Watch Fred Ritchin’s lecture, where he discusses several key aspects of the digitalisation of photography, including his description of ‘photographs of the future’, at Link 1
I have watched this video twice once as it came in the sequence of work on this assignment and again today, 16th October 2019. I am not quite sure why I did not write this up at the time but I suspect it was because I had the same feeling after the first viewing as I had today. I agree with much of Ritchin’s analysis of where photography and photographers were in 2013, the time of the video but I hope we have moved on somewhat.
He started with the classical images which were changed in the eighties and nineties to fit a page or a purpose. First it was moving the pyramids by National Geographic and then darkening the face of OJ Simpson by Time Magazine. In the former case the picture editor explained it was done to fit on the front page and it was not serious as he just moved one pyramid to a position it would have looked if the photographer had stood to the right. In Time magazine’s case the editor claimed he moved a police mug shot into the realm of art. Ritchin was rightly disgusted. This was the beginning of the public loosing faith in the authenticity of photographs. The US government, he believed, did not show an image of the killing of Bin Ladin because no one would have believed it.
His total disgust at Susan Sontag’s choice of image to represent the horror of war pleased me very mush as I am not a great fan of Sontag. What moved him most about a series on Iraq was the image of someone at the dentist. This was a normal activity in a war torn zone. People behave and do normal things even in war zones and it is not necessary to show only blood and guts.
However his shock at the sacking of all the photographers of a Chicago paper would not raise an eyebrow today unless it was in a European country where unions who’ll not permit such an action. But, and I have made this point throughout my studies, there is no place any more of professional photographers to be fully employed by a newspaper. The people on the street have sophisticated cameras in their iPhones and can make the images. I do agree with him that the authenticity of these images is often in doubt. But professionals did, as he admits, ‘doctor’ their images to make them more dramatic and even won prizes for their efforts.
He unfolds the story of alternative ways of seeing and representing the world almost as if it was something he had painfully worked out. I am thinking of the roll over of images giving two sides of the story or writing stories about what was going on as in Raymond Depardon’s case. I do like his site Pixel Press where he shows that the US was not the only country o suffer attacks similar to 9/11. But today this work is hardly unique.
I did enjoy the part of his lecture where he demonstrates how a photographer can make a difference. The examples he give of the south African photographer following the lady taking anti-viral drugs and JR making the images of the women in Kenya.
I have not read his book “Behind the Frame” but having seen the video I am not inspired to buy it. Most of what he says here and I assume he says the same in the book, is so self evident today that I feel it would be a waste of money.
He is, however, a great presenter and holds ones interest for the full hour.
Digital Image & Culture 