Views On Photojournalism?

[luqman]

What are your thoughts on photography?

Photojournalism - in the course of trying to present a scene or topic in the most ingenious or exciting way possible, how much of the actual essence of the subject/scene/story do we lose?

Does the result exaggerate what is in actuality blasé or does it trivialise the gravity of a situation? How much does personal interpretation and opinion encroach on a reproduction of a scene? How unbiased does a photojourno need be? Would a documentary photographer be in a better position to record events or would a photojournalist? Where does one cross the line to become the other?

How often do we try and create works of art from documenting reality? One doesn't complement the other; in fact, one borders on contradicting the premise of the other.

What are the ethical and moral ramnifications involved in trying to make your career largely from the misery of others (there's infinitely more 'draw' to a disaster, war or such, than would a happy or positive event).

[nabghani]

luqman ... this is really deep stuff man ... perhaps you can start off with what is running around your head.

In my thinking once it becomes necessary for you to exchange your "photography" for money (ie. art driven by stomach rather than heart) ... the work becomes less "truthful" and shaped more by the dictates of the day (editor, critic, peer, fad, fashion etc etc). So everyone goes for the things that sells .... makes the biggest bang or sensation, most shocking etc etc.

There is a new book out which discusses the very thing (Approaching Photography - Paul Hill, I think) and an old book, On Photography - Susan Sontag. Some of Eugene Richard's (The Fat Baby) thoughts would be worth quoting here too but I can't remember them right now, perhaps later.

I could be wrong wrt the first paragraph but I am no PJ and a far cry from being an artist as such!