'm not hacking it. What I mean is that if you're so taken with the woman that all you can do mentally is slobber over her, you're not going to get a good photograph unless you're very lucky. And if you're so emotionally involved in the war you came to photograph that all you can do is shoot back, you're not going to get a photograph at all.
As far as the difference between HCB and Gene Smith is concerned, I'm with you all the way. I love the work of both of them, but their work is very different. Henri's art is all in deciding what to include and what to leave out -- to the point that he refused to crop. Gene lived by Ansel's dictum that the negative is the score; the print is the performance. Henri shot and moved on, letting someone else print his photographs. Gene was such a perfectionist that when he was doing his Haitian asylum shoot as a Magnum associate he almost brought Magnum to its knees financially. In processing his shot of Tomoko Uemura in her bath he burned the print almost to black for impact and then used Farmer's Reducer to bring back the whites. Rags should be happy with the "artfulness" of Gene Smith's photographs. An awful lot of the impact came from the hand of man -- specifically Gene's.
I love Gene Smith's work, BD, and you're right, he hits right in the heart. But my own way of working is a lot closer to Henri's than to Gene's. That's not a conscious decision. It's just the way it is.
Haven't had this much fun with a web discussion for a long time. Wish I could come take one of your courses.
Objectivity in journalism - or pretty much anything other than science? NO SUCH THING. And anyone who believes there is is, well, delusional. Along with several other quotes, I include this one at the top of my photo and writing syllabi at MIT and Harvard:
“We can never be objective, for all that we have been, and all that we are, is with us every moment of our lives, shaping all of our attitudes and our vision. What we can be however, what we must be, is fair. And that idea of fairness boils down to one word – honesty, the one thing that we owe our subjects.”
Eugene Smith was clearly emotionally involved with his subjects; he cared about them. And it shows in the photographs. HCB generally was not. And it shows in his photographs. Cartier-Bresson - with a few exceptions - smacks us in the head; Eugene Smith punches us in the heart.
While there could not have been a Smith without an HCB, I'll take the former over the latter any day.
I couldn't agree with you more on this point, BD. In any human endeavor, it's virtually impossible to divorce from the equation the sum total of one's life experiences, expectations, and personal proclivities. Even in the world of sterile science, these human foibles have often monkeyed up the waters.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
I couldn't agree with you more on this point, BD. In any human endeavor, it's virtually impossible to divorce from the equation the sum total of one's life experiences, expectations, and personal proclivities. Even in the world of sterile science, these human foibles have often monkeyed up the waters.
Tom
absolutely true, Tom. Though in science the mud is usually stirred by corruption/greed/ego, rather than by lack of what we would think of as objectivity.
But to make a good photograph you need to focus on your subject in an objective way -- there's that word again. I've tried to find a synonym that doesn't carry a connotation of lack of bias, but I'm not hacking it. What I mean is that if you're so taken with the woman that all you can do mentally is slobber over her, you're not going to get a good photograph unless you're very lucky. And if you're so emotionally involved in the war you came to photograph that all you can do is shoot back, you're not going to get a photograph at all.
I'm drooling over this conversation between you and B.D. It's filling my mind with good thoughts.
Anyway, I pulled out this particular paragraph because previously I was perusing a periodical by Craft & Vison and in it I read a very interesting article about the photographer's conceived reality vs. the perceived reality. Very interesting stuff.
"But to make a good photograph you need to focus on your subject in an objective way -- there's that word again. I've tried to find a synonym that doesn't carry a connotation of lack of bias, but I'm not hacking it. What I mean is that if you're so taken with the woman that all you can do mentally is slobber over her, you're not going to get a good photograph unless you're very lucky. And if you're so emotionally involved in the war you came to photograph that all you can do is shoot back, you're not going to get a photograph at all."
I would call that professional detachment.
A member of the Bang Bang Club (So. African War Photogs) took a pulizer prize shot of a Vulture waiting about 10' away from a dying starving child (during the So African conflict). He took the shot & walked without any interference; he was vilified in the international community and committed suicide.
"But to make a good photograph you need to focus on your subject in an objective way -- there's that word again. I've tried to find a synonym that doesn't carry a connotation of lack of bias, but I'm not hacking it. What I mean is that if you're so taken with the woman that all you can do mentally is slobber over her, you're not going to get a good photograph unless you're very lucky. And if you're so emotionally involved in the war you came to photograph that all you can do is shoot back, you're not going to get a photograph at all."
I would call that professional detachment.
A member of the Bang Bang Club (So. African War Photogs) took a pulizer prize shot of a Vulture waiting about 10' away from a dying starving child (during the So African conflict). He took the shot & walked without any interference; he was vilified in the international community and committed suicide.
What would you do?
