They all convey a perceived sense of truth and authenticity. But why do these multiple categories of “truth” exist? As the prominent sociologist Howard Becker claims:
“Meaning arises in the organizations they are used in, out of the joint action of all the people involved in those organizations, and so varies from time and place to place. Just as paintings get their meaning in a world of painters, collectors, critics, and curators, so photographs get their meaning from the way people involved with them understand them, use them, and thereby attribute meaning to them.” (Becker)
Becker suggests that meaning in an image comes not only from what the image maker puts into it but also from what the viewer brings to the image. In today’s world of image-saturated media it can be hard to tell what to make of advertisements, television, art, and the internet.
So what is the difference between photojournalism, photo-documentary, and visual sociology? To understand, one must look at what each attempts to accomplish. Photojournalists typically produce images for daily newspapers. They claim to be “unbiased, factual, attention-getting, storytelling, courageous, and complete”. But how complete can a photo be when the photojournalist has daily deadlines? How in-depth can a photo be if the format demands instant readability? Ultimately this mode of representation can only at best reflect a superficial understanding of the events and social phenomena being photographed.
Similarly documentary photography is plagued by complex subjects, deadlines, and editors. Documentary photography is supposed to “dig deep” at big news, “be concerned about society, playing an active role in social change, and be socially responsible”. But just how unbiased can one be when producing images (hardly scientific or objective) regarding social justice? These photos after all represent somebody’s or some organization’s view regarding a story, and that story has to sell!
At the other end of the spectrum is visual sociology. Ethnographers have the advantage of credibility. A researcher can easily spend five years or more on one subject of inquiry. A researcher usually procures funding through grants relieving the pressure to embellish the truth, or cut details. The researcher is the editor, and with proper consideration for reflexivity the work speaks with its own transparency. Social theory shows that humans inherently are not capable of an “objective” truth. Visual sociology accounts for this by not attempting to be objective but rather incorporate the ethnographer’s relevant personal information. The result is hopefully a more complete truth that leads to the viewer making their own interpretation while considering all factors involved in making the image.
So why does the matter?!
Think about this the next time you watch CNN or read something in the newspaper, and consider how much of the story you probably aren’t getting. Journalists (and civilians alike) have biases, and are short on time. They are usually not experts with years of experience in any one story they are covering. Editors aim to sell. Do not take anything for granted. Perform your own research and see what you find to be true.
Work Cited:
“Visual sociology, documentary photography, and photojournalism: it’s (almost) all a matter of context” by Howard Becker
No comments:
Post a Comment