Game Over for McCurry as a photojournalist ?

Lord Brain said:

24IS said:

Lord Brain said:

cookedraw said:

Lord Brain said:

Yeah, I'd say his credibility is pretty much shot. He's running on empty--on the vestiges of esteem people once held him in.

He ought to bow out now, before he is completely bereft of what little dignity he has left.

Click to expand...

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Click to expand...

You're saying that McCurry is a modern-day Mussolini?

Hmm....could be, could certainly be...

Click to expand...

And here I was, thinking to myself: "Oh man, McCurry must be ancient, if he was around, back then, to have taken that photo of Mussolini."

I would imagine the bookmakers got quite a laugh out of Hitler's choice to ally himself with that clown. Talk about a setback for **** Germany.

Hitler's glum (almost mournful) stare, upon the realization that Mussolini really was a 'tactical idiot.'

Click to expand...

We're only a few posts in and a thread on McCurry has now shifted in the direction of Mussolini and Hitler.

Click to expand...

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

When voting in this poll, please be aware of cookedraw's decidedly political beef with MCurry and National Geographic ...

Regards, Mike

Hen3ry said:

Let it go. This story is done and dusted until someone who actually has some influence on the answer to your question make a move.

Click to expand...

Fair wish, but politics have entered into it... :-(

Regards, Mike

The enraged public has smelled blood, and by golly they want a dead body before this is over. Pitchfork time!

:-(

Regards, Mike

cookedraw said:

Lord Brain said:

24IS said:

Lord Brain said:

cookedraw said:

Lord Brain said:

Yeah, I'd say his credibility is pretty much shot. He's running on empty--on the vestiges of esteem people once held him in.

He ought to bow out now, before he is completely bereft of what little dignity he has left.

Click to expand...

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Click to expand...

You're saying that McCurry is a modern-day Mussolini?

Hmm....could be, could certainly be...

Click to expand...

And here I was, thinking to myself: "Oh man, McCurry must be ancient, if he was around, back then, to have taken that photo of Mussolini."

I would imagine the bookmakers got quite a laugh out of Hitler's choice to ally himself with that clown. Talk about a setback for **** Germany.

Hitler's glum (almost mournful) stare, upon the realization that Mussolini really was a 'tactical idiot.'

Click to expand...

We're only a few posts in and a thread on McCurry has now shifted in the direction of Mussolini and Hitler.

Click to expand...

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Click to expand...

Yes . Germany and Italy had very good photojournalists.

Maybe the best photojournalists are in North Korea ?



--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

The political angle you've alluded to earlier had me contemplating whether anyone has commented on something similar.

In an April 2016 interview in National Geographic , the Australian photographer Andrew Quilty commented on his haunting photographs of various aspects of life in modern-day Afghanistan. He remarks that "As a subject of photography, I think beauty has always been inseparable from, or even symbiotic with, the horror of Afghanistan" and further observes that there "is an inherent risk of romanticizing the horror. It’s not for me to judge whether I’ve fallen victim to exoticism, but if I had, I wouldn’t be the first to have done so in Afghanistan."

I do suspect a similar dynamic--that between beauty and horror--was at play in McCurry's 1980s photos.

I don't understand this rage toward McCurry as if he told a soldier in warzone to pretend he got shot by bullet, or let little girl die of starvation while photographing vultures.

It is just not the case.

vepar said:

I don't understand this rage toward McCurry as if he told a soldier in warzone to pretend he got shot by bullet, or let little girl die of starvation while photographing vultures.

It is just not the case.

Click to expand...

Rage ? (3-20 at the moment yes/no)

I don't understand the tolerance .

Let us take a look at the text by Debra Denker june 1985 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/original-story-text

Very romantic description of child soldiers and jihadists.

"

MOST OF THE TRAINEES in this camp are little more than boys. Enthusiastically they run through the dusty obstacle course, climb swinging ladders, rappel down cliffs, scale sheer walls, and run through fire, their plastic shoes falling off as they leap. They are laughing, enjoying this game, but in a moment of quiet they gather round to talk and become serious, speaking of families left behind in Afghanistan and of their commitment to the jihad.

On another occasion, I visit this rugged spot with Ishaq Gailani. At 32, this charismatic young leader is revered by his followers as much for his reputation for honesty and bravery in battle as for his membership in a family of hereditary religious leaders.

