Today's lectures...
I attended a really inspiring lecture by Judah Passow today. Apart from showing us a few of his own very impressive photo essays, the main discussions during the lecture centred on the future of photojournalism and the form of delivery of media content and (photo) stories in the future. Judah shared the pessimistic view with many in the industry about the demise of the current photo essay due to the lack of publishing opportunities in traditional media. He advocates a “digital” way of telling a story, which apart from still images may include sound, music, moving images, voice-overs and maybe other forms. The snag is that there is currently no viable business model for the delivery of this kind of (photo)-journalism (many online magazines and newspapers have yet to turn in a profit). The current buzzword in the community seems to become the concept of “videography” where the story is told in the form of moving images and editors “grab” (“video grab”) either stills from it for newspaper features or other printed stories and use the streaming content for websites and other forms of digital delivery (e.g. podcasts).
Judah also had strong views on the digital vs. film debate: film is essentially dead, he says. In two years, he maintains, there will be hardly any 35mm film left to be found. “Film cannot give you anything that digital could not give you either. Film has hit a brick wall, we can see the end of it, whereas with digital it is the opposite: the opportunities appear endless and infinite.”
The discussions continued in a similar vein over a few cups of coffee…
Some of the views were also echoed during the HOST gallery talks this evening with Tim Hetherington and Kadir van Lohuizen. In particular, Tim had strong views about the primacy of the content of the story regardless of delivery. Form and style seems to become less and less important. Tim cited the example of the camera phone images that were taken by commuters in the 7/7 bombings in London and which got published in newspapers and websites.
Of course, these discussions raised more questions than those that were answered: Does this mean the end of the photographer/photojournalist? How is authenticity and credibility of a story ensured in an age of prevalent digital content and imagery? Is this the end of the aesthetic representation of the image to get a message and story across? Do we lose meaning if we are bombarded by sound/imagery/movies at the same time?
Judah also had strong views on the digital vs. film debate: film is essentially dead, he says. In two years, he maintains, there will be hardly any 35mm film left to be found. “Film cannot give you anything that digital could not give you either. Film has hit a brick wall, we can see the end of it, whereas with digital it is the opposite: the opportunities appear endless and infinite.”
The discussions continued in a similar vein over a few cups of coffee…
Some of the views were also echoed during the HOST gallery talks this evening with Tim Hetherington and Kadir van Lohuizen. In particular, Tim had strong views about the primacy of the content of the story regardless of delivery. Form and style seems to become less and less important. Tim cited the example of the camera phone images that were taken by commuters in the 7/7 bombings in London and which got published in newspapers and websites.
Of course, these discussions raised more questions than those that were answered: Does this mean the end of the photographer/photojournalist? How is authenticity and credibility of a story ensured in an age of prevalent digital content and imagery? Is this the end of the aesthetic representation of the image to get a message and story across? Do we lose meaning if we are bombarded by sound/imagery/movies at the same time?
posted by rupert beagle at 1:08 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home