Re: [Leica] Salgado - Simply The Best?? Talk amongst yourselves

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Well, I see where this could deteriorate pretty quickly...but...

Bob Walkden wrote:
> 
> 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.

I wasn't suggesting comparing documentary and "art" photographers. What
I was suggesting is that documentary photography can definitely have
artistic, as well as social, value, and I for one think that Salgado's
work is an example of that. As I'm sure you know, there are in fact
those who think that he work is "too beautiful" and because of that
loses its documentary value.



> 
> >>
> >> 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?

Probably none.

> >>
> >> 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.

Well, sorry that you find this utterly futile and childish. It may well
be a waste of time, particularly in this setting. But it is hardly
unusual to ask, "who is the 'best' documentary photographer alive
today?' 'Who is the best portraitist?' And, yes, the answers are
certainly subjective. BTW, I believe that  one of the photo magazines
has for a number of issues been narrowing down a field of nominees to
choose 'the best' living photographer. (Okay, I'll admit I thought that
the exercise, and their choices, were quite bizarre..:-) )
> 
> > 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.

So you say. Others would vehemently disagree. What makes Nachtwey stand
out are two aspects of his work: first, the fact that he goes where he
goes, takes the risks he takes, and therefore is able to get the shots
he gets which others - who may be far more sane in a conventional sense
- - don't get. And, second, that he clearly puts far more time and energy
into composition, exposure, etc., than virtually all his peers. Looking
at his work you know he isn't just ducking behind a wall, sticking the
EOS over the top, and holding down the shutter release.

> 
> > 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.

I, too, seriously doubt that their purpose is to have an impact on
photography. That doesn't mean that they don't have one, and it doesn't
mean that that impact isn't meaningful and important.

BTW - As you were talking about the impossibility of defining
documentary photography...I would suggest that HCB isn't really a
documentary photographer. He has done some documentary photography, but
somehow I don't see him in that camp.

B. D.


> 
> >>
> 
> > B. D.