This Week's Reading

In "Selecting a Subject" by Bill Jay and David Hurn, the two photographers discussed one of the most important aspects in photojournalism - choosing what exactly to photograph. They made several noteworthy observations. The first of which that struck home with me was the thought that photographers do what they do for something greater than the love of the art. The idea of making images might originally attract them to the profession, but it cannot hold them there. Photography must be employed to some bigger purpose. It is a tool use to accomplish something, but it is not the accomplishment itself. I could not agree more. I chose to pursue a career in photojournalism because I saw the potential for what photography can do, not what it is alone.

Another of their suggestions that I appreciated was the practice of narrowing story ideas. Broad concepts and wide-reaching ideals are fine to discuss. They are next to impossible to photograph. But one idea or one emotion can make a compelling image. Added together, those compelling images can make a telling story. I appreciate the authors' practical examples too. Flowers became "plants that relate to architecture." How cool (and challenging) is that?

A final observation that I am grateful the authors made is their idea that intellectual interest is not opposite emotional connection. While some photos are bursting with intimacy and personality, others can be just as moving without the photographer feeling so connected to the subject. A disaster story will surely carry more raw emotion than a photo illustration manufactured in a studio, but does that mean it is automatically better or more useful? No. The illustration might depict an important social issue that needs addressed just as much as the disaster relief and future prevention.

Anne Lamott's "Bird by Bird" continues to drive home the point that if you don't start somewhere, you'll never move. I love her candid approach to the creative process. She does not build herself or her method up. Instead of attributing great writing to great minds, she implies that hard work and tenacity are really what will yield a compelling piece. I think the same is true for photography. While some photographers are, undoubtedly, very talented, they would not grow if they did not work. We all have to start somewhere.

She also suggests that if you start working on a story, you may well find a better one in the course of your first work. The first work is by no means a waste of time, whether you publish it or not. If it leads you to a truly great idea, then how much better that you spent those hours trying something rather than trying to think of something?

Reading Reaction

In my Capstone course we are reading Anne Lamott's "Bird by Bird." While the book is intended to advise would-be writers, its content is easily applied to photojournalism students as well. For one thing, Lamott stresses the process, or journey, rather than the destination. She points out that so many newbie writers obsess over the day they will finally be published. I agree with Lamott when she says they are missing the larger accomplishment. Dedication to a craft, and perseverance when that craft is cruel and when human imperfection prevails, is far more rewarding than any superficial mark of success. Being published does not mean we have arrived. A book on a shelf in Borders or in a warehouse for an online retailer does not mean we can stop working and it certainly does not allow us to stop striving to be better.

If we as writers, photographers, and individuals stake our professional value solely on our societal standing, we have lost our way. Thousands of established professionals have been published before us. But did all of them learn what we learned? Have they seen what we've seen or worked with the subjects that we have? Would we, really and truly, rather be any one of them rather than ourselves if only to be assured of success? Or are we willing to risk the unknown in order to be true to our own stories? Do we have the courage to try, fail, and try again?

Another of Lamott's points that I appreciate is her note that creative endeavors, while frightening in the uncertainty they inevitably inspire, also give us the opportunity to use our own insecurities to further our work. For writers, Lamott suggests finding the paranoias or character flaws they see in themselves in the people they write about as well. Why not write something you know firsthand? Photojournalists, too, benefit from finding stories related to their own experiences and interests. Their own curiosity and musings can (and should) be their greatest source for story ideas.

Another reading assignment was from Loup Langton's "Photojournalism and Today's News." I appreciated the candidness with which Langton commented on photojournalism as a profession. It had never before considered just how different the public and the photojournalists providing them images consider the profession. Photos as moments frozen in time. That look, that action, that emotion, all of that actually happened. It's true. But just how true is it? The public, understandably, makes assumptions based on what they see. Photojournalists, however, are limited to explaining the context of the photo in the tiny caption that runs beneath it. Context is key in accuracy, but the visual impact of the image can easily dwarf the explanation beneath it.

Well thought out images tell a story. They communicate an idea. This is their aim. Langton notes that he problem arises when people fail to see the symbology in images. Instead, they are seen as depictions of an all encompassing reality. Thus, his example says, a photo of a Haitian rioter eating human flesh can be falsely associated with Haitians in general rather than the frenzy and chaos of a riot anywhere.

We were also assigned to listen to a podcast by LensWork's editor, Brooks Jensen. While he discussed a myriad of topics, the topic that struck me most was when he talked about Skype. He pointed out how the video-chat program has quickly been incorporated into family life. Despite the prevalence of phones in society, people will still sacrifice the mobility and convenience of a phone to sit in front of their computer screens to actually see the people they are talking to (despite low resolution video). Obviously, people want the visuals as well as the audio. We want to see the smile on our loved ones' faces instead of only hearing it in their voice. Photojournalists can find a measure of job security in this.