Hi guys ... This was a very interesting, and for me, disturbing article. Since many photos are already manipulated images by dint of their printing (crop, tonal manipulations, perspective, choice of film, etc.) I'd like to think that they represent the point of view of the photographer, and a close, if not exact, representation of the captured scene. To then use a photo, which was taken in a specific context, to make a particular point or to offer a point of view, and remove it from its intended purpose (which is already removed from reality) and put it to use for some other purpose, far removed from its origins, is an awful thing, IMO. Adding captions that further remove the photograph from its origins compounds the "sin" if you will.
And then there's Magnum ... has the agency "sold out?" The reference to Erwitt having been doing commercial work for years is a red herring. When Erwitt joined Magnum he was known for his commercial work ... perhaps asked to join because of it. But when a documentary photog's work is resurrected years later and used for advertising financial services, that's completely different. The photographer was not previously involved in commercial work, and the photograph was taken in an entirely different context. To compare Parr's documentary photographs to Erwitt's commercial work is a great leap over a large chasm. I guess the current times require that the $ or the � be given greater consideration than integrity ... <sigh> Time to grab a camera and see what's out there today. shel mike wilson wrote: > Hi, > > Bob Walkden wrote: > > > There's an interesting article here which touches on this question of > > permission, use and re-use, and raises some of the same issues that people > > have discussed with respect to Shel's photo: > > http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/indexen.html > > Try http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/jacobson/magnum1.html > > > The essay is by Colin Jacobson, who is one of the UK's leading photo editors. > > He discusses Martin Parr's work used for very unflattering > > advertisements, and has comments from David Hurn, Parr's colleague in > > Magnum, and others. > > Very interesting article. Leaving aside values in photographs (I find > my own feelings and beliefs on this subject are far too complex to have > an easily atriculated response to the majority of the base thread) I > found the following quote rather suprising, reference Martin Parr: > > His stylistic approach has been widely imitated by contemporary photographers, > > and is generally perceived to represent a rejection of the black and white > > documentary > > tradition passed down by magazines such as Picture Post and Life. > > I have always thought that his work is more of an extension of the > documentary tradition. Photographers of the past might have used low-key > to emphasise grimy, industrial landscapes, or high key to demostrate > happy times. Martin uses colour, in a different way but to the same > ends. > > mike
