Photos from the Sun and Moon
I tried this on facebook, but it just didn't work out, so here's a more coherent attempt to flesh out these concepts.
Albert is a fashion photographer. His more recent work includes the fabulous and fantastic Tarina Tarantino "catalogs". When he goes to photograph something, he has in his minds eye what he wants to create, and then goes about setting up the shot. He will use any tool at his disposal, whether that means (sometimes) Photoshop in post, or far more often, bold, intentional lighting, artful makeup and set design, and creative angles to manifest his vision on film. I associate this with the work of the wand and of the sun.
The theoretically pure photo-journalist sets out to capture what is really happening, and to take something which already exists in the wild, frame it in context, and share this experience they had with the rest of the world. I associate this with the work of the cup and of the moon. The moon never shows the sun exactly, but expresses itself through it's reflection of the sun.
One thing worth noting is that journalistic photos can be incredibly moving, and are quite often of a far harsher reality than the creative shots seen, at least, in the mainstream media. This is because we find it ok, and in many cases consider it an obligation to be aware of the horrible things going on in the world (The Nik Ut photo from Vietnam being a prime example)
Different types of photography require different ethics. For a journalist to Photoshop an image significantly is a huge ethics breach, whereas sharing other peoples most emotional moments is an everyday part of their job, and a great achievement. It's worth noting that the photojournalist can not help but express himself through his photos, not just in what he feels is worth shooting, but in how the shot is framed and the context it is placed in. Further, outside of the "pure" art, both types of photographer must put their material in a specific venue, and that speaks volumes about what they are trying to accomplish with their work.
Just as the journalist can never omit the creative portion completely, or be truly objective, neither can the creative photographer avoid documenting his own surroundings, as he is a product of them. Looking at art, one sees the environment, as it flows through the artist without them destroying the effect through effort. Looking at journalism, you see what someone wishes to create, but tries to give the greatest power to by attributing it to outside forces.
-- James
Albert is a fashion photographer. His more recent work includes the fabulous and fantastic Tarina Tarantino "catalogs". When he goes to photograph something, he has in his minds eye what he wants to create, and then goes about setting up the shot. He will use any tool at his disposal, whether that means (sometimes) Photoshop in post, or far more often, bold, intentional lighting, artful makeup and set design, and creative angles to manifest his vision on film. I associate this with the work of the wand and of the sun.
The theoretically pure photo-journalist sets out to capture what is really happening, and to take something which already exists in the wild, frame it in context, and share this experience they had with the rest of the world. I associate this with the work of the cup and of the moon. The moon never shows the sun exactly, but expresses itself through it's reflection of the sun.
One thing worth noting is that journalistic photos can be incredibly moving, and are quite often of a far harsher reality than the creative shots seen, at least, in the mainstream media. This is because we find it ok, and in many cases consider it an obligation to be aware of the horrible things going on in the world (The Nik Ut photo from Vietnam being a prime example)
Different types of photography require different ethics. For a journalist to Photoshop an image significantly is a huge ethics breach, whereas sharing other peoples most emotional moments is an everyday part of their job, and a great achievement. It's worth noting that the photojournalist can not help but express himself through his photos, not just in what he feels is worth shooting, but in how the shot is framed and the context it is placed in. Further, outside of the "pure" art, both types of photographer must put their material in a specific venue, and that speaks volumes about what they are trying to accomplish with their work.
Just as the journalist can never omit the creative portion completely, or be truly objective, neither can the creative photographer avoid documenting his own surroundings, as he is a product of them. Looking at art, one sees the environment, as it flows through the artist without them destroying the effect through effort. Looking at journalism, you see what someone wishes to create, but tries to give the greatest power to by attributing it to outside forces.
-- James