Posts tagged Nathan Jurgenson

thepoliticalnotebook: A considerable number of people consider photos taken with the iPhone to be automatically not photojournalism, no matter the content or composition. Despite that, there is a significant body of work in conflict photojournalism by very talented photographers that uses the iPhone, often filtered using the Hipstamatic app, to depict scenes of countries in wartime. Damon Winter did it. David Guttenfelder did it. The very interesting documentary project called Basetrack is doing it. Recently, to accompany his New York Times story, “The Bad Guys vs. the Worse Guys,” Ben Lowy shot photographs in the same way. He says of using the iPhone, iPhones enable a greater intimacy with a subject in a way that traditional cameras can’t. People are so used to seeing you pull out a huge camera and then acting a certain way. iPhones are still new enough that you get more realistic, less subjective, images contentwise because you aren’t pulling out this huge camera. And indeed, the photographs taken by the iPhone give more of an air of actually being there, and have a far more candid, intimate tone.  The FJP: Let me agree and disagree.  Here’s the agree: It’s silly to say that a photograph taken with a type of camera (in this case, the iPhone) necessarily is or isn’t photojournalism. The iPhone-as-camera is a tool. Nothing less, nothing more. I’ve experimented with it in news situations and find that because of its limitations you need to get closer and more personal with with your subjects. There’s no megazoom on these. And getting closer and more personal is a good thing. Here’s the disagree: Back in September we quoted Nathan Jurgenson’s essay about faux war photography and the nostalgia of war. Jurgenson’s critique of filtered apps like Instagram and Hipstamatic rests on their approximation of reality. Yes, they can produce amazing photographs. But by adding the nostalgia that filtering apps provide, we’re stylizing the present to give it a sheen of the past. The results produce very interesting documentation but I don’t think you can call it photojournalism. There’s just too much fabrication going on. —Michael

thepoliticalnotebook:

A considerable number of people consider photos taken with the iPhone to be automatically not photojournalism, no matter the content or composition. Despite that, there is a significant body of work in conflict photojournalism by very talented photographers that uses the iPhone, often filtered using the Hipstamatic app, to depict scenes of countries in wartime. Damon Winter did it. David Guttenfelder did it. The very interesting documentary project called Basetrack is doing it. Recently, to accompany his New York Times story, “The Bad Guys vs. the Worse Guys,” Ben Lowy shot photographs in the same way. He says of using the iPhone,

iPhones enable a greater intimacy with a subject in a way that traditional cameras can’t. People are so used to seeing you pull out a huge camera and then acting a certain way. iPhones are still new enough that you get more realistic, less subjective, images contentwise because you aren’t pulling out this huge camera.

And indeed, the photographs taken by the iPhone give more of an air of actually being there, and have a far more candid, intimate tone. 

The FJP: Let me agree and disagree. 

Here’s the agree: It’s silly to say that a photograph taken with a type of camera (in this case, the iPhone) necessarily is or isn’t photojournalism. The iPhone-as-camera is a tool. Nothing less, nothing more. I’ve experimented with it in news situations and find that because of its limitations you need to get closer and more personal with with your subjects. There’s no megazoom on these. And getting closer and more personal is a good thing.

Here’s the disagree: Back in September we quoted Nathan Jurgenson’s essay about faux war photography and the nostalgia of war. Jurgenson’s critique of filtered apps like Instagram and Hipstamatic rests on their approximation of reality. Yes, they can produce amazing photographs. But by adding the nostalgia that filtering apps provide, we’re stylizing the present to give it a sheen of the past.

The results produce very interesting documentation but I don’t think you can call it photojournalism. There’s just too much fabrication going on. —Michael

The New York Times

Faux-Vintage Afghanistan Photography and the Nostalgia for War Via Nathan Jurgenson: The recent and popular Hipstamatic war photos depict contemporary soldiers, battlefields and civilian turmoil as reminiscent of wars long since passed. War photos move us by depicting human drama taken to its extreme, and these images, shot with a smartphone and “filtered” to look old, create a sense of simulated nostalgia, further tugging at our collective heart strings. And I think that these photos reveal much more. Hipstamatic war photographs ran on the front page of the New York Times [the full set] last November, and, of course, fake-vintage photos of everyday life are filling our Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter streams. I recently analyzed this trend ina long essay called The Faux-Vintage Photo, which is generating a terrific response. I argue that we like faux-vintage photographs because they provide a “nostalgia for the present”; our lives in the present can be seen as like the past: more important and real in a grasp for authenticity. If faux-vintage photography is rooted in authenticity, then what is more real than war? If the proliferation of Hipstamatic photographs has anything to do with a reaction to our increasingly plastic, simulated, Disneyfied and McDonaldized worlds, then what is more gritty than Afghanistan in conflict? In a moment where there is a shortage of and a demand for authenticity (the gentrification of inner-cities, “decay porn” and so on), war may serve as the last and perhaps ultimate bastion of authenticity. However, as I will argue below, war itself is in a crisis of authenticity, creating rich potential for its faux-vintage documentation. Read on.

Faux-Vintage Afghanistan Photography and the Nostalgia for War

Via Nathan Jurgenson:

The recent and popular Hipstamatic war photos depict contemporary soldiers, battlefields and civilian turmoil as reminiscent of wars long since passed. War photos move us by depicting human drama taken to its extreme, and these images, shot with a smartphone and “filtered” to look old, create a sense of simulated nostalgia, further tugging at our collective heart strings. And I think that these photos reveal much more.

Hipstamatic war photographs ran on the front page of the New York Times [the full set] last November, and, of course, fake-vintage photos of everyday life are filling our Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter streams. I recently analyzed this trend ina long essay called The Faux-Vintage Photo, which is generating a terrific response. I argue that we like faux-vintage photographs because they provide a “nostalgia for the present”; our lives in the present can be seen as like the past: more important and real in a grasp for authenticity.

If faux-vintage photography is rooted in authenticity, then what is more real than war? If the proliferation of Hipstamatic photographs has anything to do with a reaction to our increasingly plastic, simulated, Disneyfied and McDonaldized worlds, then what is more gritty than Afghanistan in conflict? In a moment where there is a shortage of and a demand for authenticity (the gentrification of inner-cities, “decay porn” and so on), war may serve as the last and perhaps ultimate bastion of authenticity. However, as I will argue below, war itself is in a crisis of authenticity, creating rich potential for its faux-vintage documentation.

Read on.