We are talking pictures here people!

“If it makes you laugh, if it makes you cry,if it rips out your heart, that’s a good picture."
 - Eddie Adams

This quote sets the tone for Lecture 4.

Bruce began the lecture at the most logical starting point, beginning the history of the image with French and Australian Indigenous cave-art. Their story-telling value justifies there importance in this photo-journalistic movement. Subsequently it was pertinent to mention Plato’s “shadow on the cave wall theory” and how it translates to modern day conventions of television.

Religion, surprise surprise, has not only been part of every integral moment of history, but it has also dipped its toes into the picture movement – with biblical stories translating onto the stained glass windows of cathedrals, and ornate depictions of religious figures ever-present between the pages of the bible. The intricate or “illuminated” lettering of biblical text is also worth noting. These books and drawings perhaps spurred the format of, what I believe to be the most timeless form of picture, the newspaper, what with early 1860’s news techniques relying heavily on line-drawing to communicate feeling and images cross-text.

Photography, in the actual sense of the word, began for journalism in 1879, “Steinway Hall” becoming the first published photo in the Daily Graphic. Shortly after in 1880 “Shanty Town” by Henry J. Newton became the first published news shot, it too being featured in the Daily Graphic.  Despite this historical achievement, it would not be until much later that any breakthrough in photography would take place, the Scottish Daily Record and Mail publishing the first photo in “Natures Hues” in 1936, an event that to this day holds significance.

With man’s increasing knowledge and need to improve, comes both the rise and decline of innovation. While iPhones, iPads, web galleries and digital imaging are increasing the overall news-value, there is now an expectation that these images are of a higher quality. In regards to some media outlets, ‘high quality’ quite literally translates to body disfigurement. 

If people refrained from photo shopping absolutely everything, photography’s name might not be dragged through the mud so often.  Warping images of women to resemble the unequivocally and fundamentally perfect, Kim Kardashians of this world, is abusing the potential power of a picture.

Despite man’s failure, there are some who continue to take photography seriously, who try and capture an image that indeed says a thousand words.

Attempting to sift through some of the world’s best photo-journalism, I couldn’t, so I scrounged up this video: http://vimeo.com/33983706

Moving on. Somewhere deep down I knew there had to be some sort of technique for photography, simply based on the fact that… not everything looks good. Thankfully, Bruce provided some answers: Framing, Focuss, Angle,Timing, Exposure, perhaps the inclusion of a sound dimension, and most notably: The rule of thirds. 

 All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice
- Elliot Erwitt

Now, while I agree that these techniques are the foundations of photography, and we should most certainly keep them in mind, I would much rather like to think that photo-journalism is something that you can just do, something that you don’t have to be analytical about; it can be boiled down to plain old  perseverance and luck. It just seems a little more magical, I guess you could put it, than something that can be calculated. This idea that you can take one good photo, on a whim because you were in the right place at the right time, is something I’d very much like to hold onto- not because I am stubborn, but because I doubt the great photographers of every period, in the heat of the moment, sat down and had a think.  In hindsight, I suppose it’s based on experience, as though it is so innate that they can’t help but get it right.

This isn't to say something like this, that I took on the spare of the moment without thinking, is appropriate. This is because an image needs to be somewhat calculated and have context. Just because it’s focused and you can clearly see it’s a plant, doesn't give it any meaning. 

Something like this however, is an example of someone who just plain and simple, got it right.

Leni Riefenstahl, who some might call "Hitlers side-kick" reiterates my point.

"In 1934 people were crazy and there was great enthusiasm for Hitler. We had to try and find that with our camera"

She talks as though photo-journalism is an adventure, and the perfect image isn't pre-determined, you have to go looking. Admittedly, she was backing the wrong guy, but she was brilliant none-the-less. If she could make a monster look ethereal, she could probably knows what shes on about.

-Shannen