Christopher Anderson and subjective photography

Last week, Magnum Photographer Christopher Anderson shared his experiences as a photographer and presented his new book, Capitolio, as a part of American University School of Communication’s Camera as a Catalyst program and FotoWeek DC 2009.

I wasn’t familiar with Anderson’s work, and I was lucky in that I got to talk to Anderson before viewing his photographs. Hearing about his background and working philosophy was critical to my understanding of his work and his non-mainstream perspective on photojournalism. The debate on whether or not an image should/can stand for itself without the influence of an audience’s preconceived notions is irrelevant. Through today’s media – traditional and online – we have unprecedented access to information. Even if we have no direct experience with a certain situation in a certain country, the fact that we have or can read or watch something about it taints what little objectivity exists.

If it is impossible to view images without some sort of bias, then there is much information to be gleaned from the photographer’s motivations. What compelled them to pick up the camera in the first place, and what is the drive behind pursuing a particular project? The answers to these questions can be just as important and just as revealing as the work itself. Anderson’s educational background in cultural anthropology leads me to believe that he has the skills to be aware and respectful, an important trait in any field photographer. Whether or not he puts these skills to use will be evident in his images. Photographing Caracas, Venezuela was a calculated decision to cover a drastically different environment than the Middle East, a region in which Anderson had spent much time. Capitolio, in Anderson’s words “… is a portrait of a time and place seen by a stranger as if from a passing car in the night. It is an experience of encounters, observations, and fears sometimes completely out of context.” (5b4 blog)

It is an incredibly moving experience to view Anderson’s images, and the deliberate omission of text and didactics is an effective tool. There is an emotional undercurrent that reverberates in all of his photographs, from the soft painterly images from Nonfiction, a collection of images taken only with the plastic Holga, to the starkly masculine photographs of Capitolio. It is the key element of his “op-ed” philosophy; all images are inherently subjective because he is trying to convey his perspective about a specific time and place.

Anderson is not the only photographer to practice this belief. Mary Ellen Mark, when asked if it is possible to be an “objective observer in situations you are photographing”, answered:

…I don’t think you’re ever an objective observer. By making a frame you’re being selective, then you edit the pictures you want published and you’re being selective again. You develop a point of view that you want to express. You try to go into a situation with an open mind, but then you form an opinion, and you express it in your photographs. (The Photo Essay, 1990)

Richard Avedon described it succinctly when he said, “All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."

Anderson, who is in his late 30s with a charming and easy-going attitude, has been very forthcoming and consistent with his op-ed messaging; yet he has come under fire over the past few months due to a recent ‘controversial’ statement he made on the Conscientious photoblog. The link to the entire interview is provided at the end of this posting, and I encourage you to read it in its entirety for full context of the conversation. For all intents and purposes, I’ve included sections of the interview that demonstrate Anderson’s case:

Capitolio, in its book form, as you astutely observed, is not photojournalism, at least not in the way that that word is loaded. True, some of the pictures were taken and originally used in a journalistic context, but assembled as they are in the form of the book, the term photojournalism is inaccurate. But I have always felt uncomfortable with the term "photojournalist". In terms of my documentary work, there has always been a difference between my role and that of a reporter. If there can be a comparison, it is that I am perhaps an editorialist. My job has always been to comment on what I witness as opposed to the reporting of an event. I am subjective. I have a point of view. There is no such thing as objectivity in photography. I don't believe in facts, but I AM obsessed with truth. And my work always deals with this distinction (my first book, Nonfiction, is an example). My work is a truth, but it is my truth, my experience. That is all I can offer.

In terms of what that means for Photojournalism (capital P), that is a large question. I don't think this idea of subjectivity is anything new, it is just that somewhere along the way, we convinced ourselves that the glorious photojournalism was about objective fact. In reality it never was. Robert Capa himself photographed in the Spanish Civil War as an act of anti-fascist combat, not as an objective reporter.

Essentially, Anderson reinforces what has been previously discussed: he acknowledges that a distinct point of view was pursued in the making of the images for Capitolio and that he consciously makes op-ed photographs. The controversial statement follows in the rest of the interview. The section that is bolded will be discussed afterward:

(Interviewer): Sounds like you're really not all that concerned about the future of photojournalism (both as far as the business and the craft are concerned), which I find rather refreshing given all the brouhaha that is currently produced about the end of newspapers and the struggles of photojournalists. Is this correct? Or are you panicking inside, while remaining cool on the outside?

