More than 2¢ worth
I should not jump into this fray.
We, theoretically, are 'alternative' photographer processors. Therefore we are using processes that are "different from the usual or conventional: as a : existing or functioning outside the established cultural, social, or economic system" (according to Merriam-Webster) BUT, in general, we are rather conventional, even Ludditical at times.
PM and the French argot is not an easy read. Since the VietNam 'war' and Gregory Bateson/Margaret Mead, many realize much of the medium's imagery is controlled by whims/morals/mores/biases of the maker, hence Crewsdon, Sherman, Wall, Levine et al abound. There is fiction in their reality. Veracity is a property of the medium used not its truthful verification.
As Camden indicates, chuck the email or contact Michael Grillo.
What I feel most of you are failing to understand from Michael's query is that times have changed greatly and the documentary photograph does not hold the cache it once did.
I would he he (Michael) feels there MUST be a NEW way to look at what is real around us.
For instance . . . . in our country here in North America, you'll see a lot of new journalism work shot at an angle. This comes straight from New Topographics work now over twenty years old, but it has slipped sylph-like into the visual jargon. Too what digital hath wrought is an ability to "alter" an image. These are major changes.
What is exigent one might ask? Is it the Iraq war or is the loss of ocean quality more important. Only things tangible to the pocketbook seems to make news but there is far far more that needs to be covered AND with bias I'd say. Overpopulation, corruption/greed at the top, lack of education can all be journalistically photographed in ways not yet seen I am sure.
So, rather than dissing Mr. Grillo, join in with the guy and help make the world a better place.
On September2006, at 5:09 PM, Camden Hardy wrote:
I think that's the point, although I agree that the posting is prettyAll of us know it very well that photography can be used to represent something untrue, and so what is new here?