* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

New Magnum In Motion website

Hi together,
Magnum In Motion launched their new website after many, many hours of hard work. It’s been an interesting as well as an intense time to work on the new site and it’s content. Finally the new site is visible to the public and our multimedia content found an appropriate place on the web.
So far we published about 20 multimedia essays and 14 podcasts.
It’s also sort of a sneak preview on Magnum’s new site that will be launched later this year….

Any feedback is highly appreciated!
Thanks, Martin

by [a former member] at 2006-07-18 10:29:11 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Vienna , Austria | Bookmark | | Report spam→

My only gripe is that I am not really prepared to be told how to respond to images or my path dictated. The nature of the site is understandable as it competes against moving pictures and games, though I am not sure about the need to become something else other than photography.

I wouldn’t mind looking at some of the stuff in peace and quiet in my own time

by Imants | 18 Jul 2006 11:07 (ed. Jul 18 2006) | 7. Kalni, Australia | | Report spam→
Congrats, Martin. Hope to spend more time on the site soon.

by Wayne E. Yang | 18 Jul 2006 11:07 (ed. Jul 18 2006) | New York, United States | | Report spam→

by David Honl | 18 Jul 2006 11:07 | Istanbul, Turkey | | Report spam→
Pages are too wide, I find myself scrolling around sideways. But maybe I’m just a freak. Like the “Coming up” section. And the whole idea of making a website for the public rather than picture editors/the industry is nice, it’s about time other agencies made the effort to do this.

by John Perkins | 18 Jul 2006 12:07 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I completely disagree with Imants! The term photojournalist,
I believe, means to me EXACTLY what is represented on this site.
Many times I have come away from jobs with not only the facts,
but my impressions of the scene before me that are less visual
and more emotionally visceral than many of the captions that I write can explain.
I loved listening to Paolo Pellegrini (who absolutely RULES!
I think I have a bad case of hero worship!) talk about
the charged moments that occurred during the shooting of the ‘Evacuation’ series.
It put me there, feeling as well as seeing. Its a brilliant way
to display photojournalism and a sign of the changing times.
Print journalism is going the way of film, so if we are going
to make any kind of impact on the future generations it will be through their computers.
I think this site is exciting, beautifully produced
and a smart way to market the agency.
Lets face it, the internet is probably the most important way to display work in the future.
Now just how can we make it pay the bills?
Absolutely brilliant Martin, really great stuff!

by lisa hogben | 18 Jul 2006 13:07 (ed. Jul 21 2006) | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Found the flash images in the block of four anoying and hard to take in , needs to be slowed down quite a lot i.e. at least double time

by Gary Austin | 18 Jul 2006 13:07 | Derby, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I second Gary’s concern. It’s just too flashy. Just when you look at one picture the other flashes up and you get distracted. It also distracts from the rest of the content. Othe that that it looks pretty good.

by Daniel Etter | 18 Jul 2006 14:07 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
As a big Magnum fan, I like it and found the navigation/layout smooth and intuitive. Well done. I also found myself thinking, is still photography itself not enough anymore? I’m no luddite (though maybe a reformed one), and I realize and appreciate that we are all trying to push the boundaries of new technologies, formats, markets. And in many cases I do like the dimensions that audio/narration can bring, esp. to photojournalistic work, which of course these are great, even artistic examples of. Check out how Paul Fusco’s narration of Chernobyl Legacy really elevates images that are already compelling. But Imants was on to something, photography speaks on its own, with a special power to extract something essential that makes you want to take time, stare at it, project yourself into it… A big question is how will that translate to a screen? I worry about a slippery slope to where viewers (and perhaps photographers) become conditioned over time to expect a multimedia coating on their photo pill. I caught myself wondering how Koudelka would feel. Of course that’s not really fair since he’s always chosen to be outside the media machine anyway. But instead of moving toward all these bandwidth-heavy add-ons, why not screen-filling images for example?

Cheers, Bill

by Bill Crandall | 18 Jul 2006 16:07 (ed. Jul 18 2006) | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
I like it a lot, it’s such an interesting site, it gives you a deeper isnight into the photographers and the subjects. If you think it’s too wide you need to change your screen resolution up to 1024. The speed of the pictures seems ok to me, because you aren’t meant to look at all of them just get an idea then click on the gallery to see more, although Daniel is right, it is distracting to me when you are looking at one photo and 3 others go black then change, maybe if they didn’t go back to the black background before changing images it would be less distracting. The podcasts are snazzy though.

by Jonathan Biles | 18 Jul 2006 16:07 | Johannesburg, South Africa | | Report spam→
I like it a lot, it’s such an interesting site, it gives you a deeper isnight into the photographers and the subjects. If you think it’s too wide you need to change your screen resolution up to 1024. The speed of the pictures seems ok to me, because you aren’t meant to look at all of them just get an idea then click on the gallery to see more, although Daniel is right, it is distracting to me when you are looking at one photo and 3 others go black then change, maybe if they didn’t go back to the black background before changing images it would be less distracting. The podcasts are snazzy though.

by Jonathan Biles | 18 Jul 2006 16:07 | Johannesburg, South Africa | | Report spam→
In the words of magnum photographer Chris Steele Perkins:
“My agency, Magnum, are currently running a new site called Magnum in Motion, licensing little slideshows with voiceovers, some are very strong. Also you get the photographer’s voice, or vision, as opposed to a writer’s one that you will get in a magazine.”

by Jonathan Biles | 18 Jul 2006 16:07 | Johannesburg, South Africa | | Report spam→

by Giulio Zanni | 18 Jul 2006 17:07 | Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina | | Report spam→
I have no problems with the changes in photography and its evolution. Photography as a single image having a major impact is ldisapearing being replaced by the new forms as . Take a load of photos share via net or directly and then dump them. Nobody wants to spend a lifetime looking at a lifetime of images in print or even on the net.