Time for context and facts: A. The photograph had nothing to do with South Africa, but was taken in Sudan during a horrendous famine in 1983;
B. The photograph was taken within sight of a feeding station, while the U.N. was delivering food. This was not an abandoned child somewhere off in the wild, with a vulture waiting for lunch;
C. The photographer, Kevin Carter, was by all accounts a very troubled individual with a major substance abuse problem. Undoubtedly the criticism he received added to his depression, but to say he killed himself because of the picture misses the bigger picture of the dissolution of his life;
D. Yes, i would have done the same thing. If one goes as a photographer to war, a famine, or some other horror, one goes as a photographer, to do a particular job. One does not go as a humanitarian to save lives - one goes to bring back the visual story, which may or may not inspire others to go save lives. If one is sent to such a situation, and one does not do what one has been sent to do, one should and will be fired.
That said, we come to the school-bus-full -of-children-hanging-over-the-cliff situation: I am the only adult on the scene; the bus driver is dead; the bus is going to slide off the cliff; I can open the back door of the bus and the children will all pour out to safety. What do I do? Fire off a dozen shots within 60 second, chimp to make sure I have something, and save the kids. But that is a ludicrously rare, hypothetical situation. The reality is that photographers, be they shooting wars, famines, or school bus accidents, are almost always in places where there are other professionals, professionals who are there to kill people, professionals who are there to feed people, and professionals who are there to put out fires and rescue people. They do their jobs, and photographers photograph.
Time for context and facts: A. The photograph had nothing to do with South Africa, but was taken in Sudan during a horrendous famine in 1983;
B. The photograph was taken within sight of a feeding station, while the U.N. was delivering food. This was not an abandoned child somewhere off in the wild, with a vulture waiting for lunch;
C. The photographer, Kevin Carter, was by all accounts a very troubled individual with a major substance abuse problem. Undoubtedly the criticism he received added to his depression, but to say he killed himself because of the picture misses the bigger picture of the dissolution of his life;
D. Yes, i would have done the same thing. If one goes as a photographer to war, a famine, or some other horror, one goes as a photographer, to do a particular job. One does not go as a humanitarian to save lives - one goes to bring back the visual story, which may or may not inspire others to go save lives. If one is sent to such a situation, and one does not do what one has been sent to do, one should and will be fired.
That said, we come to the school-bus-full -of-children-hanging-over-the-cliff situation: I am the only adult on the scene; the bus driver is dead; the bus is going to slide off the cliff; I can open the back door of the bus and the children will all pour out to safety. What do I do? Fire off a dozen shots within 60 second, chimp to make sure I have something, and save the kids. But that is a ludicrously rare, hypothetical situation. The reality is that photographers, be they shooting wars, famines, or school bus accidents, are almost always in places where there are other professionals, professionals who are there to kill people, professionals who are there to feed people, and professionals who are there to put out fires and rescue people. They do their jobs, and photographers photograph.
Thanks for the fact correction you did your homework ( I didn't - I posted on recollection)
He was a member of the Bang Bang Club, however.
I heard another member in a radio interview tell another story. He was shooting in SA an insurgent group who had gotten an opposition member - were beating him and were about to execute him. The photog argued with the about to be executioner for a while until his life was threatened, he stopped & the man was killed. This photog stopped covering wars, lives with his wife and child in SA.
Another member of that club was recently killed (past 3 months) covering political conflict somewhere.
Your response of the fireman to the rescue in this case is naive. These war photogs work in uncontrolled conditions beyond rational or humane behavior.
I suggest seeing the movie, Bang Bang Club
Edit: bd, in spite of my remarks; you had the courage to respond - and it is much appreciated, thanks
Thanks for the fact correction you did your homework ( I didn't - I posted on recollection)
He was a member of the Bang Bang Club, however.
I heard another member in a radio interview tell another story. He was shooting in SA an insurgent group who had gotten an opposition member - were beating him and were about to execute him. The photog argued with the about to be executioner for a while until his life was threatened, he stopped & the man was killed. This photog stopped covering wars, lives with his wife and child in SA.
Another member of that club was recently killed (past 3 months) covering political conflict somewhere.
Your response of the fireman to the rescue in this case is naive. These war photogs work in uncontrolled conditions beyond rational or humane behavior.
I suggest seeing the movie, Bang Bang Club
Edit: bd, in spite of my remarks; you had the courage to respond - and it is much appreciated, thanks
No prob. I have read the Bang! Bang! Club, and seen the movie. If you've only seen the movie, I highly recommend reading the book, which is vastly superior. I would also highly recommend War Photographer, the documentary about the work of James Nachtwey, if you haven't seen it. It address some of these same questions.
And the fireman thing isn't naive. Yes, war photographers are often photographing in uncontrolled situations. But the bottom line is one gets into these situations to photograph. And if you don't do that, you're pretty much useless to everyone.
