Throughout the history of photography, the style and genre of images produced in particular time periods have often been in correlation to particular art movements which artistically reflect on society and what is both right and wrong with it. It is important to note that, each art movement is not labelled or ‘coined’ until the movement has fundamentally passed and all creative areas or arguably all aspects of life are assessed before the term is distributed. Only in retrospect and careful analysis we are given the ability to deem a certain era with a specific term for a genre of images.

First and foremost, artists began the photographic critiquing of the late 1800s and the early 1900s, in which the movement was recognized as “pictorialism”. The key characteristics that prove as motifs throughout the movement is the conveying of emotion within an image, with the movement spreading internationally. Pictorialism surged as citizen travel was made easier, giving people the opportunity to explore and document images, however, a predicament that faced this movement was the argument of, is the purpose of the images produced for art or for documentation reasons? Although the movement did not follow precise procedures, there were two primary methods. The first being that subjects and compositions were designed to bring a sense of fantasy or visual cohesion separating themselves from the documentation of every day life. Secondly, photographers were beginning to manipulate the chemical process itself much in the way that a painter would control their materials. Gum bichromate was very popular at the time and photographers started applying brush strokes and other manipulations of the process to achieve a painter-like quality to the photographs.

For example, Robert Demachy was a French photographer who took this measure to an extreme, giving himself an individual status. Another instance of a recognizable photographer is Clarence Hudson White who includes females into his romantic black and white landscapes. Overall, the images produced are either very romantic or somber and melancholy, demonstrating that there is a high level of emotion emitted through this movement which christened photography as an art.

Photo – realism or straight photography is a genre of art that surged during the twentieth century and was instantly recognizable as it attempted to capture an image as realistic as possible in comparison to the true visual. This art movement formed the foundation for vital photography techniques that still exist within contemporary formats, for example, documentary photography and photojournalism. Famous photographers renown from this era are such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, two names who are frequently referred to.

The work of these two men are still being studied and referred to today, showing the influence and importance that the realism era accumulates in the modern era. There is a lot of focus upon nature and the natural beauty that Mother Earth provides, giving these photographs an organic and authentic feel about them, which is enhanced further by the black and white colour scheme.

Thirdly, the modernism era loomed between 1910-1950 and gave a sharp focus and an emphasis on formal qualities, exploiting, rather than obscuring, the camera as an essentially mechanical and technological tool. Modernist works frequently take the gritty world of industry as their theme as we discover through the work of Claude Cahun who includes her own personal difficulties within her photographic work, and although her work can often be treated as a direct challenge to realism, as a surrealist, she was producing work under the generic category of modernism. Personally, this was my favourite art movement that I briefly studied as people had the opportunity to challenge and combat the political world as well as their own personal conundrums much like Claude Cahun. In this very reflective era, there was opportunity to create a style for yourself, however, in the modern era, it seems to be a case of how can somebody creatively form a tribute to a previous artist with the original idea.

Postmodernism is characterized by self-conscious and deliberate intertextuality. One of the best-known photographers who played with simulacra is Cindy Sherman. Sherman should be termed a performance artist who restages images from mass media. Concentrating on how women were represented by movies, she had herself photographed in a series of small black and white photographs called “Film Stills” during the late 1970s. None of these theatrical re-presentations can be traced back to any actual movie but all remind the viewer of movies they have seen or have heard of and evoke the construction of women in the 1940s and 1950s. Sherman is what can be called a “post-feminist,” or an artist who takes up feminist concerns, not from a political and activist perspective but from a theoretical stance.

As a photography student looking to create personally and politically impeding images, I ask myself “what art movement am I a part of?”. In a post post-modernism era with the likes of Donald Trump, Theresa May and Kim Jong-Um in positions of high political power, I wonder to myself what fuels the art being produced currently. Perhaps, as I’ve mentioned, due to the amount of art produced in the past, modern artists are “revisionists” due to the hardship of trying to create something original without using an idea or concept already produced.

Q1: When technology makes it so easy to manipulate images, how much manipulation is acceptable?

