Use this post to comment on Chapter 2 in No Caption Needed. Some potential questions to consider:
--What do you make of the authors' argument that photojournalism cannot be avant-garde or experimental? Why is that their claim?
--What is the role of the "iconoclast" in democratic society? What is the role of the iconoclast in photojournalism?
--Sum up the authors' criteria for analyzing photographs, in plain language. Can you think of further criteria necessary? Comment on their ideas.
You do not have to answer these questions. Just use them as guidelines. I'm looking for your reactions, comments, questions. PLEASE respond to each others' comments -- use the comment thread as a forum for dialogue.
I agree with the authors that photojournalism can't be avant-garde or experimental because it takes away from the sincerity of the photo. If the photo was meant to tell a story, it should be raw and real to get an emotional reaction from society. Other people who aren't photojournalists can take photos that are experimental because they might be trying to impose an idea. These authors' are claiming otherwise because in their particular profession they're trying to tell a story or present images in the recent media.
ReplyDeleteAngela Sasorith
I agree that photojournalism shouldn't be avant garde now, but I feel like that idea can change over time. For example, the Dada movement in history, doesn't that have some iconic definition in them? I appreciate what the book has to say about the avant garde, but I really do have concern on the idea changing over time. Iconic images to us right now have withstood time, but how do we know that the new photographs that may be slightly unconventional would not withstand time.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Zhao
I disagree with the author on how photojournalism is something that can not be altered or be experiment but it should be and art that is “structured by familiar pattern.” But with a structured pattern it leaves less opportunity for growth and development. The book states that photojournalism shouldn’t be widely transgress, and not to go above and beyond. But what I think is that without these boundaries and limitations it will give more real representation of the true feelings of the photojournalist. I feel that the book does state good fact of that the iconic image is a moment of visual eloquence, but is never obtained through artistic experimentation.” The visual eloquence part is true, but without the experimentation we would never be able to see what would look good in certain perspectives.
ReplyDeleteSachendra (Sachin) Dumra
Angela- I agree with the fact that iconic photos shouldn't be avant-garde, but when you say that "If the photo was meant to tell a story, it should be raw and real to get an emotional reaction from society" - I feel as if the most raw pictures would tell the most and the most emotional reaction. I don't think it takes sincerity out of the picture because if its trying to get some sort of a reaction from the audience, and if its successful in that, wouldn't that be an icon? The authors of the book claim this because they also feel it takes away from the visual eloquence of it, but I believe that even with experimentation one can achieve that--maybe even need that in order to successfully portray the point.
ReplyDelete- Arsa Ghazal
I also agree with Angela, why one would try to experiment with photos, when they are meant to tell a story from the photographer. They should not be manipulated by others, and it just ruins the whole purpose of the picture. This also leads to the fact that there are iconoclasts, who are people who try to destroy the purpose of an image through their beliefs and superstitions. There will always be people who will argue with what you are trying to portray in your picture, because everyone has different opinions.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra (Sandy) Chuah
I like how Sandy mentioned that there are people that will argue with a pictures meaning. I feel too that if it's messed with, you just took away all the feeling that you wanted to show. It's like a kid going all out on photoshop. They're iconic because in that moment of time, that was real emotion, not something created on the computer.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Goldstein
Its true that people will look at a picture and see various symbols and ideas. however that is what artwork is it causes you to think about various ways how it can relate to all walks of life. i do agree that raw photos do portray hardcore emotions as well.
ReplyDelete~~Andrew O
I completely agree with Sachin. Just because a piece of art does not fit within the boundaries with society at that time, it does not mean it is any less impactful. Same with photography, ok so something is in a picture that may not be appreciated at the current day. But who is to say that the subject of the picture will not be in the forefront of society ten years from then. In that sense, the photograph could be ahead of its time and something of a maverick.