As I said it is competing against the moving picture and games and is becoming a distant third. Eventually images will be woven into games I have a few friends who are playing around with that idea creating interactive games of images they take in different places in a single time frame and place them in games all great stuff.
I have nothing against the site and said it is the way to go but its strength is becoming its format and the content is becoming secondary but it is a industry now concerned with buy and sell so the evolution was necessary
People on this site are photographically involved, to most of the population it is one of many things in their lives and podcasts are becoming one look, listen and get on with the next thing. With the advent of digital people have so many images they don’t know what to do with them or where to put them, same with the Magnum images they will just disapear into the archives

by Imants | 18 Jul 2006 21:07 (ed. Jul 19 2006) | 7. Kalni, Australia | | Report spam→
OK, after reading some of the comments above I have decided to say a bit more than last time.
The new Magnum site is divine the quality of the photography is obviously good (well what did you expect?)and the stories fascinating nothing wrong with the presentation except my previous comment of the images changing to quick.
BUT; as nice as it all is and a fine example on how photography is going to go, How do you make it pay? and Who will pay for it? (paid subscription are dead, almost)
If photographers are going to survive and afford to keep up with the latest changes going interactive is just another burden/luxury

by Gary Austin | 18 Jul 2006 21:07 | Derby, United Kingdom | | Report spam→

by Subhamoy | 19 Jul 2006 03:07 | Assam, India | | Report spam→
I love the site too. Its true most people are not visual enough to appreciate it. I usually find looking at pictures online a little dissapointing and inconvenient, and find the hype around “new media” irritating, but Magnum in Motion is very effective in its use of audio and visual together. of course the photos must be compelling. and I do not think the power of single images is diminishing at all, the photography art market is very strong. Just because Joe shmo sitting in his living room watching entertainmentnews is unaware of my photographs doesnt bother me and is not a departure from the past. quality photography has never been on the radar of the general public so new media will not take away much. hell, I ll deal drugs to fund myself if I have to. ha ha

by Brad Westphal | 19 Jul 2006 05:07 | Shanghai, China | | Report spam→
Martin do you know whether they are gonna keep Magnum In Motion purely documentary/photojournalitic orientated and NOT commercial like there main site seems to feature heavily on at times?

BTW i’m a big fan of Magnum Im Motion. Its a great way of harnessing the Web and online publishing.

by James Brickwood | 19 Jul 2006 05:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
I am with Imans on this and I am not going to be particulatly correct about it.

Its as good as the pictures and stories…….but I am not a big fan of narrative, especially when its photographers talking about their work. Who the fuck cares if the Cherbnobyl project changed Paul Fusco’s life, he doesn’t have elephantine features….its nota about him.

Alec Soth’s Niagra “there are a lot of heart images” is so much high brow New York bullshit photography that it makes the whole project seem cynical to me….Magnum can’t be all things to all people and if this is the direction of the agency then Magnum will not mean very much rather quickly.

Basically, if y’all are such great photographers the pictures should speak for themselves and if that seems harsh its because its true. If you want a site for your “fans” or to cultivate some sort of cult, then I am not interested.

Show me the pictures. Its as simple as that. Don’t tell me what I am looking at, what you “the photographer” went through, etc. Or filter the images through some narrative.

If its just an attempt to show what the photographers are doing, then a little less pretension will go along way….of course the photo editors eat this shit up, so that may be exactly what you want.

Cheers Martin, nothing personal and I appreciate your contribution to LS, and as for the design and interface, you did a great job!

by [former member] | 19 Jul 2006 14:07 | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Andy I actually like the added dimension of spoken narrative
that is as informative as it is personal, simply because it actually
shows that the photog is not merely a camera operator. I am sure
everyone is affected by what they shoot in some ways and
that a format like this is a great venue to show that.
I get really sick of the idea that the observational viewpoint
is the only one that is valid. The concept of standing in a corner
just shooting and pretending it doesn’t
have any ramifications on your own world view is utter tripe.
Telling any story requires a gifted communicator that can some how
tap into the consciousness of others with their images and words.
I believe that this site adds depth and humanity to the stories that are viewed
by allowing the frailties of the photographer
to be exhibited alongside of the story. Afterall its the photographers
that so clearly showed the humaness within the inhumanity
of the 20th century images of war that started Magnum,
its what the agency is famous for and its nice to see
that 21st century technology hasn’t dimmed that legacy
but has found a new way to represent it. Thats why I think it is so exciting,
the message hasn’t changed, it is just a new form of delivery.
Besides if you don’t like the narrative can’t you just turn off your sound?
And captions? And then you can just examine the pics without any diversions?

by lisa hogben | 19 Jul 2006 15:07 (ed. Jul 21 2006) | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Thanks for all your feedback, positive as well as negative. First of all please let me say that I speak here for myself and not for Magnum! I didn’t sell my soul to Magnum although I work there and I don’t take your criticism personal! ;-)

Personally I think what Magnum In Motion does is great. I am interested in the stories the photographers want to tell, but I am also interested in the person behind the camera. So this gives me the possibility to learn a little more about the photographer as well.

Imants wrote: “With the advent of digital people have so many images they don’t know what to do with them or where to put them, same with the Magnum images they will just disapear into the archives.”
Well wouldn’t it be a pitty if those images just dissapeared into the archive. I think to the most part it would. I don’t see these relatively new formats as a competition to printed photo stories or to single photographs that are printed. I’d rather see it as an additional way to display work. I am sure none of these photographers shot their stories with a multimedia essay in mind. So I think it’s fine if their images are used for more than one, two or three publications.
Let’s take Fusco’s Chernobyl Legacy as an example: Somehow it got picked up by MSN and they put it onto their front page. Within a couple of days more than a million people (according to the statistics) saw the essay. Never before Magnum In Motion got so many mails thanking the photographer to show his work and to do the story. Many, many people offered to donate money, clothing, games, whatever those kids would need. The most touching e-mail in my opinion came from a mother who wrote that her son’s birthday is coming up, that she didn’t have an idea about the aftermathes of Chernobyl and that she would like to donate all her sons birthday presents to those kids. Poor son of the mother. People requested a DVD with this essay to show it in high schools, universities and churches. The point is that it did effect and touch people. Isn’t that why photojournalists photograph? To make a change, even if it’s only a small one? Of course not every of these essays have the same effect but hey, at least a few do effect people.

You know I think there is not one single truth to this whole issue. Personally I think it’s a great way to go as an addition. But I do also respect a different opinion. If people say that this whole multimedia stuff is not suited for them or they are not interested in watching these essays or hear the photographers talk fine. Magnum In Motion is not the new Magnum Photos agency. It is an addition to the agency, one part of it that tries to explore new ways. Those multimedia essays won’t stop the photographers from shooting, it won’t stop magazines from printing their images and it won’t stop books to be published. And let’s face it: None of these photographers got assigned and paid to do a multimedia essay, they either get assigned to do a story for a magazine or they shoot a story because they feel the need to do so. So personally I wouldn’t see it as a threat.