P. S. Another member of the bang bang club, Jao Silva of the New York Times, lost both his legs to an IED in Iraq. And he is determined to resume his career, and given his determination, undoubtedly will.
But - as is noted in the Nachtwey documentary, 'there are no old war photographers.' You either get out, or get killed. Or crack up. I would venture a guess that no one who has done that kind of work for any length of time is not suffering from some degree of PTSD. And if he or she isn't, I don't think I'd like to meet them.
P. S. Another member of the bang bang club, Jao Silva of the New York Times, lost both his legs to an IED in Iraq. And he is determined to resume his career, and given his determination, undoubtedly will.
But - as is noted in the Nachtwey documentary, 'there are no old war photographers.' You either get out, or get killed. Or crack up. I would venture a guess that no one who has done that kind of work for any length of time is not suffering from some degree of PTSD. And if he or she isn't, I don't think I'd like to meet them.
Well, my book came in and the first page I opened to was the very same discussion about post 6/7 of this thread. Weird.... I'll start reading this evening.
I cannot highly enough recommend the book "Believing Is Seeing: Observations On The Mysteries of Photography," by Oscar-winning documentary film maker and MacArthur "genius" Errol Morris. Expanded from a series of multi-part essays he wrote for the New York Times lens blog, Morris writes at great, and quite brilliant, length about the issues we kick around here. The book consists of four sections: one on Cameron's two "Valley of the Shadow of Death" photos taken during the Crimean War; one of the Abu Ghraib photos; one on Walker Evans and the FSA photographers, and, finally, one about the toys turning up in photos from the war in Lebanon. The FSA section is particularly valuable in terms of thinking about what is or isn't documentary. But the overarching theme of the book and question is raises has to do with whether we can ever have a clue what a photo is "really" about, what the photographer did or did not intend, and whether it matters.
Ever since I began teaching my documentary photo class at MIT I have had Sontag's "On Photography" on the required reading list, warning my students that it is pedantic, often wrong, painful to read, but also necessary. Well, this spring semester, it is gone from the Syllabi at MIT and Harvard, replaced by Morris.
Read it. You won't regret it.
Sorry to be late to the party, but thanks for the recommendation BD. It's certainly different from Sontag, minutae instead of sweeping generalization, more concerned with truth than art and hey, it even has photos. The book is almost worth its price just to see the then and now pics of Lange's Migrant Mother--unexpected and wonderful.
Grasping the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a hopeless task, with or without photography. Philosophically, I do believe in an objective reality, but I don't believe we can ever aspire to know more than a tiny fraction of the miniscule area we focus on. Nevertheless, we must beware of liars, misrepresentations and errors of omission and interpretation. But I think the cat is already out of the bag regarding photography: one of the reasons given for not releasing the death photos of Bin Laden was that too many people would believe they had been altered. As a life-long skeptic, I don't think that's a bad thing. I value honesty, of course, and I applaud the efforts of all who maintain a high standard of integrity in their work. But Truth with a capital T will always elude us. We just have to resign ourselves to factoids and truthiness and try to make sense of the world as best we can.
Comments
I think that when we used the word "objectivity" in those earlier posts we were talking about different things. I'm looking for a word to replace "objective" in what I said. "Focussed" comes to mind, and maybe that's closer to what I mean. At the same time, I think you're using "objective," as a synonym for lack of bias. As far as being able to avoid bias, a few days ago, in another thread on Street & PJ I wrote:
"But to me the question 'when is bias acceptable?' almost has to be answered 'always.' Anyone who thinks he's without bias needs to take a closer look at himself, and if you start trying to eliminate bias from human interaction, which a photograph always includes, you end up trying to eliminate human interaction itself."
So, setting aside questions about the meaning of "fairness" and "honesty," I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about what you're calling "objectivity."
But to make a good photograph you need to focus on your subject in an objective way -- there's that word again. I've tried to find a synonym that doesn't carry a connotation of lack of bias, but I'm not hacking it. What I mean is that if you're so taken with the woman that all you can do mentally is slobber over her, you're not going to get a good photograph unless you're very lucky. And if you're so emotionally involved in the war you came to photograph that all you can do is shoot back, you're not going to get a photograph at all.
As far as the difference between HCB and Gene Smith is concerned, I'm with you all the way. I love the work of both of them, but their work is very different. Henri's art is all in deciding what to include and what to leave out -- to the point that he refused to crop. Gene lived by Ansel's dictum that the negative is the score; the print is the performance. Henri shot and moved on, letting someone else print his photographs. Gene was such a perfectionist that when he was doing his Haitian asylum shoot as a Magnum associate he almost brought Magnum to its knees financially. In processing his shot of Tomoko Uemura in her bath he burned the print almost to black for impact and then used Farmer's Reducer to bring back the whites. Rags should be happy with the "artfulness" of Gene Smith's photographs. An awful lot of the impact came from the hand of man -- specifically Gene's.