ReplyDeleteWhen the author states that "[photos] work by activating vital repertoires of social behavior" I completely agree. When one looks at a photo they take in the scene and put themselves there. The recognize the environment of the subject, where they are, what they are doing, their surroundings, everything. The author goes on to state that iconic photos "provide the viewing public with the powerful evocations of emotional experience". This can support the idea that photojournalism cannot be avant-garde. If these iconic photographs were avant then the viewer would not be able to relate their selves to the scene. It would not represent the public as a whole. You want the public to be able to feel emotions as a whole and to be able to see what the photographer is trying to convey. The photograph should be able to tell a story to the public and connect one to another. Avant-garde or experimental photographs tend to be abstract and the "average" person would not be able to tell what type of story the photographer is trying to tell.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Angela in that photojournalism cannot be avant-garde. She makes a great point stating that the images must be raw and real in order to extract emotions from the viewer. If these images are abstract the viewer might be confused as to what the photographer is trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteI half way agree with Sachin's comment. I think what the author is trying to say about being experimental is that they can experiment with the photos they are taking, just not in a way that it is too abstract and cannot be interpreted by the average person (one who is not supported with an art-type background). Photojournalist need to be experimental, but not on the avant-garde level (being too abstract, etc). The way you have interpreted what you think experimental is right though. Different perspectives are good and experimentation with that is what photojournalist must do in order to succeed.
i agree with the last two comments, a great picture can not be forced or mad to be, i feel like it has to be caught in the moment. the photographer must decide how the pictures story want to be read and make sure the way the photo is taken can explain it that way.
ReplyDeleteif you are just starting out and experimenting then its okay to have your photos be a little different but as Angela said true and good photographer can make sure the photo tells the entire story.
I agree with many of my above classmates that photojournalism and iconic photographs cannot be avant-guard. That completely defeats the point of photojournalism and iconic photographs. With photojournalism, the point is to inform people about something, show them the facts and the truth. Unless the subject of the photo is avant-guard itself, such as a bakery run by mimes, then the photo can be strange. All photojournalism should be used for is to inform, nothing else. In the case of iconic photographs, they are supposed to have a mass appeal. If there's something super weird in an iconic photograph then white bread Americans probably won't like it, or not comprehend the weirdness. With both of these types of photographs to even be considered these types of photographs, they must be normal. And by normal I don't mean mundane. A normal picture can still be very powerful, because it is so relatable and realistic. Avante-guard has its role in photography but not in these forms of photography.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily agree with the claim that photojournalism cannot be avant-guard. I feel like any creative form of art depends on the creativity of the artist, rather than a subject. Essentially, photojournalism is both subjective and objective, in that it is trying to tell a story and also sell you into reading that story. However, there are limits to the creativity of a photojournalist, because he/she has specific guidelines to display the photo, so it will never be totally experimental.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tiffany completely that while it isn't avant-gard currently, it has room to change as time continues. While things in the past don't hold the same meaning that the did to the people of the time in which it was taken, that same premise can happen for those further in the future. We have no idea of what the future can hold therefore, putting a cap on iconic pictures and what they can be is a slightly premature thought.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that photojournalism cannot be avant-garde. Photojournalism is meant to stop a moment in time and to represent a moment in time. Its not meant to distort the truth into something completely far from the truth. Yes, creativity can be used by the photographer, but not in circumstances like photojournalism. Like Sara said, iconic photograph is different, because it is considered iconic because it appeals to the crowd and the photo is taken with a purpose to appeal or connect with the audience.
ReplyDelete-Soo
If I am understanding this correctly, one argument against photojournalism's ability to be avant-garde is that it would detract from the photographer's ability to extract a particular reaction from their picture. However, there are many other things that would interact with a person to affect their reading of a picture. One person viewing a picture would have a different understanding of it than someone else looking at the exact same picture. There are not just the individual's filters, but the filters of other people that affect a person's understanding of the news. Take the same picture and place it in a publication beside a liberal article. An individual having read that article will look at the picture in a different way than someone else who read a conservative article beside the picture. My point is that there is so many other things that change how a person views or feels looking at a picture, that perhaps a picture's style should be less attacked.
ReplyDelete