Can photojournalism be fine art? This is a question I have run across recently. I've written briefly about whether photography is a science or an art, AI in Fine Art Photography, and more. In one post, I briefly mention photojournalism and Fine Art Photography. I think it's worth exploring the relationship, if any, between Fine Art Photography and Photojournalism. More specifically, is photojournalism connected to Fine Art Photography? Or is it it's own type of photography?
Naturally, it is important to define what photojournalism is. Photojournalism, for the sake of this post, is the use of photography in reporting stories. Typically the types of stories found in newspapers, both local and national. These often use photographers to log the event that happens. In other words, the types of photos you likely imagine when you think of newspaper headlines.
So, what types of photos qualify as photojournalism? If a photo is of a burning tree, is it photojournalism? What if it's solely sold in galleries and never published on newspapers? Is it still photojournalism then?
Firstly, let's define what journalism is. Journalism, for the sake of this article, is the collection of live information in order to tell a story or spread information. Particularly famous examples might be the New York Times or Washington Post. Both of these use photography as part of their publication. Particularly in their headlines.
An even better (and indeed classic) example of photography being used to tell a story can be found with National Geographic and Times magazine. Both of these publications are known for their photography specifically. Indeed, these are dream jobs for photographers of many types, ranging from nature photographers to sports photographers. The pictures they capture aren't just "capturing the moment" but also works of art in and of themselves.*
However, the question remains. Is photojournalism fine art or it's own category? Or is it some version of both? National Geographic's photography is so impressive and such a big part of it's publication that it's the dream job of photographers, much more than it's the dream job of journalists. Yet National Geographic is still telling a story, even though National Geographic is known more for their photos then their stories.**
Time Magazine is similar. Some of their photos are often reshown in historical textbooks. In fact, you've probably seen them before. Examples include pieces shot during the Great Depression. ThoughtCo has a great collection of these photosd on their website (not sponsored).
What about paparazzi? Are they doing photojournalism? After all, they are taking photos to report on a story. (Though a recent celebrity break up probably isn't as important as a new scientific discovery. Just sayin'.) As we defined earlier, journalism is the telling of a real story, so, by that definition, paparazzi are doing photojournalism. Of course, I'm sure many would disagree with me on this, but hey, this is about opinion and argument, not fact.
So we can see that art can clearly be a part of photojournalism, but is it photojournalism? Well, I suppose that is ultimately up to the viewer. I mean, what is art anyway? This is a question commonly discussed and debated, so it's open to interpretation. What do you consider art? Feel free to email me, I'd love to know your answer!
Cheers!
*If you don't believe me, check out some of their work
** As a side note, when I was in school, many of my classmates would talk about wanting to work for National Geographic and our teacher would frequently show us documentaries and work by and about National Geographic photographers. In fact, several of my nature pieces are inspired by National Geographic.
コメント