I think this is a very interesting discussion. Curious to hear your thoughts!


by [former member] | 19 Jul 2006 15:07 | Vienna, Austria | | Report spam→
Good points Martin. While I’m not personally crazy about overlay narration (even from photogs I like), the bottom line for me is that as a new way to get photos in front of people, multimedia sites such as Magnum’s are an essential part of the mix. I’m glad to hear about Fusco’s piece getting such good exposure and benefitting the cause. A related example – Robert Knoth had a strong Chernobyl/Soviet nuke feature on Pixelpress that got massive numbers of visitors leading up to the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl this past April 26. At the same time, he and his wife had a new book on the subject, something like 50 exhibits around Europe, and as part of our collaboration called Chernobyl20 (www.C-20.org) – which had shows on Capitol Hill and at the UN featuring Fusco, Knoth, Kratochvil et al – he was putting his images in front of policymakers and well as the general public, in many formats. And we’re going to put the images on a music CD that Thievery Corporation is compiling for release in the fall. Any way to get the work out there!

Cheers, Bill

by Bill Crandall | 19 Jul 2006 16:07 (ed. Jul 19 2006) | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
I think what Magnum in Motion brings to its followers is fantastic ! Like Martin said, it is meant to add, to complement and to give another perspective, in this case, the photographers perspective into the picture. I attended Steve McCurry’s lecture in San Diego few months back where he gave a slide show lecture on his images that he captured around the globe. The lecture was sold out and there were still people hoping to get in to listen to his lecture. Magnum in Motion brings these lectures into our home where we can view the images and listen to the lectures on our own time, at our own comfort. If one chooses’ not to hear the commentary, there is always the mute button. I think Magnum in Motion is a great idea with great execution !

by Nile Tuzun | 19 Jul 2006 16:07 | California, United States | | Report spam→
well I guess that last point was so strongly felt it needed iteration no less than 8 times. Lisa, por fa, use the delete button.

I personally like Magnum in Motion, I wish they would extend this treatment to more subtle essays, like John Vink’s Quest for Land, that I think would just bowl you over with an intelligent discourse. But I lie somewhere in between Imants and Andy on the one hand and Lisa on the other. I am engaged in making one of these things, so the whole process interests me, but I think the initial enthusiasm for the medium, which I too feel, can cloud certain realities. As Lisa pointed out, how do you make this thing pay? That is not at all clear yet. Plus they are expensive to produce: they require expertise, software, good recording equipment (especially if you are going to do something more than just talk about your imagery), and money to pay for licensing music. Are they in fact marketable? I am not sure. The ipod stuff looks dinky and highly unsatisfactory to me; moreover the very nature of that particular medium ,which is meant as a distraction for consumers riding to work on subways, is entirely opposed to the essence of the photography that I do, which requires that you study it, savor it, learn from it. I am not in the business of producing mindless entertainment for the MTV addled brains of ADD sufferers. I could say the same for the net and for computer presentations in general. There is something lacking there. while i agree that the internet is the book of the future, and computers are its Gutenberg press, from the viewer’s end the experience is completely different from that of reading a book or viewing images at an exhibition; it is faster, schizier, “smaller” in every regard. People dont “read” the images; they click through them. Now I wouldnt say that magazine readers necessarily spend more time absorbing an image in print, but the physics of that object do impose a different type of reception. I am with Imants, all this stuff is a distant third to the other animated forms of entertainment being developed. And the danger is that the content of the image will be scanted in favor of superficial formal innovations that provide speed and kinetic energy in place of quiet contemplation and unrushed absorption in the moment.

Nonetheless I am enthusiastic to a point about the potential of this medium. Unlike Andy I do think narrative is important: a single image is in itself a kind of narrative, and a good one has many stories to tell, according to Koudelka; and a sequence of images is obviously narrative in its impetus. As photojournalists we are essentially visual storytellers. Putting a sequence together in a book or in a slideshow is basically creating a narrative. That said, I am happier leafing through a sequence of images in a book. But if we are going to press ahead with this new “multimedia storytelling,” then I say let us consider the elements that compose it and capitalize on their characteristics. So far, i have yet to see any of these slideshows truly realize the potential of this medium. When it comes to sound, we get voiceovers from the photographers, maybe some oral history from the subjects, and a bit of music. The art of synching sound to image, which is so sophisticated in film, has yet to be adopted by this medium. Film technique in general has yet to be explored. The most we get is some panning (the ubiquitous Ric Burns effect), and even that is used pretty conservatively. What about jump cuts and other film sequencing techniques? Not all are appropriate to this medium perhaps, but I suspect that the lack of adventure here is due to (1) ignorance about film vocabulary or editing methods and (2) faintheartedness. The latter is probably a result of the fact that we are still photographers, so we still think in terms of stasis rather than kinesis, and possibly a fear that giving ourselves wholeheartedly over to the film mentality will involve a betrayal, perhaps even a denial, of the value of what we do. For my money nothing beats a still image. Video just bores me. But if we are going to do this thing, then let us do it with a sense of the inherent potential. Otherwise we are just producing ornate slideshows. Each medium has its own demands. An exhibition in a gallery is one form of gettting the imagery out there; books another; multimedia stories yet another. But each should be undertaken with a view toward exploiting its particular characteristics.

Magnum in motion does appear to be focusing, in terms of the sound element, on the photographer’s thoughts and feelings. I think this can be quite interesting for photographers and non-photographers alike, but only if the commentary is incisive, and there is a lot of dross here. In lieu of trenchant analysis, the best commentary is that which reflects the photographer’s quirky self, but I can only go so far with that kind of thing. I am not all that interested in the photographer’s self unless it is represented in a truly trenchant and contemplative manner, and very few people can provide this. It requires the habit of verbalized thought, and that is not something that all photographers share equally, though in general we are a reflective lot. I dont buy the idea that the “fly on the wall” viewpoint necessarily precludes the photographer’s subjective feeling and thought; if the story is good, that element is there in the composition, the editing, the captioning, the narrative, and so on. It is a question of focus. By focusing on the photographer’s thinking, we are diverted from the scene before us and forced to consider his or her commentary. Yes, such commentary can add to the emotional and intellectual impact, but only if the commentary is really really good. These sound bites are not often long enough to allow for any real analytic thought. McCurry’s Aesthetic Hunter, for example, in my view was a real failure of intellect. gorgeous imagery accompanied by banal commentary. In fact his color esthetic is very interesting and obviously evolved over time, but nowhere do we get any insights into his deeper esthetic thinking. Paolo Pellegrin’s show, on the other hand, did manage to provide thoughtful commentary with some very subtle observations. It is a mixed bag, but I admit I am glued to the screen, waiting for the next one to come along.

by Jon Anderson | 19 Jul 2006 16:07 | a casa, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Martin I was composing that last post while you posted your excellent response. Very impressive, and if enough venues appear in which these Flash presentations can be shown, it might in fact attract a large audience and as you say affect and touch people on a broad scale. But MSN undoubtedly took on Fusco’s piece because they were in fact the first to do this kind of thing — isnt that where MediaStorm got started? Besides MediaStorm and MSN who else is buying and showing these things? It is still a question of marketing. Someone has to pay for this stuff. But if thepublic’s reaction is such that millions respond to a slideshow like Fusco’s (and let’s face it, millions would not and had not responded to magazine publications of the imagery), then perhaps more such venues will come along when they recognize the profit in it. We live in interesting times. Anyway I agree with you in that this effort is a valuable addition to what we do.

