Saw this today on Instagram, and it struck at something that has been troubling me for some time.
leica_camera #LOBA 2020 – Shortlist #2
_Cristina de Middel_ (@Lademiddel)
In her on-going project, Journey to the Center, the Spanish photographer (born 1975) makes reference to the surreal atmosphere and symbolism of the similarly titled novel by Jules Verne, as a way to present the current Central American migration route, through Mexico, as a daring and heroic journey. Documentation and fiction blend to create a multi-layered narrative.
Tap the Link in our Bio to see the full series: https://bit.ly/3h5bOge
So, to start with, the Oskar Barnack Award is Leica's to give however they want. Unlike, say, the World Press Awards or POY or the Pulitzer, it doesn't have to do anything to represent the meaning or intent of photojournalism. It is whatever they say it is.
And who am I to say what Photojournalism (with a capital P) should be? Just another smart aleck with an opinion. So, with that out of the way ...
This is a prime example of really good artistic BS. The project "makes reference to the surreal atmosphere and symbolism" of Jules Verne, and "documentation and fiction blend to create a multi-layered narrative." What the F**k does that mean, exactly? Specifically: "Documentary and fiction blend?!" Isn't that when it ceases to be photojournalism?
I'm still looking as I write this, but the site for the Barnack award doesn't seem to have a page that simply states what it is, but they do have a page full of comments from the important people (all for more important that me) who nominate photographers and choose winners. They use words like "engaged photojournalism" and "contemporary reportage photography." These are words that, as an old school news photographer, make me nervous. These are the kind of big words that people use to hide their real meaning.
A Short Aside
It seems that every young journalist, photographer and writer, as well as the industry generally, goes through a phase now and again when they worry that they're not getting at the Truth. You know, the Truth with a capital T, the truth that just saying what happened doesn't seem to fully embrace. It's the Truth of what's really going on, that you, now that you've been on the ground and become the instant expert you're trained to become, now fully understand. Simply saying that this person did this, that person said that, this odd thing happened ... well, it just doesn't capture what it all means. People won't be made to fully understand, we need to do something more.Often, the solution offered is to do more, like offer personal thoughts and impressions or better, different information, perhaps to blend in some fiction to, you know, make it more True. In other words, manipulate reality, make stuff up, lie. But to get closer to The Truth.
Back to My Point
Until Photoshop, changing up things in photography required a great deal of skill and effort, unless you staged things. (And staging things was fairly common and accepted back in the day; you don't want to know about some of your favorite, famous old LIFE magazine photos.) Staging has in modern times been frowned upon, unless of course you're making a portrait, for example, or maybe organizing something to get at the Truth.And this brings me back to Cristina de Mideel's really nice photos. What she's done is cool, and interesting, and probably a subject that should be addressed (although it seems to me we have heard a lot about the struggle of immigration to the US, but that's a separate question). However, is it photojournalism? Is it even documentary photography? Is that little bit of fiction a toxic touch?
It reminds me of Alessio Mamo. He made pictures of Indians next to tables of luxurious, though fake, food to demonstrate their hunger. There was outrage when he posted some to the World Press Photo Instagram page. I, for one, was puzzled.
Wasn't this an example of advocacy journalism? Wasn't it an effort at "engaged photojournalism?" Wasn't he trying to dramatically demonstrate the Truth, using a little fiction?
This Is Nothing New, Really ...
I have written publicly on this sort of question before, for News Photographer magazine, covering questions about whether prizes were going to photographers covering the same sort of things over and over. And lately, there has been a bit of a backlash from old school photographers like David Burnett about a number of things from the Pulitzers (he wrote on Facebook about his frustration of the current tendency to award the prize to teams and staffs) to the controversial NPPA Bill of Photographers Rights (which contains criticism of the CIS gender male white gaze and suggests subjects give consent before being photographed, to oversimplify). I think this is a piece of the whole.And of course, W. Eugene Smith's stories have met their share of criticism, Robert Capa's famous "Death of a Spanish Soldier" has long faced doubts, and as for seeking The Truth, Robert's brother Cornell formed the whole International Center for Photography as a place for the "concerned photographer." The search for the right way to portray The Truth is an old one.
But, honestly, I really wish we would just agree that news photography and photojournalism, though it involves choices as to what to photograph, not to mention a range of technical choices, should be about capturing what happens as it happens. No fiction, no big, fancy artsy words required.