Manipulation is accepted in many different forms and styles of photography. Changing the contrast and brightness are the very basics of manipulating photos, but Photoshop and other digital software there is no limit to what you’re able to achieve. Working with styles such as archival photography and landscape photography, need to either adjust the image is still going to be needed. But when working with the style of documentary photography which Steve McCurry shoots, the need for digital manipulation should not be over used and abused. As his work shows the beauty in Eastern countries, but many of his images is not a realist perspective on those countries. In recent months McCurry has been editing different elements such as a “sign post” in the images, and then wrongly adjusting the images which he has then worked hard to achieve. This one fault has then led to further investigation into Steve McCurry’s work. Yet as an audience we are unaware of the intentions of this sign post, McCurry may have been wanting to makes the yellow in the image brighter, as McCurry’s work has always shown and the need to keep his reputation of showing the Eastern countries and beautiful and rich in colour. But this is not the true, using documentary photography should mean you’re capturing events happening there and then, not having staged images, but the need for having perfect, colourful images highlights that appearance is prioritised over the ethics of the images. So manipulation is acceptable if doing certain images which need the digital manipulation due to the vision of that photographer. But the style of work Steve McCurry the least amount of digital manipulation should be used. As his images should reflect a real representation of the place of the image. Using Photoshop to gain that “perfect” and “aesthetically pleasing” images should come second because the photographer should be wanting to show the beauty of lifestyle, culture and lives of the people in these countries. 

Q2: With viewers more sophisticated and skeptical than ever before, how can photojournalists and documentary photographers preserve their integrity and maintain trust?

Now with the scandal of one of the best and well established photographers getting criticized for digitally manipulating recent images must have others on edge if they too have edited in such great ways, such as removing a child from and image. Maintaining their reputation, photojournalist and documentary photographers need to stay true to their morals and represent the real world and not a “perfect” world.  Shooting in the Eastern countries such as India, Bangladesh and Thailand all these countries are brutally struck with poverty yet many documentary photographers glamorize those countries which are rich in colour, culture and religion. So by staying true to what they are photographing what their eyes actually see. The risk also of their reputation being at stake can also be a major factor to the change in the way critiques see things. With the need to show genuine documentary images of countries which the Western world is not exposed too, photojournalism and documentary photography can all those to be transported into their world. Yet there is the risk of glamorization of their culture. So maintaining their status as a trusted photographer the ability to present the truth, yet their is always the desire to present this world in colourful light. But realistically it is a beautiful place with different people but their are the real issues which are facing different countries. 

Q3: Who sets the boundaries of what defines photojournalism or documentary ethics?

I think that the founders of documentary photography and photojournalism set the boundaries of what defines ethics or more importantly society and what we consider to be acceptable. i have this belief because they did not have the software that we have today when editing our images and did not have the ability to manipul. Originally if images did not come out perfect photographers would not have had the option to manipulateaspects in that image, due to the software not having the eraser or clone tool. The images were genuine and may of only had the basic adjustments to improve the lighting or to crop the image. Their images would of been able to express the true representation of what is going on in that current event. Documentary is needed to document a event either big or small, so the ability to capture it using the camera, there should be no need to digitally manipulate. 

Kshitij Nagar’s blog makes it clear to me that the recent criticism of the photographer Steve McCurry is not undeserved; but also it became apparent to me that he has been unfairly singled out due to his platform. Previously people criticised McCurry for displaying his manipulated photographs in the context of photo journalism as many of his photographs were published in The National Geographic magazine. However, further research has made me realise that he is not the only photographer who claims to document the truth and have their images featured on the cover of National Geographic, which have been manipulated. Another example is the cover image from the 1982s where the Pyramids of Giza are edited to appear closer together to fit the portrait orientation of the publication. It is believed that the editors of the magazine are often the ones who conduct most of the editing to the images that feature on the cover, as many photos provided by photojournalists do not conform to the exact composition of the cover. This raises questions with the authenticity of the images and perhaps even stories featured in the National Geographic, if the editors and producers are only concerned with providing the public with beautiful images and stories of the world today.

I think the line between documentary photography and photojournalism is often blurred, Steve McCurry was often considered a photojournalist as his work was featured in non-fiction publications. I believe this is why there was so much controversy when his unedited photos were presented to the public online. In an interview with Time, McCurry claimed that he is a “visual story teller, not a photojournalist” which would make more sense if what he is doing is making beautiful images that tell a story of foreign lands rather than accurately documenting life in other countries, which is what he previously stated to do. In a Ted Talks interview, McCurry talks in detail about the context and rawness of each photo and claims to document things as they are. A direct quote being ” I believe that the picture should reflect exactly what you saw and experienced when you took the picture.” It is hard to form a for or against opinion on McCurry’s work and the man as a photographer, despite his seemingly contradicting public statements; because there is no right or wrong way to be a photojournalist or a photographic story teller and there is no one who decides who is and who isn’t either of these things.