by Jon Anderson | 19 Jul 2006 17:07 | a casa, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Movement, sound…. isn’t this getting rather close to, er, film?
We now see newspapers using photographs taken from video and video resolution is increasing all the time. I did a job the other day with a camerman who was getting far better results in low light with his video than I was with my still digital camera and I am beginning to wonder how long we are going to be using still cameras, especially when one considers how easy it is to post video on the web. Maybe Magnum In Motion (which I love, by the way) is a more or less concious step in that direction…

by DPC | 19 Jul 2006 17:07 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
Martin, great about Fusco, some of us don’t follow as closely as others…..I personally think that Fusco’s photos are astounding, and generally, he is one of the best photographers around, but I you, or whoever did the piece, might be careful, IMHO, in the context of a short piece, not to overshadow the images with words. Of course thats just my critical opinion— I am about the subject.

by [former member] | 19 Jul 2006 19:07 (ed. Jul 20 2006) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
I find the narrative an excellent addition to the slide shows. I personally don’t expect to agree with everything any person says…even if they are their own pictures. But, differences are actually a good thing. I know it’s been said before, but if everyone was the same, it would be a pretty boring world. I like hering the photographer’s thoughts as I go thru their pics.

I’ve been following Magnum in Motion ever since Bruce Gilden’s excellent one he did over a year ago…I think it was. I found his take on himself to be very refreshing. I was chuckling thru most of it. It made his pictures even better in that I understood the person behind them. I know he sometimes get’s a little carried away with his up close in the face flash stuff….albiet, a lot of it is excellent……I love listening to him. He’s got that down to earth character going on in his speaking style…..right outta Brooklyn….heh.

This would not be true of all of them though. Paul Fusco’s Bitter Fruit, although much of his own thoughts as to what was happenning (be it true or not), was informative not only as to the way GI’s deaths are being handled, but also in that concidering Fusco was not allowed to get as close as he usually wanted, he still managed to do a worth while picture essay.

And yes, for some reason I do prefer the “at home in the USA” essays more than some of the others. I guess I can identify with them more because I’ve been to those places that Gilden and Fusco were at in their essays. Sometimes I wish more of the photojournalists would do more “at home” stuff. I think, sometimes, they excel at that better than their “foriegn lands” stuff.

Anyhow, I really like the Magnum in Motion Essays with the photographer’s doing their own voice overs. Really great stuff, overall. Keep it up.

by T.S. Sullivan | 20 Jul 2006 03:07 | Philadelphia, United States | | Report spam→
I like the site and the content, but the flashing images are way too fast and distracting. As for the essays, I embrace multi media for what it is. The first time I watched an 8 minute feature on Media Storm I was blown away by how powerful a mix of narrative and music could be.

by Thomas Pickard | 20 Jul 2006 03:07 | Male', Maldives | | Report spam→
Apologies everybody the eight responses where a result of my machine
going mad!

by lisa hogben | 20 Jul 2006 09:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
“McCurry’s Aesthetic Hunter, for example, in my view was a real failure of intellect”

Jon, I have never actually seen/heard McCurry give a substantially intellectual or engaged response to any of his work, which, as a student,
I find really dissapointing. Perhaps my expectations of what a photographer could, and should, deliver intellectually are too high – we are not professors –
but we are contributing to a visual culture and a visual interpretation of the world around us. And as a by product of this contribution I believe photographers
need to be able to give credible and in depth self analysis to their work. I recently met Steve at a conference in NZ. After he side stepped two of my questions
by providing generic rhetoric on the nature of Time magazine and Nat Geo I was tempted to walk out.. it was as if he had never once sat down and
thought deeply about what his images mean, the impact they have on audience perceptions of peoples and cultures of the world, and the politics involved in
taking the image in the first place. For someone who has followed McCurry from a young age this was a let down. So, I am not suprised that the
‘Aesthetic Hunter’ is a failure of intellect. But I am suprised that Magnum in Motion would allow this substandard presentation to go ahead.

Cheers for the comment Jon, as you can probably gather I agree…

by Chris Henderson | 20 Jul 2006 13:07 | Auckland, New Zealand | | Report spam→
On second listen, the quote from Fusco rambles on until its rather profound conclusion, it could have been edited a bit better. With such a short presentation, every word should have an impact.

by [former member] | 20 Jul 2006 18:07 | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
We are, as photographers and unquenchably thirsty humans, above all story tellers, no matter the canvas or arc or our hollow-blooming stories….

Our photographs, scribblings, as a if Lascaux ox pursued by arrow, bandit and flame-loin (blood, sepia and seed-henna carved into the wall as our collective-backbone long ago tale) and alphabet as story. Listen: in the silenct which is that photograph that has stamped inside your memory, that photograph that you, yes you, have chosen to print, that arrow-light that you have decided to trigger, is filled with an immensity of voice: that a photograph is “silent” does not, not ever, mean that it is mute. PHotography, photographers, our story this: the arc of light and twinned shadow, the rib cage of time and shaft-moment and chemical, computer and emulsion, sprocket and light, iris and memory, sound fixed upon photo-d-flight. Our vocal chords spread thin by that which sped before us: i cannot differentiate between the voice of a silent photograph and the cacophonous web of a person sitting adjacent me and unfolding their webbed life in a story. PHotographs are both silent and filled, as if a tsunami, with sound and faultline of voices…..there IS NO SUCH THING as a silent photograph, for each of them are harbours of voices, for who has not looked at a photograph and listen to the resonances inside them….your voice, the photographs’ voice, the people/places/objects voices, history’s disharmonious squeelings….for you who have heard nothing when looking at a photograph, or book of photographs, i shall buy you best single malt i can find…..

my take on the Magnum project and Martin’s effort my seem contrarian to my recent booze-fueled bombast, but allow me to clarify…….

I think it is a wonderful site and I congratulate Martin on his extraordinary and certainly time-swallowing efforts. I think the project is wonderful and necessary…but for reasons that are quite different than those expressed above…permit me, a digression first ;))))….

Photographs empower and insite and bite not because they are “silent,”, not because they are wordless (o, quite to the contrary), but because their own lyrical and biting language is set apart from words. In other words, they “induce” both silence and speech, induce both attention and dissolution, induce both conversation and reflection. Like poetry: words which stun wordlessness.

