World Press Photo winner disagreements

[CWyatt]

Apologies if this has been brought up before, I couldn't find where it had as such, although this 'news' is from February.

For those unfamiliar, World Press Photo is one of the biggest international photojournalism competitions/showcases, and has an exhibition which tours the world on a huge scale.

Recently it came through my city, and I always head to it a few times. As usual, I liked and disliked some images, and was blown away by the quality of some. One I never really 'got' was the winner.

A friend recently directed me to the comments attached to the New York Times article (with images) here: Showcase: The Best in the World - NYTimes.com

Which include statements like this:

The World Press Photo of the Year is stunning for its lack of content or any other journalistic values. The jury’s selection is yet another setback for a profession that is already in deep trouble. If that was the best of the best, they should have made no selection at all, and I’m hoping next year will bring a more professional group of jurors.

“The photo shows the beginning of something, the beginning of a huge story,” jury chair Ayperi Karabuda Ecer said of the photo. Right. Well how about showing pictures of the story itself, and there were plenty of powerful images from the Iranian protests, if that was what they wanted to show.

A fellow photographer said it was like seeing a photo of Paul Revere putting on his shoes before his midnight ride. There are those of us who still want to see the ride, not the”haunting and eerily prescient” prelude.

The guy who wrote that is David Hume Kennerly, a Vietnam war photographer and Pulitzer-prize winning photojournalist.

Another comment which caught my eye was this:

David Kennerly and Derek Hudson express well my astonishment (and I am a former magazine photo editor) of this choice for WPP Photo of the Year. Words are for expressing what already happened, might happen, could have happened. Photography is for expressing that 1/8th, 1/500th of a second slice of time in the form of a unique, powerful, dramatic, arresting “moment” that, informs the reader–when it works its unique magic– in a way that words can rarely duplicate. A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, not need a thousand words to supplement what it does not say. This choice disappoints completely.

I have no problem with photos that 'break the mold' if you will, images which are not standard photojournalism fare. But at the same time, photojournalists and editors one the whole want images that get the reader/viewers attention, that tell a story, that say something words can't. For me, this shot doesn't do that. I agree it needs so much context added with text, that it seems to lose the point of being a photojournalism image at all. Other issues include that the focus, the people, are so small it would be even less effective in print. One thing to point out is that this image was entered as part of a series, the jurors plucked it out as the photo of the year.

Interested in what others thought.

 

[Garbz]

What I think? People on the whole are crap. The world would be a better place if people just looked at photos while they were gagged, and had their brain wiped at the end of it. What we need to do is shoot all the judges. There is nothing worse than the artistic opinion of someone on someone elses work. This is a clear example of that.

I may sound harsh and I used to enter contests but my turning point of realisation was when I went to my local art gallery. There was this one painting on display which was black. Just plain ****ing black. No colour at all. To the left of it was the most incredible bull**** I have ever read. Something about the artists feeling dark and not able to decide what colour to paint with, so he mixed all colours and ended up with black and just covered the canvas. This wasn't art. It was plain ****ing black.

It wasn't angry at the artists. Heck I felt sorry for him. We all have those days. What I was angry at was that some lobotomised "expert" had written 3 paragraphs praising a ****ing black square. I was angry that this was wasting valuable space that could be used to display actual artistic talent.

I realised that everybody is entitled to opinions, but the vast majority of those people should just keep them to themselves. There is only ONE single person who is qualified to judge a photo, and that is the photographer.


Also the quote on Paul Revere is utter crap too. A prelude to something which may or may not happen is about as exciting and cognitively challenging as watching paint dry. Sure this photo may have been a prelude to something amazing. It may be the last photo of these people in existence. The building could have been annihilated in a barrage of explosion. OR nothing at all could have happened and the guys could still be standing there. To extend on that if I sent you a photo of my wall does the fact that a car could have lost control in the street and smashed through my wall after the fact make my mind numbing picture of a wall any more exciting?

A picture that doesn't convey what is happening or what is going to happen to the people is simply a picture of some dudes standing on a roof. There's nothing Haunting nor eerily prescient about it.

 

[white]

I'd rather see a black square painting than another fucking sunrise picture.

Kidding.

Kind of, but not really.

Sometimes what is good about a piece of artwork is the intent or the concept. To judge a work based on talent or skill is idiotic. Black squares just might be profound, and the artist's statement may very well be thought-provoking.

I'm glad not everybody shares your opinion, Garbz. The art world would be a dull and quiet place.

 

[pgriz]

The act of "seeing" is an act of interpretation. That's how we humans are wired. Each of us brings our baggage of experience, knowledge, prejudices, aspirations, fears, etc., to the act of seeing an image, and then extracting meaning from it. Two people, seeing the same image, will usually come up with very different interpretations. But each of us is so used to doing this at the subconscious level, that it appears automatic, and we are often surprised when we learn that someone else doesn't recognize or see what we are seeing. Coupled to this is each person's expectation of what "should" be there. We spend lots of effort learning about photographic balance, proportions, colours, arrangements, composition, sharpness, blur, etc., to develop a sense of what a "good" image is. Between the personal interpretation, and the overlay of learned rules, we have very different reactions.

