Somebody said it and I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that photographs like these tell their own stories without needing words. The words help the reader fill in the blanks that images can often lead behind, but it is the image that catch the eye of the reader initially. Through culture assumptions, traditions, "norms;" images convey worlds of meaning depending on who is doing the looking.
I don't know how I would have faired back in the day before photojournalism. Being the product of the 20th century and all of it's advancements, I need visuals to help me connect with stories. When reading the New York Times, for example, I have to use a lot of brain power to choose to keep reading. The amount of text on the pages of that publication is astonishing to me. How can they have that much to say without having a picture? Most of the time the pictures they use are small and not that interesting, in my opinion.
Magazines seem to have a leg up on daily publications. Color, glossy, and a variety of size proves to be the preferred form. When sitting in a doctor's office or waiting for an appointment, what is the first thing to be picked up from the waiting room coffee table? A magazine. Not because they have better things to say or report on than newspapers, but because of the color photos. Photos enhance the content of the articles found within the publication.
Don't get me wrong, I think some articles can stand on their own. But even the outstanding articles could be made more effective with a thoughtfully chosen photograph. Seeing the news or the event makes it more real for readers, I think. In a culture that has difficulty believing in a God that is unseeable and that is suspicious of all things not visible, this is an understandable idea.
I love the fact that photojournalism is moving into the forefront. I don't think that it will ever be able to trump over word-print journalism. Images and text should be a team, not mortal enemies.
No comments:
Post a Comment