Superbly done. Love your passion and commitment to details that matter. This is an essay to take to the bank.
I have one quibble-not-quibble. It has to do with this sentence:
"The audience capacity to be moved by a serious photograph, held in serious attention, delivered by a serious editorial institution willing to give it room to breathe, is not exhausted."
I disagree, though I wish I didn't. For two reasons at the top of my head:
First, the water cooler conversation that brought millions of Americans together after, say, the final episode of MASH played, is gone. Our culture is too fragmented across endless on-demand channels. You can't build a sustainable business model around a photo essay that can compete with all that noise. LIFE had the eyeballs until TV stole them. How do you get those eyeballs for long form photography back? I'm not taking about an angel investor, I'm talking about a sustainable business model.
Second, go back to all those "fucking zeros" you listed. Think of all the photos of immigrant kids detained/dead published since Trumps first term. Or the innumerable photos of "100-year" fires/floods/tornadoes destruction. Yet here we are, detaining and expelling more kids than ever before in our history, and decimating all funding for sustainable energy. All those fucking zeros have numbed us the impact of any particular set of photos. I'm not sure any human in an editorial room can change that.
It may be more difficult because we as a society have both more and fewer options in terms of news, but think of how many people saw the images (still and motion) of Liam, Alex Pretti and Renee Good. It’s still possible for an image to break through.
You are right. I downplayed that in my comment. Thx. My question is Canyou compare the impact of those images to those of the Vietnam War, for instance? It seems to me that we've been over saturated and individual images have lost much (not all) of their power to impact us. Its hard to measure, it's the impression I can't help having.
There’s a famous-ish piece written around the time of the explosion of snapshots that decried the abundance of images, particularly for visual materials archivists (doubtful I will be able to recall the title or who wrote it; I read it in graduate school about 15 years ago). As with all such complaints (when the printing press was invented people said it would be the death of memorized tales and oral tradition), there is some truth. There are also benefits: think of the George Floyd video, all of the shoulder injuries that aren’t occurring (I’m not being flip there). And digital storage, even for lowly iPhone pix is not free. I won’t go down the data center path, but that’s at least a part of that, all clouds lead to centers somewhere. If not that, then a lot of hard drives. And that’s not free either.
I digress. You’re right. We’ll never get Life back or the old CBS, but maybe we will have more photo books and zines, and maybe that’s all right. In the Life days, the vast majority of the photographers were white men. There’s nothing wrong with white men, but there are a lot of good photographers who are women and who are not white. New models might be better suited for women and people of all backgrounds, including people with disabilities. Just a thought.
And TV is sinking too, including cable, so don’t get too hung up on that. The post-war, booming economy that gave us Life, department stores and (arguably) great journalism was an anomaly, not the norm.
Oh, and one more thing: I’d be very happy never to see another war photo again. I worked the wire desk at a newspaper at one point. One high holy day (Yom Kippur, I think) I was looking for a feature photo of a service to run on the World page. All AP moved was people with guns.
I think you hit the most important point in this entire issue: photographers who still find meaning in the photo essay, and not just on newsworthy subjects, but slso on human interest and more conceptual topics, are pivoting. Zines, places like Substack, local exhibitions. Why invest in trying to get 10,000 eyeballs to spend 1/2 second on your photos when you can get 100 to really pay attention and build community with you. That's where I'm at, and many photogs who I know. It feeds its own rewards.
One story I can’t help but share since you cite Eugene Smith as the epitome of Life’s work: I took a workshop with David Plowden years ago. Part of weekend was a dinner with Plowden and those of us who were attending (five or six). “Gene didn’t get along with Life,” he said. I remember this clearly, because it took me a minute to realize he was referring to the magazine. Your larger points are correct, but I believe photographers have always had to fight for time for assignments, and for the stories themselves. And as far as images telling stories, I believe that goes back to cave drawings.
I grew up with LIFE and its cohort, dug into photo essays like Smith’s, watched the collective demise of print publishing platforms. I think your analysis is right on the money (if you’ll pardon the reference). I watched newspapers cut their photo (and reporting) staffs to the point where they became nearly irrelevant. In-depth photo essays now, when you see them, all seem to be published with funding from foundations and NGOs. And one result is that the public’s collective attention span has shrunk—see, for example, Instagram and its ilk. Thanks for your thoughtful history.
