Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Johnny- BIG SNIP, HERE! Okay- I finally got hunkered down and read your post, and I, as a 'comsumer' of news and documentaries tend to see your point. Most documentaries ( and here I watch a lot of the Discovery Channel, The LEarning Channel, and the History Channel, as well as Bill Kurtis' reports on A&E) up front either show that they are showing a 'dramatic interpretation' 're-enactment'. Most have a voice over that uses the visual footage as 'corroborative testimony' so to speak. I love wildlife documentaries, but I am also aware that when somebody like Marty Stouffer is narrating the film that runs about an hour, that it is the result of many many tedious hours of sitting in a cold blind, and months, if not years of work to collect and edit the footage! Sure- you'll find people who see a movie like "Quest for Fire" and come away with " LIke WOW, Man! What a documentary...." For the most part, however, I don't think the modern viewer of documentaries are so naive. I had heard that the photo of the Iwo Jima flag raising, but it was one of these images that become an icon of the grit and determination of the Marines who made the flag raising possible, even if it was not recorded at the 'actual moment' I think that it was a wonderful bit of reportage, anyway! The shots of the girl at Kent State, or the little girl in 'Nam, running from the napalm attack are images that are etched in our psyche, and even though they are 'photojournalism', restaging this sort of pathos would have been unthinkable. I personally feel that there is a dichotomy at work here. There are the 'on the edge' photos of things as they happen- moment that are frightening to the persons there- vivtims and journalist both. These are the hard hitting shots that make us flinch when we see them. Then, there are the reportage type that are not taken when the event happens, but show what is left- Tina's marvelous studies are an example. Her work reminds me of Dorothea Lange's. She shows the gritty downside of the way some people must exist. She may 'pose' them, but the effect is to express the humanity of her subjects, and there is nothing there 'artificial'. To me they are a form of reportage, or photojournalism. I suppose her shots would be in a paper as 'human interest' or 'lifestyles', depending what they were depicting. The shots of these people, who had in many cases lost everything, including family, show faces of human suffering and deprivation of the basic needs of all people- of food, shelter, and often, hope. Posing a person by a window to me, is not artifice.. As a 'comsumer' of photojournalism, I can hopefully tell the difference; I respect the person taking the picture to let me know, one way or another, if the action is truly happening or is a 're-enactment'. As a documentary photographer, it is hard being a 'fly on the wall'; I can imagine the thoughts of the people who close the door in the face of "Sixty Minutes" crews! I too, would be intimidated seeing a reporter, a very large camera, a sound man, the grips pulling the cables, and the light guys with lights and reflectors knocking at my door! And I haven't done anything 'newsworthy'! Again, as a consumer, I see there is a very large 'gray area' out there. I suppose we'll have discussions on the 'ethics' until the 'cows come home'. In a day and age when there is even a question raised as to whether oral - genital stimulation on company time is even considered 'sexual relations', I think that more weighty questions as to the ethics of how a photograph is taken will take a considerably greater amount of discussion! Johnny, you seem to be a well read, and intelligent addition to the LUG- Glad to have you here! Dan