Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 Arturo - I think not. But I think part of what you are referring to is the subjects themselves, more than the photography per se. War makes compelling photographic material. Armies marching into Paris make compelling photographs. A napalmed naked child running down a road makes a compelling photo subject, and you don't need to be HBC, Larry Burrows, or Eddie Adams to get a great photo of that. The Great Depression was, I believe, another matter entirely. While it didn't take much of an artist to get a compelling photo of a bread line, it did take a real photographer - with a real eye - to get most of the portraits and most memorable images produced during that period. Again, I don't think what we're talking about is what the public will or won't respond to, but what editors are interested in printing. And what they seem to be interested in is celebrities, etc. B. D.