This is an outstanding article, thank you. I personally feel digital photography, with its AI-assisted image manipulation to optimise for IG curation, fits the post-truth era we're in (and yes, I know film photographs could be and were doctored for political reasons (Trotsky etc) but that was rarer).
I don't think it's any surprise (but is odd, funny and ironic) that the platforms people use to upload their blizzard of IG-ready content to are owned by companies use that free content to train AI systems/products they then use to bump their stock price (and which are then used to produce deepfakes alongside AI-generated digital images) - which is the revenue cycle we're in.
The idea that a photograph could make people feel something, or change things for the better, has been lost. I am glad film has made a resurgence, even if market-share remains small, and I hope in time we see a return to analogue photography as a medium of truth-telling to counter the 'digital content for AI training' era we're in.
You wrote a great article very well researched. However, I would challenge you on several things. Your idea of photo journalism is very narrow. You only cover photo journalism that was paid profession. Meanwhile, you only refer to IG as the comparison. I would argue that the smartphone and digital photography in today’s world has greatly improved photojournalism. For one, it includes a much more diverse perspective of the world, albeit the actual photos or videos don’t meet your criteria of good photography. But there is more truth available today (but more fake news as well) then there ever was with having staff photographers on assignment explain the world through less diverse and limited understanding of local cultures, pre-1980. You hold up Life magazine as the “golden age” of journalism? Excuse me but Life is a government propaganda tool. What cultural values did those photo essays represent? IMO predominantly outsider, post-colonial viewpoints. Life’s photo and story editorials rarely represent the ideas, thoughts, emotions, and stories of millions of people who now have smart cameras in their hands. Real life footage of villages being bombed…smartphone…no outsider photographer needed. The true culprit of photo journalism is censorship, not economics. Imagine all the people in the world with truth on their phone cameras, but they cannot be presented to the world because of modern censorship and authoritarianism. So, great article, but your value set and romanticization of photography is too narrow in my opinion. One could counter-argue and characterize today’s era as the democratization of photojournalism. And encourage people to seek those millions of stories people are already telling on the internet through photos. Sorry if I sound harsh. I could be wrong. But you have great articulation and communication skills.
Superbly done. Love your passion and commitment to details that matter. This is an essay to take to the bank.
I have one quibble-not-quibble. It has to do with this sentence:
"The audience capacity to be moved by a serious photograph, held in serious attention, delivered by a serious editorial institution willing to give it room to breathe, is not exhausted."
I disagree, though I wish I didn't. For two reasons at the top of my head:
First, the water cooler conversation that brought millions of Americans together after, say, the final episode of MASH played, is gone. Our culture is too fragmented across endless on-demand channels. You can't build a sustainable business model around a photo essay that can compete with all that noise. LIFE had the eyeballs until TV stole them. How do you get those eyeballs for long form photography back? I'm not taking about an angel investor, I'm talking about a sustainable business model.
Second, go back to all those "fucking zeros" you listed. Think of all the photos of immigrant kids detained/dead published since Trumps first term. Or the innumerable photos of "100-year" fires/floods/tornadoes destruction. Yet here we are, detaining and expelling more kids than ever before in our history, and decimating all funding for sustainable energy. All those fucking zeros have numbed us the impact of any particular set of photos. I'm not sure any human in an editorial room can change that.
It may be more difficult because we as a society have both more and fewer options in terms of news, but think of how many people saw the images (still and motion) of Liam, Alex Pretti and Renee Good. It’s still possible for an image to break through.
You are right. I downplayed that in my comment. Thx. My question is Canyou compare the impact of those images to those of the Vietnam War, for instance? It seems to me that we've been over saturated and individual images have lost much (not all) of their power to impact us. Its hard to measure, it's the impression I can't help having.
There’s a famous-ish piece written around the time of the explosion of snapshots that decried the abundance of images, particularly for visual materials archivists (doubtful I will be able to recall the title or who wrote it; I read it in graduate school about 15 years ago). As with all such complaints (when the printing press was invented people said it would be the death of memorized tales and oral tradition), there is some truth. There are also benefits: think of the George Floyd video, all of the shoulder injuries that aren’t occurring (I’m not being flip there). And digital storage, even for lowly iPhone pix is not free. I won’t go down the data center path, but that’s at least a part of that, all clouds lead to centers somewhere. If not that, then a lot of hard drives. And that’s not free either.