Representation in photography is how a photograph can portray a place or person in a certain way by the way or how that photograph is taken. In  photography presentation should always be questioned as to whether or not it is accurate. Photographs can be staged or photographers can capture moments that are accidents, uncommon occurrences cropped or edited in a way that creates a different situation within the frame making it different to how it was actually seen by the photographer.

This sort of idea and belief about photographers misrepresenting their photographs has arisen concerning the work of Steve McCurry; some critics have been dismissing his work as too beautiful, making the photographs look romanticised, he is particularly famous for his his portrait of an Afghan girl with vivid green eyes, printed on the cover of National Geographic in June 1985, is one of the iconic images of the 20th century. His images have been released displaying evidence that McCurry alters his photos quite considerable in the editing process. There is also criticism that he only documents the beautiful parts of India that satisfy the cultural stereotypes that the western has towards exotic countries such as India. This is to eventually sell his images to get money, not thinking about how the people from India would have felt to be portrayed in this way. McCurry’s work has also been criticised to be a form of cultural appropriation because he is essentially borrowing the most beautiful, aesthetically pleasing and exotic looking people and places  to the western eye. I feel that there is nothing wrong with borrowing elements from different cultures is said culture is presented accurately and treated with respect. Steve McCurry does seem to treat foreign culture with respect but he is not representing them accurately and also produces these images to make money.

Photo by Steve McCurry 

Teju Cole wrote about Steve McCurry in the New York Times Magazine describing Steve McCurry’s work in a somewhat condescending way, suggesting that McCurry’s photographs simply reinforce  “old ideas of what photographs of Indians should look like” to the western world as previously stated. Cole also claims that one can identify a McCurry photograph almost immediately due to their predictable nature of his portraits In McCurry’s portraits, supposedly the typical McCurry formal is that “the subject looks directly at the camera, wide-eyed and usually marked by some peculiar­ity, like pale irises, face paint or a snake around the neck.” and for the most part I would have to agree with Cole. However, he goes onto to say that his images are “staged or shot to look as if they were. They are astonishingly boring.” I can justify the opinion that photographs appear to be somewhat manipulated by the end products are in no way boring. Although McCurry’s work does not show an accurate representation of life in India he does capture beautiful rarities that are genuinely found, and this should not go unsaid. Steve McCurry is an incredibly talented photographer who travels to foreign lands and selects a “highlight reel” or magnificent, rare and beautiful things that are simply not found elsewhere. What McCurry chooses to document may not be typical Indian life but then not everybody in England lives like the cast of “Made in Chelsea” or David Attenborough which are what the rest of the world are exposed to as what life in Britain in like.

This is completely different to his perspective of Raghubir Singh, who is seen to show India as it is and how the locals would perspective their home as it is a more real side of India that we do not see in Steve McCurry’s work. He also thinks it is a “relief” that we can move on from McCurry’s images to photographers such as  Raghubir Singh who bring “not only beautiful experiences or painful scenes but also those in-between moments of drift that make up most of our days”. This is more true. Steve makes India look like an enlightening place to visit, shown through colour and laughter, this contrasts with Raghubir Singh’s photography as it can be quite distressing and upsetting, showing all sides of India, documenting not just the beautiful, eye-catching parts.

Photos by Raghubir Singh

However, another article I read, written by Allen Murabayashi defends McCurry’s work although does not deny that some of his images are staged or altered as there is clear evidence of this available to public. He does however state that amazing photos with perfect composition can be captured by luck, providing the example of the famous 9/11  photo of the world trade centre collapsing behind Saint Peter’s church by James Nachtwey. This is a fair argument as Steve McCurry spent many years of his life as a ” highly skilled photographer taking 250,000 images over the course of 3-6 months for an assignment” and also had access professional photo editor, Murabayashi asks whether or not “anyone be surprised that the photos are exceptional?”

I completely agree with Murabayashi’s view that Steve McCurry is an exceptional photographer and that there is nothing wrong with wanted to document the most beautiful elements of a certain country. However, Steve McCurry’s photos were often featured in prestigious, factual publications such as “National Geographic” and as many of his photos are staged , this leads to the question of whether McCurry is presenting countries such as India in a factual way to the western world. The iconic picturesque view of the Taj Mahal, with two turbaned gentleman casually draped over the front of a passing train is without a doubt a beautiful image but also completely staged. McCurry selected the two gentleman in the image because they satisfied the Indian stereotypes he wanted to fulfill and the train was sent back down the tracks by McCurry when he was not satisfied with the focus of the first image . This image is not an accurate representation of everyday life in India and as McCurry’s image are the only exposure to other cultures that some westerner’s experience if they are to be published in magazines such as the national geographic they should be genuine.