June, 2009

Brilliant photojournalism, or brilliant art?

One way to challenge the definition of photojournalism; not exactly what I had had in mind, but interesting nonetheless.

Horses Think, French Photo Hoax:

Paris-Match awarded their annual Grand Prix du Photoreportage Etudiant this week to two French students who submitted a photographic story that apparently presented images documenting the precarious lives of students today and the things they must do to survive.

When the two winners, Guillaume Chauvin and Remi Hubert, both art students at the Ecole Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs of Strasbourg, stood up at the Sorbonne to claim their trophy and prize money, they announced the true nature of their work. The images were not photojournalism but staged images featuring many of their peers.

See the images for yourself.

Speaking to Le Figaro, Guillaume Chauvin [one of the students] confided that they “wanted to enter the contest in order to show the codes used too often in photojournalism and to prove that something real could be translated into something staged.”

Were any rules broken? According to the British Journal of Photography, no:

However, terms and conditions don’t forbid faked reportages – a situation that is likely to change next year. Already, Paris Match has withdrawn its cash prize, offering it, instead, to the two student’s university of decorative arts in Strasbourg. The weekly magazine, which is now warning readers that the images have been faked, has also announced that next year’s cash prize will be increased to €10,000 as a result of this year’s ‘fraud’.

What to make of the entire affair? I think Chase Jarvis nails it:

I think what they’ve done is not to make brilliant photojournalism, but to make brilliant art. There was certainly a significant price to be paid for that art, or perhaps many prices: the reputation of the award, the reputation of the judges, even their own reputations perhaps–and only time will tell–but they’ve surely made some brilliant statements about the nature of such imagery, called into question the cliched nature of the traditional canons recognizing that work, and made us all pause, even if just for a moment, to consider what photojournalism really is. By blending genres (PJ + perhaps advertising photography?) and creating staged images that were stunning enough to win a Grand Prize (hard work in it’s own right), I’d argue that they’ve achieved their end goal. And they’ve done so in an incredibly creative way. Subversive and meta.

Coverage:

Art is a democracy (even if being a critic isn’t).

Jonathan Jones in The Guardian Art Blog, Art criticism is not a democracy:

The reason so much average or absolutely awful art gets promoted is that no one seems to understand what criticism is; if nothing is properly criticised, mediocrity triumphs.

Without introspective thought and relevant context, art that is easy to digest gets promoted and consumed even if it’s not really that filling. Supply meets demand.

But so what?

A critic is basically an arrogant bastard who says “this is good, this is bad” without necessarily being able to explain why. At least, not instantly. The truth is, we feel this stuff in our bones. And we’re innately convinced we’re right.

Critics are born, not made. I don’t know why I became convinced that I had more to say about art than other people, and an opinion that mattered more than most. But I did decide that – and persuaded others to listen.

It’s impossible for everyone to be a knowledgeable critic, and I don’t reject the notion that a single, authoritative critic can be a valuable filter; but I believe that it’s impossible for any single critic to be able to render meaningful judgments for the diversity of audiences, tastes, styles and preferences in the world. It’s really not a question of whether the critic or the crowd is a better filter and judge of quality, but in how to leverage the positives and negatives of each method.

In my comment on Do people value great photography?:

Great photography always stands out; it just doesn’t stand out to everyone :)

Quantity [divides quality into segments] more than it dilutes [quality]; it’s unfair to expect everybody to be able to judge greatness. Any widely available cultural activity will always encounter this dynamic: it’s impossible for *most* of the participants to judge greatness; and that’s neither bad nor unexpected.

… The point is that “great” is a matter of personal perspective; the real question for any industry is to identify the preferences and taste within segments of the population and create content that fits the segment.

Art is a democracy, open to any to create and critique, more now than ever. And that’s the beauty. Its asynchronous nature means anyone can create, watch, follow, read, engage, critique; but anyone can turn it off, ignore, dislike, not share. It’s a choice, mirroring the broader world of media and social media. Yes, little of what is created probably passes the “I’d rather be watching Porn” test, but as long as content and creators find an audience, medium, environment and community that supports them, that’s all that matters.

(via Horses Think)

Related:

 

MORE: Financial Models for Entrepreneurs