My spouse is a gifted fine artist. Through her influence, I have been exposed to many art exhibitions and displays by her peers. Often times, my initial reaction to a work of art would be dismissve, or one of indifference. She would encourage me to enter into the mind of the artist, and see the image (or work) through that perspective - and often, the perception that I had would change, sometimes dramatically.

Another approach to viewing images is to deliberately ignore the context and evaluate the image strictly on its own terms. To me (and this is a personal opinion), that's the equivalent of eating something because it has so many carbohydrates, so much protein (black/white, shapes, colours), and so many lipids, instead of appreciating the taste, aroma, texture and temperature (which are all interpretations). I think it is instructive to ask the question "why do I think that", when reacting to an image. The answer often reveals to us an aspect of ourselves that we didn't see or appreciate.

 

[Derrel]

You didn't "get" the winning image? It's pretty obvious that you're not used to seeing anything except blood-and-guts PJ images. There were some of those too. Simple, facile, shocking images of horrible things. The winning image was of people howling in protest from rooftops in an act of civil disobedience in a society where "the authorities" can,and will,and do, show up at 3:00 AM and "disappear" people with alarming frequency. This is a photo of women doing this in open sight, as twilight falls, in a country where freedom of speech is not a guaranteed "right", spelled out in a document; the winner that you "don't get" and that Hume-Kennerly dismisses is because you live life as entitled,sheltered,pampered citizens of well-established, stable democratic governments. The winning image is
powerful in its own way, but obviously you don't have enough information to understand what you are seeing. The Dancing With The Stars version of photojournalism is served up weekly, and it's called People Magazine. I'd suggest buying a copy of that. There, the photos have lots of neat,nifty captiony-thingies underneath them, to help understand the pictures.

 

[Derrel]

Here is yet another photo contest, also one with a prize-winning photograph that has generated a LOT of buzz around the world.

A prize-winning image? - British Journal of Photography

 

[gsgary]

The winning photo has created a lot of reaction, just what a winning photo should do

 

[CWyatt]

The winning photo has created a lot of reaction, just what a winning photo should do

A picture of my foot would get a lot of reaction, and not for the right reasons either. In PJ stuff, I'd hope the reaction would be directed more towards the event covered rather than the quality of the image itself (even at a PJ awards exhibition).

You didn't "get" the winning image? It's pretty obvious that you're not used to seeing anything except blood-and-guts PJ images... the winner that you "don't get" and that Hume-Kennerly dismisses is because you live life as entitled,sheltered,pampered citizens of well-established, stable democratic governments... The Dancing With The Stars version of photojournalism is served up weekly, and it's called People Magazine. I'd suggest buying a copy of that. There, the photos have lots of neat,nifty captiony-thingies underneath them, to help understand the pictures.

Wow, what a bizarre rant. Based on my one post about the World Press Photo winner you make a lot of very odd assumptions about myself, that aren't quite right I'm afraid.

I think it is instructive to ask the question "why do I think that", when reacting to an image.

That's a really interesting point that isn't immediately apparent, thanks for that.

 

[timethief]

You didn't "get" the winning image? It's pretty obvious that you're not used to seeing anything except blood-and-guts PJ images. There were some of those too. Simple, facile, shocking images of horrible things. The winning image was of people howling in protest from rooftops in an act of civil disobedience in a society where "the authorities" can,and will,and do, show up at 3:00 AM and "disappear" people with alarming frequency. This is a photo of women doing this in open sight, as twilight falls, in a country where freedom of speech is not a guaranteed "right", spelled out in a document; the winner that you "don't get" and that Hume-Kennerly dismisses is because you live life as entitled,sheltered,pampered citizens of well-established, stable democratic governments. The winning image is
powerful in its own way, but obviously you don't have enough information to understand what you are seeing. The Dancing With The Stars version of photojournalism is served up weekly, and it's called People Magazine. I'd suggest buying a copy of that. There, the photos have lots of neat,nifty captiony-thingies underneath them, to help understand the pictures.

I think its spot on.
Not a rant in any form.
Just telling you the perspective you should be looking from.
Maybe you should broaden your view instead of assuming that people are there to get one up on you ?

ps. this is not a rant as well.

 

[CWyatt]

It's not a rant? It's goes off on tangents making bizarre assumptions. Here are a few answers to the assumptions:

'It's pretty obvious that you're not used to seeing anything except blood-and-guts PJ images.'

Is it? In reality there is little 'blood and guts' in PJ work here. Also, I've worked in PJ, know PJs, know newspaper editors, have studied PJ and consider it a major passion.
So yes, I am used to seeing other PJ images.

'The winning image was of people howling in protest from rooftops in an act of civil disobedience in a society where "the authorities" can,and will,and do, show up at 3:00 AM and "disappear" people with alarming frequency. This is a photo of women doing this in open sight, as twilight falls, in a country where freedom of speech is not a guaranteed "right", spelled out in a document;'

Utterly misses the point. I did not say the image does not capture an important event, or part of an important event. Rather I questioned, very much in the PJ tradition, whether this image has impact - whether it tells a story, whether it communicates something to the viewer of the importance of what is going on.

