Re: [Leica] WOW! art versus information

["animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>]

I find it strange in these discussions that people use words like "fartsy".
Obviously English is not my native tongue but I sense a lack of semantic
knowledge here.
Clearly a photographic picture can do 2 things at once namely
record information and emotion.
Logically one could try to split the 2 but one would allways fail.
As an example even a line pair test chart might induce emotion in a viewer
unintentionally.
I believe that the best photojournalism,s examples both
transmit  powerful emotion and as much information as needed to know the
context.
As allways apologies for the bad english.
best regards
simon jessurun
amsterdam the netherlands

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] WOW!


> Kim wrote & asked:
> > Ted,
> >
> > First off, thank you very much for taking the time to help educate,
share
> > with me the views of a veteran photojournalist.
> >
> > A few more questions:
> >
> > <<Q>>> Is it that she's not telling a story?<<
> >
> > A To some degree, but these days everyone thinks they're
photojournalists
> with
> >
> > a collection of single pictures, which wasn't the meaning originally of
> >
> > photojournalist,  "a story teller with pictures generally on one subject
> ."
> >
> > And what we see in the pictures presented are a collection of
photographs
> >
> > shot some what in "art fashion" instead, as what's considered
> >
> > photojournalism.>>
>
> > So, traditional photojournalism is a series of photos, documenting one
> > specific story  (does there need to be accompanying text for it to be pj
> or
> > are images simply enough. <<<<
>
> Hi Kim,
> Generally the picture stories were usually accompanied with text. But not
> always, as many of mine had  little text story, but the pictures were well
> cutlined with information.
>
> >>If images themselves are allowed, must they be so
> > clear so as to telegraph their
> > "true meaning" or can they be...somewhat subjective, thus allowing the
> viewer
> > to draw their own conclusions?)<<<<
>
> In the hundreds of photo essays, documentaries, photo reportage I've shot
> both for magazines and the National Film Board of Canada the work was
always
> understandable and self explanatory without any hidden message.
>
> If I were to shoot a documentary/reportage on the International boundary
> between USA & Canada it was a story about pretty well all the facets along
> that line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In other words everything
> happening along the line.
>
> It would be laid out on a coast to coast story showing the borderline, the
> people from coast to coast and everything in between.  Or it might be on
> gold mining or the re-supply of the Arctic outposts by ice breaker and
> helicopter.
>
> But in each case it was a picture story about the subject and location.
And
> generally there wasn't room for artsy fartsy stuff! And they were always
in
> B&W. Occasionally a few rolls of colour would be shot only if it were a
> colourful colour subject..
>
> >>>>If images themselves are allowed, must they be so clear so as to
> telegraph their
> > "true meaning" or can they be...somewhat subjective, thus allowing the
> viewer to
> > draw their own conclusions?)<<<<
>
> Viewers never had difficulty understanding the photography and photo
content
> as they were "stories by pictures" and not something using arty exposures
> and non-understandable photographs.
>
> Think of the work as telling a true visual story of any given subject
> without viewers having to draw conclusions or draw out hidden messages.
> Shooting for magazines was different as it was generally semi-news story
or
> hard news stories.
>
> Also shooting for the daily newspapers was clean understandable picture
> stories, on occasion we still see this work being done but using only 4 to
6
> pictures.
>
> > Secondly, why can't a series of single pictures (maybe each telling a
> > different part) be considered photojournalism?<<<
>
> That's done all the time in newspapers in the weekend sections where a
> number of "news related pictures" are grouped together on a picture page
and
> this work is referred to as photojournalism. In fact these days many
> newsphotographers call themselves "photojournalists." Sometimes to give
> their position in life a higher meaning. ;-) As opposed to being a
> newsphotographer.
>
> Which quite frankly in my early days when asked what do you do?  I was
> always very proud say, "I'm a newsphotographer and work for the Ottawa
> Citizen."  Or whatever news gathering publication it might be at the time.
>
> And today I'm still proud to say, at one time I was a newsphotographer and
> hauled a big Speed Graphic with flash bulbs for several years!"
>
> And not until I began shooting major documentaries and photo essays did I
> begin using the term "Photojournalist" as a description of my photo
> profession. And when asked today what am I? I feel after all these years
and
> the type of photography I do and have done, I've earned the right to say
> "I'm a photojournalist who tells stories with photo reportage" ;-)
>
> ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html