Anderson: Not cool, just that I have already shed my tears. The death of journalism is bad for society, but we'll be better off with less photojournalism. I won't miss the self-important, self-congratulatory, hypocritical part of photojournalism at all. The industry has been a fraud for some time. We created an industry where photography is like big-game hunting. We created an industry of contests that reinforce a hyper-dramatic view of the world. Hyperbole is what makes the double spread (sells) and is also the picture that wins the contest. We end up with cartoons and concerned photographer myths (disclaimer: yes, there are photographers doing meaningful work)

Of course I am worried about how I will make my living now, and I worry for my friends and colleagues too, but I don't really care about the future of photojournalism. The soul of it has been rotten for a while

Just a few weeks after this interview was posted online, a forum entitled “I don't really care about the future of photojournalism” popped up on the LightStalkers website. 37 members of the website contributed to a heated and varied conversation with comments like:

We have bigger concerns than just ‘self important photojournalists’ and the ‘death of newspapers’… So if we could all get over the ‘God’ complex that we have have about telling things as they are and just got on with the business of doing it-then Chris Anderson’s hand ringing pronunciations on the fate of photojournalism might truly be as they should, a girlish attack of the guilts for wanting to be paid to report on the horrible, nasty and shitty things that human beings do to one another.

He has accused photographers of going out to win contests rather than out of a real concern for the subject…..so since he himself has entered the World Press and won, shot numerous stories for US News, and has been among the most recognized of news photographers, working with Magnum. etc… the only conclusion that one can draw is that Chris Anderson is himself a fraud….who else could he be talking about?

A photojournalist is a human being not a monolitic, so evolution, new perspectives, critics should be wellcome as fresh and creative breath

I am NOT an artist. I am a journalist writing with photography as my pen.

for one, photojournalism needs to move towards contemporary art. this isn’t because it’s an economically viable exit, since it is not on the scale photojournalism needs to function, but because the degree of conceptual freedom within allows approaches that are much more in phase with the current landscape, both political and “philosophical” than the slow evolution of 1930’s aesthetics that seems prevalent. you simply cannot represent afghanistan, or somalia, like you represented WW2 or viet-nâm… One of the fundamental questions is how to deal with tectonic shift in the public perception of the real – not that long ago, people still didn’t understand that photographs, even photographs of real things, even photographs of wars, were the product of historical, social, and formal norms, and not just a representation of what was in front of the lens. in other words, that they are a construct. now, how do you deal with that? my answer has been to say that a first step needs to be to acknowledge the construct by embracing it, and representing it…

Photojournalism, documentary photography is going to have a voice and there will be money for it in the future…….and I am sure that those who are now “artists” or “editorialists” will be back to being “photojournalists” when it suits them.

To quote Simon Norfolk:
“[photojournalism] its intellectually bankrupt, locked in a mode of operating that came to an end in the 50’s, it’s heyday. Like an old bloke that still listens to the records he got into when he was eighteen, photojournalism is unable to unhinge itself from the modes it learnt in its puberty.” Dismissing photojournalism as a “fraud” rather than making a constructive argument about how the industry needs to try and reinvent itself, isn’t particularly helpful. Especially coming from someone who sits very high on the ladder.

If I hadn’t met Anderson and heard the words directly from him, if I hadn’t spent time reading all angles of the “controversy”, I could understand why people would be pissed off. Assuming the LightStalker comments were based on just the bolded quotation from that interview, we face a symptom of today’s reality: putting too much emphasis on summaries and synopses from which thoughts and decisions are based. His statements have opened up several offshoot conversations, but the issue at hand is that Anderson has upset a lot of people because of his opinion on the future of photojournalism. He has valid insight since he has worked as a photojournalist for certain stories, but he does not consider or misrepresent himself as a photojournalist, nor does Magnum.

Anderson is fully aware of what is being said about him and he stands his ground. I don’t believe that Anderson is trying to convince anyone that his opinion of the future of photojournalism is the only correct opinion. In fact, that is not the case at all. Anderson defends his statement on photojournalism based on his philosophy that all photography is subjective. He is not alone, as we can see from Mary Ellen Mark and Richard Avedon’s words. As a photographer, Anderson owns to controlling how his image is made and ultimately presented to the public. The key message he reiterates, and the root of his stance on photojournalism, seems to have fallen to the side in these web-based battles. Anderson’s photographs are the representation of his vision and his truth only.


Sources:
Christopher Anderson presentation at American University

5b4
New York Times LENS
LightStalkers
Conscientious
Mary Ellen Mark, The Photo Essay, 1990