I have spent the last 2 days listening to ALL of the essays that Martin has created ( I felt it my duty, since I was such a motherfucker toward Joans recently). Frankly, I do not quite understand the critical concerns (with regard to photography or Maganum as an entity). Honestly, I did (do) not judge the value of this site in any relationship at all to photography. Actually, I see Martin’s project in a quite simple prism. the Magnum in Motion effort is simply another means to showcase, to present, to back-light, the stories and photographs and agency (in the sense of work/philosophy/effort not as in “agency” group of photographers) of these talented photographers. I DO NOT NEED these “stories” to supplement the impact that these photographs and photographers have had and have upon my life and its navigation. In fact, I think those who think this project “undercuts/undervalues” the photographs themselves, or the photographs have missed the point, or essence, of this project. They are, for me (as a photographer, as a writer and as a “consumer” of images) not connected. Some of the narration is beautiful and interesting and thought-provoking and I have listened to those narrations more than once in the last 2 days. Some of the narration I found ponderous and pretentious and, frankly, hilariously adolescent (i wont point out which, for that is strictly a personal perception). However, I think the project is wise and significant and important, to both photographers and to “consumers” (purchasers of photographs, people who swallow photography or simply enjoy interesting stories). These visual narrations are (for me) an adjuct, to the images, and neither lessen nor diminish the photographs themselves. If Towell’s narration had been frivolous and idiotic, I would still cherish his photographs as amont the most “wise” and visceral and poetic (necessary?) of my own life as a photographer. (fortunately, Towell’s narration brought tears to my eyes, just as his images in Salvador and Mennonites and Promised Land have done, and tears came for completely different reasons……)….

Jonas’ silent “essay” the same: the body of those broken-thread colors and emptied faces and landscapes and explosion of idol-twilight, need no accompanyment. I can tell you about that scatter, vast cow-on-embankment land (which has had so much significance in my life and my family’s life) that Jona’s essay get’s it exactly correct: in the corners of light is a crowd of voice: mad, sad, laughter-tears. In the silence of Soyuz is contained a continent of words. I do not need “narration” to hear voices (not the jews, not the russians, not Jonas’, not the hurling, falling tongues of re-configured steel.):" those russian space stills are as alive with voice as are the white butterflies and the fleeing heroin through the blood in the Urals….I know, i know….

Martin’s project stands aside, to-the-side, outside of the images. Frankly, I think its an invaluable presentation (even with the silly narration from some of the photographers). While Fuscos’ confession that Chernobyl changed his life (let me sometime tell you about talking with my father-in-law who fled Ukraine for Moscow during the nazi’s blitzkrieg, spoken through a mist of tears and warm vodka) DOES NOT change, diminish or enhance (for me) his astonishing photographs, I value deeply his story and the impact. This is simple, because before my life as a photographer, and more essentially, I understood (?) that stories and the voice of others are all we have: contact, slipping, eliptical, broken. If Fuscos tells me about why he shot, who these people are, then I’ll take that and cherish it. Do I need it? No, because his photographs are extraordinary. Do I need to know that Soth finds a “heart” motif in each of his photographs?…well, frankly, I saw a different motif, and okay, I’d love to talk to him about this, but pompous ny shit or genuine aesthetic notion, I’d still love to chat with him. You see, I view Martin’s project as much simpler: an extension of the life inside and around the image. Does the fact that I’ll never hear Giacometti’s voice carve a void inside me, no. Will I feel bereft if I never speak with Moriyama? no. Do I share my thoughts with other photographers about my own work: sometimes yes, sometimes no. I know better: my son was said to me, after a long drunken lecture about my own work (an explanation to why my photographs are like “scribbles on the wall in school” ;)) ), he said: “okay, no matter what, it doesnt make sense, but I think theyre still cool Dad….”….

We are bereft…..

When I look at a photograph, finger through a book a photographs, walk past an exhibition, I am fucking haunted by the voices which surround the image, the moment, the place. When I look at Michael A’s pictures, I hear my grandmother’s voice. When I look at Brady, I think of my history teacher. When I look at Moriyama, i always hear my mother’s sobbing when I was a child. Magnum in Motion is additive. these essays are not really essays, honestly. they are additions, and I am thankful for them. As a writer and a photographer, I contstantly struggle with this: the juxtaposition (skin and wearied glove) between word and image. What I love about most of the essays is that they add a pneumbra (black crayon against color in a child’s coloring book) around the image: what was meant, what meant, what is the photographer inside that. I’ll trade or give away (and yo, i often do) my prints for an evening of conversation, for human contact, human story means more than the media upon which we’ve chosen.

I dont give a fuck if Towell’s talks about his photographs, I can listen to him for a lifetime and I feel the beneficiary, just as I’ve felt the beneficiary when i’ve looked at his images. And yo, i’ve talked to him in person and he is no different than in the essay.

these essays are NOT film, they are not newmedia, they are not anything other then another addition: sometimes i look at books alone on the bus, sometimes with friends, sometimes I let people look at my photographs in silence and sometimes i jabber like the dypsomaniac i am. Nothing, not a single think, in these essays changed for me the power or significance of the photographs. In side me is still the tatoo that many of these images created when i’d first seen them. I’ve (to be honest) played with similar ideas: powerpoint presentations with my writing, with music, and you know its different, but the images remain the same. Okay, so you have seen Ackerman slide show with Cat Power, and I have looked at Teru’s work silent and with Mark Lanegan in my head, and you know what, sometimes i print in silence and sometimes with thoughts….

once the images have tatood you, the words cannot lessen the impact, otherwise, you didnt swallow the images in the first place….

okay, so magnum creates this, its just another opportunity for viewers and photographers to do something, have an irrelevant impact to the rush-pulp of these extraordinary photographs and photogrphers.

I do not need a photographer to tell me about their images for the images to have meaning for me….not at all…but, how much (as photographer and photographer lover) to I cherish when another photographers talks to me….Towell, in his essay, talks to us…..

as for “aesthetic hunter”…shiiiiit….well, as I’ve said before talent for snapping pics doesnt mean talent for deeper understanding, and hell, I’ll be the first person to suggest how idiotic most of us are (you can see my own idiocy under a recent magnum post ;)))) )….

as towell reminds us, if poetry is literature wrung of all the excess water, than photography is life wrung of “excess” time, but sometimes it is also important for we all thirst to add droplets…..

o, if it were easier to explain how bereft we all are, how important stories are, how necessary is voice, but silent-mute and vocabularic-spoken, both. I’ll embrace Martin’s project, because i’ll take any voice from a brother or sister as addition.

I dont care if Koudelka remains silent, and I dont care that Towell speaks: both have the same impact

to remind me that without one another, we burnish the empty, we throat-gape for the empty….

