From an interview with W. Eugene Smith:
“Do you believe there is a distinction between photojournalism and documentary photography?”
“No. I think photojournalism is documentary photography with a purpose. I think the only thing wrong with the word ‘documentary’ is that it can give some people the idea that you can make absolutely dull pictures of the ingredients of something instead of the heart of something.”
- Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper in Vicky Goldberg 1981, Photography in Print, p.434
One can quiblle about his definitions, but that is irrelevant and uninteresting. He provides reasons behind the sameness, the banality of a lot of photography coming from academically trained photographers: the lack of real risks, sometimes with their bodies, sometimes with their souls; and an avoidence of life.
If I see another photo of an empty city street in muted colours I’ll scream. Atget did that and it’s very hard to do, so make sure what you are doing is really different, and that the difference is important. Or the other perenial favourite, a staged friend or child with a mask on. Identity issues? Ok, I get it, but surely it could be more subtle? For older photographers, early morning fields and forests seem to be the cliche of choice.
Our job is to photograph what is real. Leave fantasy to the writers, painters, and filmmakers, they are far better at it. The world is endlessly interesting and devoid of cliches, photograph it.
Posted 3 years ago
