Missing the Point

Missing the Point

I recognize that this comment will insert my EEEE wide foot into my EEEE wide mouth, but I can't resist.

Are you aware of the giant photographic controversy regarding Magnum photographer Paolo Pellegrin? If not, here is a place to start and the topic picked up steam in photographic circles here. Evidently, he faked the photograph — and won a World Press Photo and Picture of the Year International contest with this image.

The controversy is that he faked it; the elephant in the living room is that such a stupid, unimaginative, amateurish, banal, vapid, and awful photograph won anything. Yes, I meant to say that out loud.

You mean to tell me that of all the photographs there were to choose from, this is the best press photograph of the year? In the world? You've got to be kidding. I wonder how many of you would have even bothered to give this image a second look if it had been on your contact sheet, let alone submit it to a contest, let alone think its execution and message so worthy as to fake its composition?

This must be from The Onion or an SNL skit because I just can't bring myself to believe this is the best of anything.

Which brings me to the subject of political correctness.

• How much cachet is given to this photograph because it was made by a Magnum photographer? If it had been made by a first year photography student would it have been awarded a prize?
• How much cachet is given to this photograph because it is about the timely topic of guns? But what does it say about that societal issue other than a banal reinforcement of stereotypes? Beer, beer bellies, baseball caps and rednecks. Gee, how deep, how insightful, how meaningful.
• How much do the Magnum/topical aspects of this photograph trump its boring image construction? Has photography reduced itself so that quality is immaterial, and that mere formulaic recitation of politically correct ideas is all that counts anymore?

I guess I'm just old school and think that a photograph worthy of note (or awards) should somehow be a good photograph independent of its political correctness. But, that's just me.

Feel free to throw tomatoes at will.

Brooks' books on photography and the creative process are available in print from Lulu.com, and as eBooks for Kindle or EPUB readers. As one of the membership benefits, these eBooks are available in their entirety to members of LensWork Online via download.

Comments

[Hoku]

You're right... I agree.

[Vibhakar Jariwala]

You are absolutely right!!!!

[Peter Nilsson]

I didn't think that individual picture was picked out by the judges - or am I missing something obvious here: http://www.poyi.org/70/70WinnersList.html?

[Jim Bullard]

I think maybe the judges in this competition have been spending too much of their free time hanging out in art galleries where stupid, unimaginative, amateurish, banal, vapid, and awful have become the norm.

I had seen this before and, like you was astounded that it was published, much less a prize winner. My first impression was that it had been deliberately manipulated with excessive contrast to heighten the grittiness of the image and play up its ugliness. To my mind that suggests it was intended to send a message rather than just report what is. It was only a few years ago that a color image (from Haiti I think) which had been similarly manipulated to heighten its impact was disqualified for over manipulation. One has to wonder how/why the standard has changed.

[Kenneth Nelson]

Totally agree with you on this. The viral tornado with which this image is swept up in could be the ultimate prize being sought.

[Kenneth Nelson]

On second thought, going viral can be more detrimental that advantageous. Photojournalism being the genre and all.

[Jim]

Glad to see someone with the credentials and the cajones say out loud what so many of us amateur non-entities were thinking.

[Mark Matheny]

Thank you for saying it out loud!

[Bob Dein]

Don't hold back, tell us what you REALLY think! :-)

[Terry McDonald]

As i wrote on another forum that posted this a week or so ago - this is not the first time that a photograph or collection of photographs have made the headlines less because of art and more because of backstory. I think it is pretty safe to say that photography has truly joined the rest of the art world in that backstory "sells" far better than the content or artistry exhibited. If you want to make it in the art or photography world - have a great backstory and if it's a lie make it good enough that it, too, becomes the backstory.

Thank goodness there are plenty of photographers who do not resort to scams like this so that we can still enjoy great publications like LensWork where the photographs themselves reign supreme.

[Abba Richman]

One Million Percent correct. Hundreds of "Arty" photography blogs and website are full of "stupid, unimaginative, amateurish, banal, vapid, and awful photographs" but to point this out publicly makes you look like an uneducated twit. The king IS naked!

[Montie Talbert]

..."How much cachet is given to this photograph because it is about the timely topic of guns? But what does it say about that societal issue other than a banal reinforcement of stereotypes? Beer, beer bellies, baseball caps and rednecks. Gee, how deep, how insightful, how meaningful...".

You "nailed it"

[John]

Tomatoes? Only at the moron(s) who selected this piece of garbage.

[tom hyde]

In the process of looking at your upcoming portfolio reviews, I stumbled across this post. I have to say that while I am always open to thoughtful discussions, or even educated rants, this falls well short of either of those.

This photo did not, on its own, win any award at POYi. It was part of a larger body of work which did win a second place award, and Pellegrin won Photographer of the Year. At WPP, this essay of 12 won a second place award. In neither contest was it considered "the best photograph of the year" as you assert. Have you looked at his body of work, or the photo essay from Rochester? Define "fake," because there is nuance there as well and your use of the word implies perhaps something broader than the facts in evidence. Also, what are the ethics of the original article which did not contact the photographer for a response or clarification? Too, a certain class hatred of Magnum seems to come through here, and perhaps even photojournalism in general.

