I am a little stuck as I like the documentary image, but I feel there is a fundamental difference between the documentary image and the photojournalism image, correct me if I’m wrong. but people like Robert Frank, are not necessarily showing the photojournalism image but a photo with a narrative or message which is put through with artistic use of the camera, where as photojournalism seems to be as it is, although carefully composed but its more about the content as apposed to the message behind the parts of the photographs...
just a thought.
On thinking of the documentary image, I have concluded the documentary image is somewhat biased to that photographers certain opinions on the subject he is photographing. This could be down to how the photographer has to get the shot, it is not just a snap of a fleeting moment, or decisive moment in the world of today but it is a reflection of the photographer, who they are and what kind of person they are. If the subjects appear to be open toward the camera, you would expect the photographer to be a friendly character, thus perhaps taking the element of truth from the photograph. If the photographer likes what they are capturing they are more likely to create an image made up in their mind of what they believe would represent the subject. When approaching a photojournalistic image, there is not emotional attachment between the subjects as it is just a fleeting moment in time, made possible by the situation. The documentary photographer has to be there at the right time for the fleeting moment, where as a photojournalist, traditionally as a news photographer, is presented with the opportunity to get that moment in time as it is their job to share that moment with the world. Photographers like Robert Frank, Richard Billingham and Diane Arbus had to create their own fleeting moments through people who wouldn’t necessarily attract a news photojournalist. The photographs printed in ‘the times’ or ‘the independent’ are designed to sum up the story, however the documentary photographer needs the photograph to speak louder than perhaps the article in the newspaper as the image in their work is the dominant purpose of that person. The emotional attachment to that photograph for the documentary photographer is greater, perhaps, than a photojournalist that has been sent off to get the shot for a salary. In my opinion, the documentary image is vague, which is what makes it so appealing, it is a clean canvas for you to photograph who ever you like in anyway that suits them, however the journalistic image is much more clean cut, the subject has been decided for them and they are there to record the events, to be a fly on the wall. As I know it, the documentary image and the journalistic image are the same, they both capture the truth, however when thinking about it, I discovered a big difference between the likes of the opinionated photographers of the fifties, such as Robert Frank who are out to shoot for a purpose, something that they feel represents them. In a way it is a look at the photographer at times. I find it difficult to decide what aspect of this genre I find most appealing, as I am inspired by both sides. Although Photojournalism has more money and job opportunities, the documentary image is something done off your own back, you do the planning and you get your work out there for publishing. It could be seen as a personal mission as apposed to being sent to a certain location to capture Obama’s speech in Washington. Both sides of the genre are appealing and both have opportunity to travel, I just see it a shame to discard some of the aesthetics to create a truthful image. I am not too inspired by images with no hidden meaning or contextual truth behind them; instead I am inspired by hard hitting, truthful images of the aesthetic sort. There is certainly a market for photojournalists out there, as everyday something monumental happens in our world and people are needed to capture those moments. There is not an urgency to capture the ordinary, or a lifestyle, only in the niche magazines. A prime example of this is William Eggleston, his work on the ordinary aspects of the American lifestyle have helped capture the truth in a beautiful way using beautiful colours. Whether or not the truth is biased is difficult to say, whether the photographer has created an idea in his head that he is basing his project on, shooting to a similar context.
I feel to capture the truth; you need to approach the situation with a neutral standing point, knowing enough about the subject but not too much so much so you are creating the image which sums up the personality and nature of the subject of the photograph instead of telling the truth. Knowing too much could cloud your judgement. However I don’t like that idea, I think getting to know your subject makes the images all that more rewarding.
TIME: 3:21am 9th May 09
No comments:
Post a Comment