I hunger (photographer and person) to be filled before I am vanquished, silent, silent and groping for words….

The project is wonderful NOT because it enhances the photographs (it doesnt, its irrelevant) but because it shares with viewers/listeners/photographers (anyone) the thoughts of
the photographs…yea, so if some of those thoughts (and narrations) I could live without, that’s okay, i’ll digest, and ignore with time ;)), but christ if some of the thoughts and ideas expressed (beyond the country of the specific images) dont remind me of the truth: we are, nothing, without contact…..for that, the essays provide what photographs sometimes cannot do—consolation with that we often most need: human voice…

(dont get me wrong, photogrpahy does not couple in my body with someone’s explanation, not ever, for photograph for me is about “speaking” that which cannot be “spoken” about, words are not capable of speaking about)…

it is, important, sometimes to lend voice, not as replacement or enhancement, but as something much less academic or aesthetic or pedagogical: to recognize that behind these images is a real human, imperfect and fleshy, just as inside the life of the photographs are contained REAL lives, imperfect, fleshy and necessary….

our human tale….

thanks Matin :))))well done mate, well done..


by [former member] | 21 Jul 2006 00:07 (ed. Jul 21 2006) | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
Bob-God you write beautifully, when will
you write a book about the photojournalists life?
Chris, I think a ‘failure in intellect’ maybe a good thing on McCurry’s part.
As for me, I believe that the moribund theoretical dissertations
on photography that are so overwhelmingly enfranchised by the academic
power elite in an effort to mark their territory are, quite frankly,
merely an implement to keep themselves in cushy university type jobs
and bloat the art market with aesthetically displeasing, but
‘ideologically correct’ imagery. The stuff I see around that gives itself
over to ‘credible and in depth analysis’ has little to do with
telling stories about the world and a lot more to do with who funded
the work. McCurry’s stuff is about beauty, perhaps there isn’t a whole lot of
intellectual credibility in that, nay perhaps there is just a general
appreciation for it, but just ‘cos he didn’t sit down with you and explain
what he was meant to be thinking while he was shooting is no need to be so
dissapointed. Maybe its like Tenzin Palmo, 14 years in a cave and nothing to say?
perhaps its about making you fill in the blanks for yourself, rather than
‘following McCurry from a young age’. McCurry speaks of being in the moment,
an athelete would describe it as being in the zone. Tenzin Palmo would explain it
as a journey to ‘enlightment’. I understood the video of McCurry to mean
that his was an act of zen when he took a photograph. Maybe this needs
no further explanation.
Once again Martin, I love this site. I have gained enormously from seeing
more of how these guys work. When you work so often by yourself its very validating
to see how others operate!

by lisa hogben | 21 Jul 2006 10:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Lisa: thanks :))) (yea, actually working on 2 books, one of poetry and one about photography (with/withoutimages, havent
yet decided, :))) )…
and I agree, (and meant also to mention) your point about listening to others when most of us spend
our photographic lives working alone, alone, along the long rim road, its both validating and comforting:
for me, often, listening to those essays was the same recognition as Crusoe when he saw Friday’s footprints
on the sand ;)))…:)))..running, bob

by [former member] | 21 Jul 2006 12:07 | Toronto (home sweet), Canada | | Report spam→
Its got a nice ring to it as a name….running bob

by Imants | 21 Jul 2006 12:07 | 7. Kalni, Australia | | Report spam→
I like very much the initiative, going online for taking the most of photographer’s work. It’s a great direction, which I totally share. If quality agencies keep their work to magazines, festivals and galleries they will kill themselves. So I think Magnum in Motion is something really valuable: the podcast, the use of multimedia, the display of the reportages. So far it’s a great work! As others have said before, I found the flashy images distracting, but I don’t have other points to make to the design.

I guess the good part starts now: the long term value of the site will depend on the direction given by the editors. We all know Magnum has one of the greatest archive and maybe its time to use new media to show it. And the same applies to recent features. Just a suggestion: why not open the site to other photographers, but not only very well known photogs? I’ve seen great work in Bamako or Pingyao which only occasionally reach magazines or galleries. There’s a lot of good work out there.



by [former member] | 21 Jul 2006 13:07 | Karatsu, Japan | | Report spam→
an act of zen? Isnt it always? Nah, I dont buy it. If all we are to glean from this commentary is that he is shooting in the zone and producing “beauty,” then the sound of one hand clapping is all that should accompany the slideshow and there is no need for the voiceover at all. I agree that academic photo-crit speak is not wanted here, but some commentary about his aesthetic thinking need not be couched in such terminology and would be more welcome than the fluff he provided. I think it is quite true that “McCurry’s stuff is about beauty” but such an empty phrase needs some substance to make it credible and interesting. “Beauty is truth, truth Beauty” is perhaps the worst line in poetry, and such an attitude accompanying what is purportedly photojournalism begs some big questions. The piece is entitled the Aesthetic Hunter — interesting title: what is he doing hunting esthetics among the Mujahadeen? I thought he was there to tell a story about their struggle. Dont get me wrong, if he wants to hunt moments of beauty and truth in war torn Afghanistan, I have no problem with that. But it does seem a rather odd choice, particularly given the strident arguments within the agency about PJ’s status as art. How does he reconcile all that? I find it particularly interesting that his work does not really form a narrative; he seems to be all about focusing on isolated moments of striking color that stand out from a general gloom. I’d like to hear him discuss that and how he arrived at that esthetic, since his early work has no trace of it. That M in M should choose to highlight his work in a medium that emphasizes the narrative sequence of images strikes me as an interesting but flawed decision. I would like to know what he thinks about this tension between his isolate images and narrative sequencing. After all, Natl Geo has employed McCurry for many years now to do photo essays, but his particular gift doesnt lend itself so much to story as to picturesque illustration, which is why I suspect NG likes him so much. I do too, but rather than generalities about zen shooting and beauty, I would prefer to hear some substantive talk about his thinking deep down. It is not a question of whether it is good or bad; it is a question of making it better, more informative.

by Jon Anderson | 21 Jul 2006 17:07 | a casa, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Jon, why does McCurry need to conform to some intellectual prerequisites to justify his images? I think his portraits are extraordinary….

