[Leica] Magnum's Chris Anderson on Lebanon vs. Robert Capa/Chim Seymour

[bd at bdcolenphoto.com (B. D. Colen)]

Comparison, Scott, is always fair, if those being compared are playing on
the 'same field.' Here you're comparing professional photographers covering
war and its aftermath - so if Nachtwey is the modern standard setter, he's
the one against whom other professionals should be judged.

That said - consider that what you're seeing of Capa and Chim's work is
their absolute best, culled, reculled, judged, and reculled, over the past
60 years; what you're seeing of Anderson's work are probably the images he
edited and  transmitted to the syndicate while on the ground in a war zone -
and that makes a huge difference. First off, we are all our own absolute
worst editors; second, it's one thing for a curator to go through work that
was shot 50 years ago and dispassionately choose the best x hundred images
from thousands and thousands, and it's another thing for a photographer on
the ground, with bombs falling, to decide what 50 images to send over the
Sat phone.

None of this is to disagree with your judgment, I'm simply trying to refine
the discussion a bit.

Oh, one last point - most of Capa and Chim's work was not of combat, but of
collateral damage.
B. D.


On 8/18/06 2:24 AM, "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote:

> Capa: If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough.
> 
> Yeah, we all know that old one, but it's relevant here.
> 
> I feel I'm going to go out on a limb here, because the recent conflict
> is so sad, but....
> 
> I think his pictures are mediocre *at best*. Basically amateurish
> snapshots.
> 
> My favorites are: #28 of the photographs and the wounded leg; #33
> of pro Hezbollah protesters. And in that order of strong preference.
> 
> But most of the pics, well, aren't close enough! Go through the
> series, and most of the shots have a voyeuristic distance - I feel
> no intimacy with the subjects.
> 
> Most of the pics are of "collateral damage." I get it, the human
> face, and human cost, of a battle (war if you want).  But they fall
> flat for me. Here's where I think of Chim Seymour's work.
> 
> I count myself fortunate to have seen a collection of Chim Seymour's
> photos recently at the National Gallery, and most were his pics of
> children in the aftermath of WWII.  My Lord, what a remarkable
> and moving set of photographs!!!!  I think it's in part because they
> somehow show *life*, both the pathos and the tidbits of joy and
> humanity (the famous one of the nun playing ball with the orphans,
> just for example).
> 
> Anderson's pics pretty much suck by comparison: a blown up
> building; another one; a tiny figure of a man crawling around on a
> blown up building; blown up buildings at night; a dead person;
> a crowd of protesters; a parking garage with refugees; more blown
> up buildings.
> 
> Horrors all, but such a bland rendition.
> 
> Even his pic of the children playing in the shopping carts - there's
> no movement. Instead of a picture of children at play, the play is
> halted and we get a mugshot of a few children.
> 
> These are moving subjects, yet I'm left completely unmoved.
> 
> The majority of Anderson's pics are like snapshots - to use Eugene
> Smith's somewhat hyperbolic language, I don't feel like his pics
> make me "see into the heart, the very truth of the subject," in this
> case the devastation and the people who so sadly suffered it.
> 
> And I'm only 40 and know Capa and Seymour only as historical
> figures. I'm not worshiping the PJ past or anything.  I think
> Nachtewey's (sp?)  work on this same kind of subject matter is
> far, far superior (just thinking of his Bosnia and African famine
> photos, for example).
> 
> OK, so Nachtewey is a real ace, creme de la creme, and comparison
> isn't fair? OK. I can accept that.
> 
> But still.... Am I the only one who thinks Anderson's pics fall
> short and just aren't very compelling?  And with subject matter
> like that, what is his excuse?
> 
> Scott