I'm about halfway through the book "Magnum magnum", and I'm slowly getting an idea what the book (and Magnum Photos) is about.
There is a wide scope for varieties of photography, and Magnum is on the other side of the table from "fine art photography". But sometimes the journalistic approach may result in art nevertheless.
On the other hand, the book begs to ask the question of what is the content (and aim) of a photo? Is it usually just empty surface - just a snapshot - or can (and should) it be more? How you can tell whether a photo has more value than just the surface? And finally, what is the value of a photo, or a body of photography work?
Magnum is a self-made legend (a part of which is a kind a hubris) as defined in the lofty targets by Henri Cartier-Bresson, "Magnum is a community of thought, a shared human quality, a curiosity about what is going on in the world, a respect for what is going on and a desire to transcribe it visually."
But there is no escaping the impact of some of the photos, and their photojournalistic value in shaping our joint worldview. Therefore, a big question is whether photography (or any other craft) should aim to wield (or be able to wield) such power.
The photo here has nothing to do with Magnum, except that I find it enlightening in a funny sort of way. Perhaps all photos don't need to take themselves so seriously?
Posts
I have seen you somewhere.
3 hours ago
3 comments:
How did you do that photo with the lx3?
Even at f/2, my depth of field is such that everything's sharp.
You need just to go close enough, then there is enough DOF blur to satisfy even the "bokeh" lovers. This was probably taken with 2 cm distance from the lens.
Another hint: you can also focus a bit in front of the subject, so that the DOF is even less deep than otherwise.
I have such a photo of this subject here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jiihaa/3138425970/
Post a Comment