Ishaq Gailani has spent much time at many fronts and tells me he hopes to go back again soon. As we watch the men receiving instruction on captured Soviet weapons, I ask him the meaning of the black flag that flies over the camp.

“When the Prophet and his companions used to go to jihad, they carried black flags, because war is not a good thing,” he explains. “When we go to jihad today, it’s not because we want to fight, but because we are compelled to fight for the sake of Islam, and for the freedom of Afghanistan.”

As a heavy dusk deepens over the craggy hills, a muezzin’s voice calls the men to prayer, and once again the mujahidin put aside their study of war. The holy warriors, Ishaq among them, spread their pattu on the ground, their weapons before them, and stand and bow and stand again. In the silence I feel their strong and quiet faith, and wish only for a swift and happy end to the struggle forced upon them.

"

The strange thing is that the image of the afghan girl don't sync with the text. Today the freedom fighters are described with images like these . Why tolerance for fiction in the name of photojournalism ?

















--

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Lord Brain said:

Yeah, I'd say his credibility is pretty much shot.

Click to expand...

He's now one notch below Richard Prince.

Lord Brain said:

The political angle you've alluded to earlier had me contemplating whether anyone has commented on something similar.

In an April 2016 interview in National Geographic , the Australian photographer Andrew Quilty commented on his haunting photographs of various aspects of life in modern-day Afghanistan. He remarks that "As a subject of photography, I think beauty has always been inseparable from, or even symbiotic with, the horror of Afghanistan" and further observes that there "is an inherent risk of romanticizing the horror. It’s not for me to judge whether I’ve fallen victim to exoticism, but if I had, I wouldn’t be the first to have done so in Afghanistan."

I do suspect a similar dynamic--that between beauty and horror--was at play in McCurry's 1980s photos.

Click to expand...

"David Shields lamented the 'war porn' he found on the cover of The New York Times, which led to the publication of his book War Is Beautiful: The New York Times Pictorial Guide to the Glamour of Armed Conflict. Shields argues that because war is messy, the photos representing it shouldn’t be beautiful (i.e. aesthetically pleasing)."

In Defense of Steve McCurry

MoreorLess said:

Personally I don't think there's any "dishonesty" in these images, if they were photojournalism they might fall foul of an anti-cloning rule but they certainly would not be an example of why that rule exists. None of the cloning for me has any impact on a potential the social/political message of the images in question.

Click to expand...

McCurry's public position on this is stricter than yours. The question is whether he violated his own principles.

cookedraw said:

vepar said:

I don't understand this rage toward McCurry as if he told a soldier in warzone to pretend he got shot by bullet, or let little girl die of starvation while photographing vultures.

It is just not the case.

Click to expand...

Rage ? (3-20 at the moment yes/no)

I don't understand the tolerance .

Click to expand...

It's not that complex.

McCurry is a highly skilled and mainstream Nat Geo-type photojournalist. He and/or someone on his staff got caught doing very minor, and very sloppy, manipulations on images he made for personal work. It really is not a big deal.

cookedraw said:

Let us take a look at the text by Debra Denker june 1985

Click to expand...

So, you want to crucify McCurry, because of text that someone else wrote, for an article where he provided the photos? Seriously?

cookedraw said:

Very romantic description of child soldiers and jihadists.

Click to expand...

Yes, in 1985... when they were fighting against Soviet forces.... When the Soviets were invading and bombing insurgents... When the UN was pushing the Soviets to withdraw.... And about a decade before they started attacking non-Soviet Westerners.

And no, the Mujahideen did not widely use child soldiers.

Further, the idea that McCurry should be taken down with any possible excuse you can dream up, because he was a photojournalist on an article on Afghanistan in the 1980s, is beyond ridiculous.

Brad Bohland said:

MoreorLess said:

Personally I don't think there's any "dishonesty" in these images, if they were photojournalism they might fall foul of an anti-cloning rule but they certainly would not be an example of why that rule exists. None of the cloning for me has any impact on a potential the social/political message of the images in question.

Click to expand...

McCurry's public position on this is stricter than yours. The question is whether he violated his own principles.

Click to expand...

Not much.

He recently did a TedX thing, where he said he wanted his images to reflect reality. He was talking about not using "filters" (e.g. Instagram / VSCO etc). Strictly speaking, moving an object is borderline; it's not like he uses Snapchat to make googly eyes.

