Hi Everyone,
Firstly, thank you all for taking the time to answer my post and to create such an interesting and lively discussion.
I appreciate the time each of you took to reply and the welcoming environment you created in this forum.
Secondly, before I reply to your comments, I feel like I should clarify a few things that I think were too vague on my post and might've caused some confusion:
- When I mentioned Documentary Photography I meant to refer to documentary series more than to individual images, as some of you have correctly identified.
Examples can be Jessica Earnshaw's Aging in Prison, Aline Deschamps's I Am Not Your Animal and Ross Taylor's Last Moments.
- What is Fine Art (photography)? I don't want to add to what seems to be a heated historic discussion on this platform, but the way I see it, Fine Art Photography is a photographic work, envisioned and executed by the photographer (/artist) on their own accord (meaning = not commercially commissioned), and is not intended to be a true depiction of reality.
It also doesn't have to be highbrow, displayed in a gallery or a museum. I see 'Fine Art' as an umbrella term for creative and aesthetic photographs. Within it, can be various sub-practices, like Staged photography.
Though some iconic photojournalism shots can sometimes be sold in galleries or shown in museums, and even considered Fine Art due to their status, I think they are few and far between and their iconic status in our society is what blurs the line between their Documentary original nature and their value as a work of art in modern times.
- Talking about Fine Art (Staged) photography, I said it has no commercial element. I need to clarify - I didn't mean that there was no remuneration for the work (as a few of you mentioned, people need to be paid for their work after all!), but that the essence of the work is not commercial by nature; it is not commissioned by another business to be used by them for commercial reasons (like a selection of Annie Leibovitz's work is) but is created by the photographer (/artist) from their own vision, even if it is to be later sold in a gallery or displayed in a museum.
A good example is Gregory Crewdson, who creates such intricate and perfect settings - nearing perfection - in each of his series, with a production resembling cinematography more than photography. Another is Jeff Wall, who uses real-life situations to inspire him to recreate them later in a documentary aesthetic, albeit completely reposed and developed with his own artistic modifications. Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills series is also a good representation of this.
As you can probably tell from my examples, I do focus more on the Staged photography element of Fine Art Photography.
With that in mind, I'd like to reply to a few of your responses:
All photographs are subjective. Documentary is better viewed as a body of work than single images as that provides more context.
Documentary photography - if the photographer has educated themselves about a particular event or group, it is highly likely that they will take pictures based on their personal views and feelings about the events and the people taking part, and will therefore produce pictures that spin reality according to those views.
A documentary project is there to tell a story - not necessarily a news story - and that will often have an angle or agenda depending on the photographers (or commissioning editors) preferences and prejudices. To that end, an element of staging of photographs may happen to one degree or another.
I agree - Documentary photography's aim is to shed light on otherwise unknown stories, injustices or members of society in the hopes that the public will notice them, ideally also becoming a call to action or swaying public opinion.
It can achieve this aim by showing a more rounded and complex depiction of the subject(s) and their story. The photographer has a good understanding of the project and spends considerable time with the subject to ensure the story is they're telling is more complete than what would've been conveyed by a single image out of context.
This naturally means that the photographer has an agenda in mind - to tell the story they think is appropriate in the situation - and will be biased, as will the subject(s), the publication and the viewers.
One can also say that nothing is truly objective, every photograph omits something and none can capture everything and give a full objective capture of reality. If we go even further, it's easy to expand this to everything, as no two people will experience anything the same way; their own opinions, culture, upbringing and life experiences will create a biased prism through which they experience the world around them, camera or not.
While the professional standards I listed for Documentary Photography are more reflective of Documentary Photojournalism work I do find similarities between Documentary and Photojournalism in the sense that both are aiming to expose the viewer to truthful events, even if they do so in different ways, and as mentioned above - with bias.
Similarly to Photojournalism, for Documentary projects to be as impactful as possible, their creators must strive to be as close to the truth as possible, within the limitations of the medium and practice. If the photographs in these projects are overly fake it negates the validity of the series' message.
Your list of "standards" is, I think, likely to be honoured more in the breach than in reality. Virtually none of these demands will be met in practice for a variety of reasons, mostly economic but often also practical. Images will often be "staged" because the camera is there, whether the photographer wishes it or not. Again, the presence of the photographer in itself will influence events
Professional standards for photojournalism do exist; I did not make up the standards I listed in my original post, these are based on standards that professional journalism and photojournalism bodies use, such as
The British Press Photographers’ Association,
National Press Photographers Association,
Editors' Code of Practice and others.
Now, I know that even within the realm of pure Photojournalism there are and have always been staged photographs, misleadingly presented as genuine for greed or fame. I still hope that most of the work published as Documentary and/or Photojournalism is adhering to these standards, with only a few that disregard them.
I suspect people like Martin Parr and Chris Killip might have influenced their subjects to get a shot to some extent.
Documentary photography can range from Erwitt's humorous and sometimes whimsical depictions of life, through someone like Clive Limpkin's "Battle of the Bogside" Northern Ireland work in the 70s/80s to Robert Frank's travel style "Americans". Then there are the photographers who do stage things to reinforce their message.
[...]
It's not to say everyone does this, but it would be foolish to assume it doesn't take place.
Staging needs to be defined - it's OK to ask someone to pose holding a relevant object, or for a portrait, but not to stage an event.
With that said, I do agree with you, staging in Documentary projects does need to be better defined.
I believe that the nature of Documentary series, the collaboration between the photographer and the subject(s) and the length of the project can allow for certain staging freedoms, as long as these remain true to the subject(s).
For example, the photographer can't be directing and staging subject(s) to appear a different way, they can't use makeup fx to mislead the viewer (e.g. causing an individual to look injured), and they can't shoot the subject in staged situations that they were never in.
As to the manner in which subjects will be treated has little to do with the photographer, unless s/he is also the editor and publisher of the final output.
I have to disagree, the treatment of the subject(s) starts with the photographer that interacts or captures them. It's true that any other journalists, editors and/or publishers have a role to play in the treatment of the subject(s), but it all starts with the photographer.
I initially thought of someone like Gregory Crewdson, who has highly staged work. And whilst I'm not sure I would class it as fine art, and I wouldn't class it as documentary
I would definitely classify Crewdson's work as Fine Art Photography within the Staged Photography practice. He creates fully-staged works of art that are based on his own vision and convey his message or a certain emotion to the viewer.
In photography 'Fine Art' seems to me to be all about making pictures to serve as interior decor
Not sure I agree with this notion. yes, Fine Art photography does have a strong element of being aesthetic and is aimed to be viewed. However, that is not to say that any Fine Art pieces can't have a message or an agenda. Talking about Cindy Sherman's work again, her Staged photography works are meant to challenge the public perception about topics from women's portrayal and expected roles in our culture to gender norms and identity.
As for fine art photography, trying to define and categorise what that is, is akin to trying to plait fog. It can be anything you want it to be, and I think it's more a question of ethics than standards e.g. David Hamilton's 'controversial' photographs of teenage girls, or Sally Mann's pictures of her children.
That's an interesting perspective, that the professional standards are irrelevant in this case as art is art and can't be clearly defined. Therefore, our societal morals and culture codes come into effect when judging the ethics of the message or how the work itself was created.
Thank you, I didn't think of it this way.
) it would be the closest sort of thing I could think of that would relate to both areas.