I love Gene Smith's work, BD, and you're right, he hits right in the heart. But my own way of working is a lot closer to Henri's than to Gene's. That's not a conscious decision. It's just the way it is.
Haven't had this much fun with a web discussion for a long time. Wish I could come take one of your courses.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
I couldn't agree with you more on this point, BD. In any human endeavor, it's virtually impossible to divorce from the equation the sum total of one's life experiences, expectations, and personal proclivities. Even in the world of sterile science, these human foibles have often monkeyed up the waters.
Tom
absolutely true, Tom. Though in science the mud is usually stirred by corruption/greed/ego, rather than by lack of what we would think of as objectivity.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I'm drooling over this conversation between you and B.D. It's filling my mind with good thoughts.
Anyway, I pulled out this particular paragraph because previously I was perusing a periodical by Craft & Vison and in it I read a very interesting article about the photographer's conceived reality vs. the perceived reality. Very interesting stuff.
I would call that professional detachment.
A member of the Bang Bang Club (So. African War Photogs) took a pulizer prize shot of a Vulture waiting about 10' away from a dying starving child (during the So African conflict). He took the shot & walked without any interference; he was vilified in the international community and committed suicide.
What would you do?
Time for context and facts: A. The photograph had nothing to do with South Africa, but was taken in Sudan during a horrendous famine in 1983;
B. The photograph was taken within sight of a feeding station, while the U.N. was delivering food. This was not an abandoned child somewhere off in the wild, with a vulture waiting for lunch;
C. The photographer, Kevin Carter, was by all accounts a very troubled individual with a major substance abuse problem. Undoubtedly the criticism he received added to his depression, but to say he killed himself because of the picture misses the bigger picture of the dissolution of his life;
D. Yes, i would have done the same thing. If one goes as a photographer to war, a famine, or some other horror, one goes as a photographer, to do a particular job. One does not go as a humanitarian to save lives - one goes to bring back the visual story, which may or may not inspire others to go save lives. If one is sent to such a situation, and one does not do what one has been sent to do, one should and will be fired.
That said, we come to the school-bus-full -of-children-hanging-over-the-cliff situation: I am the only adult on the scene; the bus driver is dead; the bus is going to slide off the cliff; I can open the back door of the bus and the children will all pour out to safety. What do I do? Fire off a dozen shots within 60 second, chimp to make sure I have something, and save the kids. But that is a ludicrously rare, hypothetical situation. The reality is that photographers, be they shooting wars, famines, or school bus accidents, are almost always in places where there are other professionals, professionals who are there to kill people, professionals who are there to feed people, and professionals who are there to put out fires and rescue people. They do their jobs, and photographers photograph.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Thanks for the fact correction you did your homework ( I didn't - I posted on recollection)
He was a member of the Bang Bang Club, however.
I heard another member in a radio interview tell another story. He was shooting in SA an insurgent group who had gotten an opposition member - were beating him and were about to execute him. The photog argued with the about to be executioner for a while until his life was threatened, he stopped & the man was killed. This photog stopped covering wars, lives with his wife and child in SA.
Another member of that club was recently killed (past 3 months) covering political conflict somewhere.
Your response of the fireman to the rescue in this case is naive. These war photogs work in uncontrolled conditions beyond rational or humane behavior.
I suggest seeing the movie, Bang Bang Club
Edit: bd, in spite of my remarks; you had the courage to respond - and it is much appreciated, thanks
No prob.
And the fireman thing isn't naive. Yes, war photographers are often photographing in uncontrolled situations. But the bottom line is one gets into these situations to photograph. And if you don't do that, you're pretty much useless to everyone.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
But - as is noted in the Nachtwey documentary, 'there are no old war photographers.' You either get out, or get killed. Or crack up. I would venture a guess that no one who has done that kind of work for any length of time is not suffering from some degree of PTSD. And if he or she isn't, I don't think I'd like to meet them.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Well said
.
ditto!
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Grasping the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a hopeless task, with or without photography. Philosophically, I do believe in an objective reality, but I don't believe we can ever aspire to know more than a tiny fraction of the miniscule area we focus on. Nevertheless, we must beware of liars, misrepresentations and errors of omission and interpretation. But I think the cat is already out of the bag regarding photography: one of the reasons given for not releasing the death photos of Bin Laden was that too many people would believe they had been altered. As a life-long skeptic, I don't think that's a bad thing. I value honesty, of course, and I applaud the efforts of all who maintain a high standard of integrity in their work. But Truth with a capital T will always elude us. We just have to resign ourselves to factoids and truthiness and try to make sense of the world as best we can.