These aren't pretty fine art photos of peppers, they aren't supposed to be. They reflect the grit of a crumbling country as told by an Italian photojournalist looking from the outside in, and, in the more European tradition, he's got something to say and, I suspect, as such does not hold himself to the same standards of press "objectivity" as those in the U.S.

There are certainly valid and thoughtful arguments to be made concering the ethical choices in the making of this photo, but none of them begin with a sloppy misrepresentation of the facts. Love your magazine, but I am extremely disappointed and surprised by this shrill and unthoughtful post which only adds to the uneducated din of reactionary drive-by comments so prevalent today.

You do yourself a disservice, especially as one who makes a living from thoughtful portfolio reviews and editing. Your underlying points, even those telling ones concerning political correctness, would have stood much better if you had not made some of the same mistakes as, apparently, Pellegrin did. In short, I know you can do better than this post.

Another viewpoint from a well seasoned and respected editor: http://jimcolton.com/blog/2013/2/22/photo-contest-bashing-must-be-that-time-of-year

cheers, and an organic tomato, from the Olympic Peninsula ....

[Brooks Jensen]

Class hatred of Magnum? Not at all — which you can see in the instances where we've published Magnum photographers like:

- the portfolio in LensWork #52 featuring Leonard Freed, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Inge Morath, Cornell Capa, Elliott Erwitt, Ferdinand Scianna, Burt Glinn, Bruce Davidson, Dennis Stock, Eve Arnold, Larry Towell, and Bruce Gilden
- the portfolio in LensWork#30 focusing on David Hurn
- the portfolio in LensWork Extended #98 focusing on Burk Uzzle

Magnum has some of the best photographer's the world has ever known. I suspect that is unarguable.

BTW, sometimes I just love being shrill. Occasionally, it does to soul good to clean out the pipes. I just call them as I see them, and it goes without saying that my thoughts won't reflect everyone else's. I hadn't seen any other comments about this silly photograph that expressed my point of view, so I felt obligated to add to the discussion. I appreciate your feedback, but I still think it's the elephant in the darkroom.

[tom hyde]

Fair enough, and a I look forward to other Magnum photographers in your publication in the future, perhaps one still living and under the age of 60? Sorry, cheap tomato there. While I don't begrudge you having an opinion, or calling it like you see it, regardless of whether I agree or not (I sometimes quite like banal if done well and with a certain subtle sardonic irony - Friedlander was considered banal by many, and still is, yet his photos have both something to say, if not in a literal way, and also posess that quality hard to define which many just don't see but, oh god, this will lead to a discussion of Shore, Sternfeld and Soth if I don't stop and I'm not intending to compare Pellegrin's photo to them, so anyway ...), I just hope you don't join the feeding frenzy of snap judgements. A lot of people take your opinion seriously. - Best, TH

[Brooks Jensen]

Thanks, Tom, for the civil discourse. I know there is a tendency on the Internet for differences of opinion to manifest themselves with an ugly turn, but you are obviously a gentleman who understands the concept of gentlemanly disagreement. I appreciate that — and even a few gentlemanly tossed (organic) tomatoes.

I do want to add, parenthetically, that I feel my comments were anything but a "snap judgment." I've been involved in photography for a long time and thought a great deal about image making over those years. I run the risk of being old-fashioned, stodgy, and intractable in my opinions — or I could be wise, mature, and not easily buffaloed. Which is topic for debate, and opinions will probably say more about the speaker than my comments. "Snap," however, is not something that applies in this case. I suspect like many photographers and LensWork readers, I've spent the last several decades shaking my head at the silliness that too often poses for commendable artwork. I've held my comments for years — both out of insecurity about my thoughts and because I have a "live and let live" attitude about such things. The problem with silence, however, is that it leads to a one-sided conversation — precisely the situation that has developed in the photographic art world.

To be frank, I tire of the post-post-post-modern perspective that overwhelmingly dominates the gallery and publishing world. Some days — today must be one of those — I feel like LensWork is the last bastion of tradition (or at least one of the last) that still appreciates the photographic values that were handed to us by the masters of the previous generations. The disconnect between what I see in so many galleries/publications and the virtues of photography that attracted me in my youth are simply too great. My aging mind is simply too feeble to connect Stieglitz/Weston/Adams et al to Friedlander/Shore/Sternfeld/Soth et al. Worse, I'm not sure I want to see the connection. Speaking strictly personally and for my own artwork, I'd rather fail at attempting to follow the masters of the last generation than succeed at leading the current generation.

I do see and am encouraged, however, by the connections between Stieglitz/Weston/Adams et al to the photographers we publish in LensWork as we try — against the tide — to continue that tradition. More and more I've come to realize that LensWork is about a certain kind of aesthetic that is being swamped by the perspective of a new generation. Come to think of it, I suspect that is as it has always been throughout history and art; it's just my generation's turn to hand something over to the next. But, if I'm lucky, perhaps not quite yet, not quite entirely. I'm hoping for another decade or so of LensWork before I go into the ink maintenance tank with a final flush. We'll see. In the meantime, I'm also hoping that there is room in this world for plenty of diversity of opinions, even if some of those are testy (like mine) or occasionally shrill (like mine). I'll try my best to keep it to a minimum.

[tom hyde]

Well said, and well taken, thank you. We Washingtonians can be a civil lot. I blame it on the proximity to Canada. Good discussion.