Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Wednesday, August 01, 2001, 9:44:47 PM, you wrote: > Bob Walkden wrote: >> I think it's a mistake to try and judge photojournalists by artistic >> standards. They're different conversations. > Not when we're talking about, for instance, Salgado, Nachtwey, or a very > few others. The art world and the world of documentary photography are really poles apart. Discussing Salgado and Nachtwey in the same terms as Wolfgang Tillmans really would be about as much use as discussing Ryszard Kapuzcinski or George Orwell in the same terms as Allen Ginsburg. They may be using the same instruments, but they inhabit completely different worlds. >> >> Secondly, good/better/best is probably impossible to define, so any >> talking amongst ourselves would be merely swapping opinions. > Oh, and that's not what people waste their entire days, for months on > end, doing on this list? I concede entirely on this point. What was I thinking about? :o) >> >> Thirdly, even to agree on a useful definition of documentary >> photography would be quite an achievement. > For whom? for the people taking part. If n people take part there will be at least 2n+1 definitions of documentary photography. Without a workable definition you don't know who to include/exclude from the set of documentary photographers. You could of course ignore definitions altogether, and simply make a list of photographers and ask us all to put them in order of 'goodness' or 'artiness'. What would be the point of that? >> >> Thirdly (bis), is he the best ever? Er, I'll let you know at the end of >> infinity. Best so far? Better than HCB? Capa? McCullin? Who cares? >> What's the point of comparing? > Gee, I don't know. Why don't we simply shut down all departments of art, > art history, etc., because, after all, they waste so much of everyone's > time comparing and contrasting the work of various artists. I wasn't aware that they sit around asking "is Goya better than Kandinski?" or "who's the best: Picasso or Botticelli?". Compare and contrast is not the same as "Who's best?". Comparing and contrasting the work of people like Salgado, McCullin etc, is a worthwhile way to spend time, but asking which is 'best' is utterly futile and childish. > As to the photographers you mention....HCB? From a technical standpoint, > he couldn't get a job carrying Salgado's equipment. Capa? Surely you > jest. McCullin? Please. Yes, they are all great, legendary > photographers. But none of them is particularly outstanding in terms of > the technical perfection of their work. The technicalities, beyond a trivial minimal requirement, are entirely unimportant and incidental to the making of documentary photographs. > I'm not contending that he is The Best in terms of content and impact. > Over the long haul, the people you named will all probably end up having > greater impact on photography, and those who view their work. But in > terms of exposure, composition, lighting, I'd argue that he may well be > The Best ever - ever being up until today. Composition is not a technical matter in the same sense as exposure or lighting. In this it might indeed be interesting to make comparisons between him and a formalist such as HCB, and to see how they use different compositional techniques to achieve their ends, but I don't see how it would be possible to rank them, even if it was a worthwhile thing to try to do. Furthermore, I wonder if their purpose is to have an impact on photography or whether they give a damn. I suspect not. I suspect their purpose is to have an impact on the problems they document. Certainly this is the impression I get from reading what they've said and from watching interviews and attending lectures. >> > B. D.