Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]AJSymi@aol.com wrote: > It seems to me that when discussing great images of the past, the period > in which these images were taken were historically significant, i.e., > great depression, WWII, Viet Nam, etc. Maybe Eric Welch or other pros out > there can answer this better than I, but do we need major historical > events to produce great photojournalism that 95% of the public will take > interest? Arturo, One reason 95% of the population react to the photos from the events you describe is because 95% of the population was affected by those same events. When photos portray something that hits close to home people take more notice than when it is of something they are not affected by. For example James Nacwatchey (SP?) is currently producing war photography on par with any of the vietnam shooters IMHO, but it is of the brush wars in South America, Africa, Bosnia, and other places most people have few emotional ties to.(IMHO he is better than most to have ever played with a camera) In WWII, Vietnam, The Depression, and the other events you mentioned almost everyone was affected, or had a friend or relative affected by those events. Thus striking images from those times hit the emotional centre of the American concious. Good journalism is being done, just not many are seeing it. Look at Black Star's site and follow the link to the world wide journalism link and look at Chris Morris's stuff from Checneya. Rather good IMHO. Harrison McClary http://people.delphi.com/hmphoto