I’ve been thinking all week at what we talked about in the interview for Photojournalism 3.0.
I was looking forward to bring you something that I think could be critical with respect to photojournalism …. I have simplified the three examples of photojournalists I have encountered in life.
* Those who enjoy making their pictures and stories making impeccable aesthetic trial but which is so pointless and lasting like the taste of your favorite snack food. These perform work without personal initiative focusing their daily work in the overview without questioning the what, how, when and whys !!!
Their best bet is the high technical knowledge of the environment, while its tare is the insubstantiality of his work long term.
* Those who survive on the image for a living without any profit or committing enjoy simply want to earn money taking photos and live day by day. But resigned in his work, often do not want to commit to a topic as volunteers or deep.
Most itself as mercenaries photography, anchored in a professional world that rarely see a dignified exit. Many with great informative experience on the street tend to think that this way of working is the only required arguments and justifications filling his understanding of photojournalism.
* And there are those who commit these are not the classics that enjoy photography. His reflections, heads and minds are set on intentionality and development of the work they perform. His life is a big commitment to what they want to show that tend to pay in many ways in your daily life well risking life, being underpaid and often failing in their social relationships with more people coming; not to mention the emotional scars they absorb the more committed they gain in their respective reports. They graphical heritage is richer and firmer militancy. The trouble is that few get out and stand in the way you deserve.
It should be noted that photojournalism should not be a platform to elevate graphics stars. But I guess we are as imperfect as the system itself. …