by [former member] | 21 Jul 2006 19:07 (ed. Jul 21 2006) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Andy, you are misreading my comments. I am not asking for anyone to “justify” the imagery, that is irrelevant. The imagery is its own justification, and I enjoy any opportunity to look his work over. (I once had the opportunity to watch him and his printer at work, so I am acquainted with his strict adherence to high quality work.) And I am not talking about defining intellectual prerequisites either. I would just like some decent commentary. As for his character, his handicap, his work ethic, his humility, his portrayal of the common man, his respect for his subjects or his success, I have no truck with any of that and nothing I said was ad hominem. All well and good. This is not about McCurry the man. I am simply interested in the thinking behind (1) M in M, why they choose the themes and subjects and photographers they do, how they execute the projects etc; and (2) McCurry’s deeper thinking behind his work, his ideas about what makes good imagery, why he shoots color in the way that he does, what he thinks about narrative, or photo “stories”, how those early formative years in India and Afghanistan shaped his thinking, etc etc. Yes, he mentions some of these things in passing, but I would like to hear more trenchant commentary, that is all. This is not about “respect”; it is just a perfectly innocuous question about the goals and execution of these films and the potential for the commentary to inform people. Maybe I am asking too much; maybe the producers feel that the time span is too short or the audience too broad to admit of deep analysis, but I found some of these commentaries lacking. Majoli’s is one I found lacking. Some clichés about Samba, life and death are passed off as intimate observation, which they are not. The string of images is great, but the talk just isnt really. Towell’s commentary I liked much much more, but he is an accomplished writer and a very reflective man, and that comes across. No, not everyone can achieve that kind of lucidity and eloquence, but the editors are there to help them, no? My basic point is that if the soundtrack is composed of the photographer’s commentary about his or her imagery, rather than, say, composed of ambient sounds that are intended to put you in the middle of the scene and give you the illusion of being there, or oral histories intended to give a voice to the subjects, then the focus has shifted somewhat to the photographer’s ideas and feelings about work, and it is reasonable to expect some interesting commentary along those lines. Dont just allude to the themes, analyze them. This is the basic criterion that any editor would require of a writer; why should this commentary be exempt? I find all of these productions moving, that is a given. I would be surprised if I were not moved by any of them. But aside from my emotional response, i think it is fair to consider the intellectual content of what we are being given. I am not asking for a whole critical discourse, just some trenchant observation. Considerting that the material is on the table for discussion, it is a fair enough request.

by Jon Anderson | 21 Jul 2006 20:07 | a casa, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Let me put it more bluntly. Profound imagery deserves an equally profound partner in the text or commentary that accompanies it. This is very often imagery that captures the very heart of human paradox and irony — why cannot the words befit the images? I know that the photographer is thinking on a much deeper level. Let it come to the surface.

by Jon Anderson | 21 Jul 2006 20:07 | a casa, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Profound imagery needs no commentary.

by [former member] | 21 Jul 2006 20:07 (ed. Jul 21 2006) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
i was going to pitch in at some point in this conversation with some trenchant observation,but quite frankly i can’t be arsed anymore.real,incisive criticicism is always needed,but we seem to be missing the point here.lets not have a go at other people for trying to expand the boundaries of our profession but embrace their flawed but honest efforts.i will leave the final word of my friday night after the pub(cafana) rant to george bernard shaw
“if you cannot see at a glance that the old game is up,that the camera has hopelessly beaten the pencil and the paintbrush as an instrument of artistic representation,then you will never make a true critic,you are only,like most critics,a picture fancier”

by Michael Bowring | 21 Jul 2006 23:07 | Belgrade, Serbia | | Report spam→
Despite the fact my earlier reply started to edge towards academic geek speak, I agree that this is no place for academic tropes. I understand the academic enfanchisement of PJ that is of concern; especially within art theory. My concern is not so much with how the art is discussed, in a photographic sense, but more so the way in which McCurry talks too little on the actual issues he is covering; sure, they are aesthetically stunning, and I am a huge admirer of his work, but does beauty really grapple with and communicate poverty? disenfranchised cultures? and, as Jon questions – the Mujahadeen? I think not; whilst I appreciate the technical excellence of such photos, they at times do little more than perpetuate overly romantic western notions of the ‘exotic other’. Anyway, I appreciate your response Lisa, and definately see truth in what you say. I suppose when one is ultra curious about the way in which a photographer works, in this instance McCurry, then it can be a little dissapointing not to get the answers one is waiting to hear. And also, yes there is a ‘zone’ moment in the taking of an image (however, I also don’t buy the ‘zen’) and I do not expect McCurry to analyse everything at the moment the shutter clicks… but, I do expect that people should be able to actively discuss how an image they have taken communicates, in their eyes, the story they are trying to tell and the issues it raises. Thats all. I am not expecting academic wank that distances the photographer from her/his own work and the audience from their own responses.

by Chris Henderson | 22 Jul 2006 00:07 | Auckland, New Zealand | | Report spam→
As a gecko hunter I am going to have to get a bigger gun, maybe a 19th century elephant gun to become a “Aesthetic Hunter”. As Micheal is implying the game’s moved on, I still take photos but I am also into other stuff…………… By the way the podcasts are easy to put together so there is no excuse for a so so result unless content and intent are flawed.

by Imants | 22 Jul 2006 01:07 | 7. Kalni, Australia | | Report spam→
if one of those little ‘aesthetics’ pops its ugly little head up near you imants,blow the little buggers anachronistic ears off,vermin.

by Michael Bowring | 22 Jul 2006 02:07 | Belgrade, Serbia | | Report spam→
Yea it’s a bit like playing pacman on a screen while spearing lab rats with the end of a broomstick listening to Bob Dylan’s Series Of Dreams from his bootleg series and so the stories go on kaboom with a wooshka to “Aesthetic Man and the Cannibals”

by Imants | 22 Jul 2006 03:07 | 7. Kalni, Australia | | Report spam→
friends, hope you all can remebmer the serch for that 12 year old Afghan Girl Sharbat Gula, the journey and finding is a lesson for us all by NGS.
being a great fan of Steves’ works, i feel Words and explanation are required but if the photograph can spek it in a better way,we should follow that too. But it is disappointing for those who met him but could not get proper answer for their specific question from the great photographer, which i feel also needed to follow someones profile. this kind of self interaction boost our generation who wants learn & follow the path of Steve Mccurry. i think the discussion which was started with the Magnum Motion Site, took a turn towards a specific Photographers’s work,thats a new window to know a photographer, from those who come accross him or her.
enjying this informative diucussion.
just to add a point, regarding Mccurry, here in My City-GUWAHATI,Mccurry was detained by the police in nineties during photo shoot as a part of his India -South East Asia Tour, but i could not trace & meet him as he was released very soon, before i reach. it really a sad part of my professional career. Wish to see him in India soon…..