'the winner that you "don't get" and that Hume-Kennerly dismisses is because you live life as entitled,sheltered,pampered citizens of well-established, stable democratic governments. The winning image is
powerful in its own way, but obviously you don't have enough information to understand what you are seeing.'

I most certainly DO know what is going on. The problem is not my knowledge - it's the IMAGE. The IMAGE doesn't tell me what is going on. It portrays a significant event, but not in a way that better images (IMO) might have. I'm a graduate in history and international relations with a particular interest in Iran and the current regime, and have travelled and know many people living in less 'pampered' states, so again your major assumptions, based entirely on the fact I didn't rate this as a great PJ image, are incorrect.

'The Dancing With The Stars version of photojournalism is served up weekly, and it's called People Magazine. I'd suggest buying a copy of that. There, the photos have lots of neat,nifty captiony-thingies underneath them, to help understand the pictures.'

Again, just bizarre. First (again based on my one post!?) all I'm used to is 'blood and guts' PJ. Then I should be buying People Magazine.

I'm afraid your post was a rant, because it makes large leaps of logic and huge assumptions which aren't correct, and goes off on tangents not at all related to the issue I brought up, which is the quality of the image selected, and how it portrays the event depicted.

 

[tirediron]

Hmmm... lessee... Do I like these images? Not overly. Do I think they're top-notch, award winners? Nope. Was I in the running for these awards? Nope. Oh, right; doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form.

/ambles off to get on with life.

 

[Garbz]

Sometimes what is good about a piece of artwork is the intent or the concept. To judge a work based on talent or skill is idiotic. Black squares just might be profound, and the artist's statement may very well be thought-provoking.

I'm glad not everybody shares your opinion, Garbz. The art world would be a dull and quiet place.

I see it as the opposite. If I grow a mostache, wear a funny hat, take a crap on a canvas and people can call it a profound and a thought provoking statement then there's something wrong with the industry. Dull and quiet may be just the thing for it.

Don't get me wrong I love art galleries. I love looking at pictures in many shapes and forms. It's when a picture lacks .... everything and gets labelled as a profound masterpiece that I shake my head. The worst part is that some people get paid to make statements about nothing.

 

[Shane Anderson]

My spouse is a gifted fine artist. Through her influence, I have been exposed to many art exhibitions and displays by her peers. Often times, my initial reaction to a work of art would be dismissve, or one of indifference. She would encourage me to enter into the mind of the artist, and see the image (or work) through that perspective - and often, the perception that I had would change, sometimes dramatically.

My wife is also a gifted fine artist, has exhibited in several countries, and sells her work for a good sum.

However she is also of the opinion that a lot of "art" is just crap. The extreme abstract work that was popular through the 80's and 90's (you know, a whitewashed canvas titled "Polar bear in a snow storm") is now starting to lose favour, and there is a return to more traditional styles such as realism.

Subjectivity is such a strong element of art that "competitions" almost defeat the purpose because they imply that one piece of art (or photo) is "better" than another. Sure there are technical elements to art and photography that are obvious if you know what to look for, but beyond that, the judgement of a winning entry is a purely subjective decision, and if you judged the competition again tomorrow with a different panel the result would be entirely different.

My personal opinion - artwork of any sort doesn't impress me if it doesn't tell me a story of some sort or provoke a feeling. And there might well be a story hidden a piece of pure black canvas, or a photo of some people on an anonymous rooftop, but if I can't make a reasonable guess at that story just by looking at the art then it's not complete. Sure I could make up my own story, but I could do that in my own lounge room with my eyes closed.

If photos or artwork require a narrative to explain what they are about then in my view it's missed the point.

 

[Shane Anderson]

Sometimes what is good about a piece of artwork is the intent or the concept. To judge a work based on talent or skill is idiotic. Black squares just might be profound, and the artist's statement may very well be thought-provoking.

Intent and concept are certainly vital elements, but they aren't enough by themselves. I have good concepts for photographs and sound intentions of doing it the way I imagined, but it rarely turns out that way.

 

[white]

Intent and concept are certainly vital elements, but they aren't enough by themselves. I have good concepts for photographs and sound intentions of doing it the way I imagined, but it rarely turns out that way.

I was kind of referring to most found-art, and possibly Dada -- the idea that ordinary things could be art if the artist thought so and presented it that way.

If photos or artwork require a narrative to explain what they are about then in my view it's missed the point.

Well then lots of art must be missing the point. But I don't think that way personally. Viewer participation is required. Kind of like writing, a good storyteller doesn't exhaustively describe his world -- it would drag on and on. It's about 50/50, maybe even 60/40 with the reader bringing more to the story than the author does.

I was recently turned on to this guy: Chris McCaw. I love his Sunburn series, and Sunburn #1 is one of my favorites. Check it out, and read his ... narrative.