However, it's not clear if he actually ordered a lab tech to make those changes. He is responsible either way; but if the tech was moving stuff without his explicit orders, then he wasn't violating his principles. If he did order it, then as long as it's personal work, it's a minor violation.

If it was presented as a work of journalism, then that doesn't matter. Even the smallest modifications are verboten. Journalistic ethics are very strict.

SpinOne said:

...as long as it's personal work, it's a minor violation.

If it was presented as a work of journalism... Even the smallest modifications are verboten. Journalistic ethics are very strict.

Click to expand...

I agree completely with the second remark.

I would agree with the first, but only if he has explicitly expressed that view. If he made misleading remarks stating or implying that he doesn't add/subtract content as a general principle, then to do so even in his private photography would makes him look a bit hypocritical.

I like graphic arts. I just don't like it when the artist says it's not.

Don't care.

Really can't relate to all the Photoshop hate in the photojournalism, because I really can't separate it from the rest of the photography.

And the rest of the photography has used Photoshop for god only knows how many years - starting with the retouching of (as in scratching/painting over) the daguerreotypes, and later the negatives and the images.

Images are and were always 'shoped, because nobody wants to see again how bleak reality really is. That's why we take images: to create a memento of the good moments of our lives.

cookedraw said:

http://thewire.in/2016/05/15/exposing-steve-mccurrys-photoshopped-world-36155/

Click to expand...

When somebody paints a picture too good - they criticize that as (words from the article) inauthentic and fantasy.

When somebody paints a picture too grim - they criticize that as exploiting suffering and perpetuating stereotypes.

So who's right? who's wrong?

ThePhilips said:

Don't care.

Really can't relate to all the Photoshop hate in the photojournalism, because I really can't separate it from the rest of the photography.

Click to expand...

In journalism, the authenticity of the image is paramount. Photojournalists did not use substantial retouching or manipulation; drastic modifications to tonality were borderline acceptable.

Even keeping in mind that any image is a highly edited view of reality (e.g. just the angle of view has an effect), a journalistic image is not supposed to be an illustration. It's one step over the line.

ThePhilips said:

Images are and were always 'shoped, because nobody wants to see again how bleak reality really is.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Please don't make me post a bunch of really harsh photojournalistic images. Suffice to say there have been a lot of really ugly real-life images published over the years, which were not manipulated after exposure, and which often had a big impact.

cookedraw said:

Ben Stonewall said:

you forgot

"Who?"

and

"Who cares?"

Click to expand...

Maybe people that thinks freedom of speech should be used more wise than for taliban poster girls ?

Or we can throw freedom of speech out the window and enjoy the propaganda ...

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/10/world-war-ii-the-fall-of-****-germany/w01_3c21804u/main_1200.jpg

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Click to expand...

You do know that this particular photo was staged days later after the Reichstags has fallen?

SpinOne said:

SpinOne said:

Images are and were always 'shoped, because nobody wants to see again how bleak reality really is.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Please don't make me post a bunch of really harsh photojournalistic images. Suffice to say there have been a lot of really ugly real-life images published over the years, which were not manipulated after exposure, and which often had a big impact.

Click to expand...

God please no, man. I've seen this **** in real life few times. I do not need to see facsimile of it.

...

They say that "beauty is skin-deep." But they also say that "beauty will save the world". Meditate on that.

Brad Bohland said:

Lord Brain said:

The political angle you've alluded to earlier had me contemplating whether anyone has commented on something similar.

In an April 2016 interview in National Geographic , the Australian photographer Andrew Quilty commented on his haunting photographs of various aspects of life in modern-day Afghanistan. He remarks that "As a subject of photography, I think beauty has always been inseparable from, or even symbiotic with, the horror of Afghanistan" and further observes that there "is an inherent risk of romanticizing the horror. It’s not for me to judge whether I’ve fallen victim to exoticism, but if I had, I wouldn’t be the first to have done so in Afghanistan."

I do suspect a similar dynamic--that between beauty and horror--was at play in McCurry's 1980s photos.

Click to expand...

"David Shields lamented the 'war porn' he found on the cover of The New York Times, which led to the publication of his book War Is Beautiful: The New York Times Pictorial Guide to the Glamour of Armed Conflict. Shields argues that because war is messy, the photos representing it shouldn’t be beautiful (i.e. aesthetically pleasing)."

In Defense of Steve McCurry

Click to expand...

That's a great link, Brad! It's very topical, given the recent developments.