by Subhamoy | 22 Jul 2006 03:07 | Assam, India | | Report spam→
Should I start a new post I am wondering, ‘cos I am
thinking after some of the last comments there is a debate
to be started about how we view the Magnum PJ’s, whether as
working professionals, mentors or has the role transmuted into
celebrity status shooter? I am sure we all appreciate each others work
but just ‘cos McCurry is reticent about explaining his life/work/MO
he seems to have taken a bit of a bashing. Me, I am a bit ’monkey see,
monkey do’, myself. If I see someones work that makes an impact on me
I don’t give a banana about what they say about it I just figure out
what works for me and I store it away as useful info for the future.
But it seems to me we are putting big demands on this MIM site. Is it because a
certain sly schadenfreude is slipping in? Are we hoping for hubris?
Do we all want to be the author of some ‘Picture of the Decade’ therefore demanding
from the McCurry’s of this world an explanation for their sucess?
Where exactly do we place the significance of the photojournalist?
Imants, I reckon we should meet for a beer at some point, I love the idea
of you blasting the heads off those pesky Aesthetics!

by lisa hogben | 23 Jul 2006 03:07 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Just curious, 19 guests and all men? Where are all of the female guests. There are very few women represented by them. Hope to see some women guests in the future. That is my feedback, but other than that, I loved the site and can’t wait to see more.

by Sara Hemed | 23 Jul 2006 07:07 | Honolulu, United States | | Report spam→

I do agree with all your quotes, specially about “ story telling” matter. It is somewhat tricky when you get the observer confused by showing well-designed pics but with no rhythm to really tell a story, which is what PJ is about. His comment was empty. There is a question. Is he actually nowadays involve with the “ story” he’s pretending to tell?. Andy, it is disappointing when you see the work of someone you respect, then you listen to his/er point of view on the subject and it is EMPTY. And, yes, it need to be explained!. We, photographers, writers, have to stop being ARROGANT, and listen, say, discuss, because we are responsible for what we do, what we shoot, and what we say. It is a matter of communication. I remember once I attended a slideshow by Stanley Green on his work on Chechnya “ Open Wound: Chechnya 1994-2003” ( Really powerful indeed), then he was asked about the objectiveness of the essay as far as it was mainly showing the Chechens perspective on the conflict. Then he said: “…I got involved with them, I felt as a soldier….”. Excuse, me…are you not a PJ. And RESPONSIBLE for telling the world an impartial kind of true story. After that comment, most of the people attending to the slide show (serious people fro Washington Post, NY Times, AP) got really disappointed about his point of view, and even worse, his WORK.

by Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo | 31 Jul 2006 02:07 | São Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→
Jorge, sticking to the PJ ethics is one (important) thing. But there is more to it: we’re made of flesh & blood and sometimes being really responsible (and indeed taking care not to be arrogant) means you HAVE to take sides because what’s happening in front of your eyes is bloody unfair. I know it’s a tricky line but I think one can take sides without making propaganda. Stanley wasn’t a soldier, he felt like one. He wasn’t (and still isn’t) a Chechen, but he felt like one. I don’t think his pictures are glorifying Chechen fighters. They are showing blood on snow and a photographer’s disarray. Quotes like Stanley’s should be put into perspective, and for my part would (I was not at that lecture) have been more disappointed by the serious people being disappointed than by Stanley’s words (which, knowing him a little, probably were not empty)…

by [former member] | 31 Jul 2006 03:07 | Phnom Penh, Cambodia | | Report spam→
John, you got my point on one hand, but on the other, maybe there is something was not clear enough to you. We do are mede of flesh & blood. We are fleshy PHOTOJOURNALISTS, and our responsability is to INFORM ( although as human beings in case of conflicts and dissasters we could take the choice off helpíng ill people before taking its bloody picture), that is what we are paid for (at least that is what peolple think-our responsability is to INFORM-). When I use the term ARROGANT, I was basically talking about this " Jon, why does McCurry need to conform to some intellectual prerequisites to justify his images? I think his portraits are extraordinary….", and this: " Profound imagery needs no commentary". posted by Andy Levin, and the focus of discussion was on the matter that there was something missing on what McCurry said about his essay. ( You have to take into account that people would like and need to-we as pj, pj students and human being who respect the work of someone-, what is behind the camera, if it is there a human bein or another machine). Now, you could be affected by a determined situation, and you shoud, but you have to be careful about it. I agree that he was not glorifying Chechens, I was talking about the fact he was asked by ( someone with the utopic dream that a pj is someone who might show the impartial reality -He was not asked by a " respected one", he was asked by a student):.. WHY IT SHOW MAINLY THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONFLICT FROM ONE SIDE…And the answer was not enough, then people who do not know Stanley Green personally like you got confused and dissapointed about it. I do respect him and his work as far as we talked later about it, but on the comment he did during the slide show as well as on McCurry. There was something missing on his statement. And something missing on a comment could change A LOT on the point of view of pepople who listen or observe. Cheers,

by Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo | 31 Jul 2006 17:07 (ed. Jul 31 2006) | São Paulo, Brazil | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Imants, gecko hunter Imants
gecko hunter
" The Boneyard" , Australia
Wayne E. Yang, Writer/Photographer Wayne E. Yang
Kaoshiung , Taiwan
David Honl, photographer David Honl
Bali , Indonesia
John Perkins, Photographer John Perkins
Cairo , Egypt ( CAI )
lisa hogben, Visualjournalist! lisa hogben
Sydney , Australia
Gary Austin, Photojournalist Gary Austin
(British Photojournalist)
Derby , United Kingdom ( EMA )
Daniel Etter, Photographer / Writer Daniel Etter
Photographer / Writer
Istanbul , Turkey
Bill Crandall, Photographer Bill Crandall
Washington Dc , United States
Jonathan Biles, Jonathan Biles
Johannesburg , South Africa
Giulio Zanni, Giulio Zanni
Sarajevo , Bosnia & Herzegovina
Subhamoy, PHOTOJOURNALIST Subhamoy
Guwahati , India
Brad Westphal, Photographer Brad Westphal
Bangkok , Thailand
James Brickwood, Photographer James Brickwood
Sydney , Australia
Nile Tuzun, Photographer / Designer Nile Tuzun
Photographer / Designer
San Francisco , United States ( SFO )
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States
DPC, Photographer DPC
Paris , France
T.S. Sullivan, Photographer T.S. Sullivan
Brooklyn, Ny , United States
Thomas Pickard, Photographer Thomas Pickard
Rarotonga , Cook Islands
Chris Henderson, photographer / educator Chris Henderson
photographer / educator
South Island , New Zealand ( CHC )
Michael Bowring, photographer Michael Bowring
Belgrade , Serbia
Sara Hemed, freelance photographer Sara Hemed
freelance photographer
(Honolulu, Hawaii)
Zanzibar , Tanzania ( DAR )
Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo, Photographer (freelancer) Jorge Luis Álvarez Pupo
Photographer (freelancer)
São Paulo , Brazil ( GRU )


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven