Topic: New Media Manifesto

[hookstrapped]

My new piece, writing about photography... new media, documentary photography, and the ethics and practice of photojournalism

https://medium.com/absurdist/new-media-manifesto-fe36f19457d0

[Sandeha Lynch]

Well said.

And on this point, "Fuck the ethics and edicts of photojournalism", I have to agree.  Ethics can remain an aspiration, but it is rarely available in the real world.

[hookstrapped]

Thanks.  I know it's a bit of a long read, but even Satish read the whole thing and he doesn't like reading anything longer than beer labels.

[jharr]

Good article Peter. I discovered Chomsky in college back in the 80's and have never quite trusted the media machine ever since. Mostly now, I let "reporting" and "photojournalism" happen in the background and spend my time focusing on photos that are interesting or beautiful. Sometimes the two intersect, but whether the photo is depicting truth or fiction is of little interest. I appreciate your photos of the sex workers because of their artistic merit and also because of their humanity. The same could be said for Capa or McCurry or Lange. Thanks for sharing.

[Francois]

I know for one thing is that there is a definite difference between reality, what is presented by the media and the message they accompany it with.
People it seems don't understand how powerful the lens is at generating emotion and how easily it can manipulate them. But the problem is that the media do know how to use it to magnify the ugliness of the world and people don't know they're manipulated.

So I can ask where are the ethics in that?

[hookstrapped]

@jharr and @Francois

It seems so naive that we believe in the truth of photos -- not because they might be manipulated or staged, but because any photo might do what photos tend to do: somehow change that which we see in person.  Even standard and necessary practices of composing, choice of lens, adjusting light balance / dodging & burning, and in many cases, cropping, alter the scene and direct attention in an intentional way.  That's all fine and wonderful but the result is not THE TRUTH.

[Late Developer]

Peter - very interesting and thought-provoking article.

[jharr]

@jharr and @Francois

It seems so naive that we believe in the truth of photos -- not because they might be manipulated or staged, but because any photo might do what photos tend to do: somehow change that which we see in person.  Even standard and necessary practices of composing, choice of lens, adjusting light balance / dodging & burning, and in many cases, cropping, alter the scene and direct attention in an intentional way.  That's all fine and wonderful but the result is not THE TRUTH.

Yes, and I think it often comes down to how "Heisenbergian" you are. Can a photographer create an image that is completely devoid of their own influence? Maybe, but that makes it more of a 'surveillance' photo, taken from a distance where no one in the scene is aware they are being photographed, or even watched. Then the question is whether the photographer can depict all of the elements that are affecting the scene? Probably not. So things are left out, other things are emphasized. It is more art than most photojournalists would be comfortable admitting.

[hookstrapped]

This discussion has got to a place where I can talk about one of my favorite works about photography, BBC4's "The Genius of Photography."  I think it's in the first episode (which is great on its own) where this very peculiar quality of transformation is discussed, where the process of photographing creates an image that is often somehow very different from reality.

Genius of Photography - 1  (this can be viewed in the US; in the UK, I think it can be viewed on the BBC4 site)

I think we have got so used to photographic representations of reality that we are overall far less sensitive to that strange transformation that occurs, and really only notice it when it's extreme, in which case it becomes "art."

[kentish cob]

Love "the genius of photography".
Brilliant piece of work, but sadly doesn't seem to be available on BBC iplayer, and despite it's excellence never gets repeated on the old tellybox.
I recently bought the DVD from Amazon. Not cheap, but a birthday gift card softened the blow, and it does hold it's price well, so if I ever decide to sell it on I might even turn a profit 

[hookstrapped]

This story on Gordon Parks' first published photo essay for Life magazine belies the notion of objective photojournalistic truth and explores some apparently acceptable ways of distorting reality -- cropping and editing.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/gordon-parkss-harlem-argument/

[Indofunk]

Yes, and I think it often comes down to how "Heisenbergian" you are. Can a photographer create an image that is completely devoid of their own influence?

Although I completely get you, I don't think I can let you get away with that without calling a flower foul.

[jharr]

Yes, and I think it often comes down to how "Heisenbergian" you are. Can a photographer create an image that is completely devoid of their own influence?

Although I completely get you, I don't think I can let you get away with that without calling a flower foul.

Man! That's two in a week! I'm obviously getting too egg-head for my own good. On the other hand, I get to see some awesome flower photos.

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM!!