I digress. You’re right. We’ll never get Life back or the old CBS, but maybe we will have more photo books and zines, and maybe that’s all right. In the Life days, the vast majority of the photographers were white men. There’s nothing wrong with white men, but there are a lot of good photographers who are women and who are not white. New models might be better suited for women and people of all backgrounds, including people with disabilities. Just a thought.
And TV is sinking too, including cable, so don’t get too hung up on that. The post-war, booming economy that gave us Life, department stores and (arguably) great journalism was an anomaly, not the norm.
Oh, and one more thing: I’d be very happy never to see another war photo again. I worked the wire desk at a newspaper at one point. One high holy day (Yom Kippur, I think) I was looking for a feature photo of a service to run on the World page. All AP moved was people with guns.
I think you hit the most important point in this entire issue: photographers who still find meaning in the photo essay, and not just on newsworthy subjects, but slso on human interest and more conceptual topics, are pivoting. Zines, places like Substack, local exhibitions. Why invest in trying to get 10,000 eyeballs to spend 1/2 second on your photos when you can get 100 to really pay attention and build community with you. That's where I'm at, and many photogs who I know. It feeds its own rewards.
One story I can’t help but share since you cite Eugene Smith as the epitome of Life’s work: I took a workshop with David Plowden years ago. Part of weekend was a dinner with Plowden and those of us who were attending (five or six). “Gene didn’t get along with Life,” he said. I remember this clearly, because it took me a minute to realize he was referring to the magazine. Your larger points are correct, but I believe photographers have always had to fight for time for assignments, and for the stories themselves. And as far as images telling stories, I believe that goes back to cave drawings.
I grew up with LIFE and its cohort, dug into photo essays like Smith’s, watched the collective demise of print publishing platforms. I think your analysis is right on the money (if you’ll pardon the reference). I watched newspapers cut their photo (and reporting) staffs to the point where they became nearly irrelevant. In-depth photo essays now, when you see them, all seem to be published with funding from foundations and NGOs. And one result is that the public’s collective attention span has shrunk—see, for example, Instagram and its ilk. Thanks for your thoughtful history.
This is an outstanding article, thank you. I personally feel digital photography, with its AI-assisted image manipulation to optimise for IG curation, fits the post-truth era we're in (and yes, I know film photographs could be and were doctored for political reasons (Trotsky etc) but that was rarer).
I don't think it's any surprise (but is odd, funny and ironic) that the platforms people use to upload their blizzard of IG-ready content to are owned by companies use that free content to train AI systems/products they then use to bump their stock price (and which are then used to produce deepfakes alongside AI-generated digital images) - which is the revenue cycle we're in.
The idea that a photograph could make people feel something, or change things for the better, has been lost. I am glad film has made a resurgence, even if market-share remains small, and I hope in time we see a return to analogue photography as a medium of truth-telling to counter the 'digital content for AI training' era we're in.
You wrote a great article very well researched. However, I would challenge you on several things. Your idea of photo journalism is very narrow. You only cover photo journalism that was paid profession. Meanwhile, you only refer to IG as the comparison. I would argue that the smartphone and digital photography in today’s world has greatly improved photojournalism. For one, it includes a much more diverse perspective of the world, albeit the actual photos or videos don’t meet your criteria of good photography. But there is more truth available today (but more fake news as well) then there ever was with having staff photographers on assignment explain the world through less diverse and limited understanding of local cultures, pre-1980. You hold up Life magazine as the “golden age” of journalism? Excuse me but Life is a government propaganda tool. What cultural values did those photo essays represent? IMO predominantly outsider, post-colonial viewpoints. Life’s photo and story editorials rarely represent the ideas, thoughts, emotions, and stories of millions of people who now have smart cameras in their hands. Real life footage of villages being bombed…smartphone…no outsider photographer needed. The true culprit of photo journalism is censorship, not economics. Imagine all the people in the world with truth on their phone cameras, but they cannot be presented to the world because of modern censorship and authoritarianism. So, great article, but your value set and romanticization of photography is too narrow in my opinion. One could counter-argue and characterize today’s era as the democratization of photojournalism. And encourage people to seek those millions of stories people are already telling on the internet through photos. Sorry if I sound harsh. I could be wrong. But you have great articulation and communication skills.