Irene Rojas

Today’s readings were like a trip back to my Photography in Literature class at W&M.  At the least, that class was good for introducing me to daguerreotypes.  It’s one thing to read about them; another to actually hold one.  I guess it was a good background for the readings, since I actually knew what Langston and Chapnick were talking about.  Unfortunately, I was also familiar with photojournalism’s disreputable past-the lack of education, the yellow press, the sensationalism.  Sometimes, I’ve gotten the feeling that certain subjects still have the idea that photographers are the “dumb” ones of the journalism world.  On the other hand, one person said photographers were among the better liked people in journalism, since we’re more focused on telling a person’s story, as long as we don’t cross into paparazzi territory.  Paparazzis are borderline stalkers.  We stalk you with your permission, mostly.

Reading through Langston’s history was at times like a summary of two of my major papers in the past fews years.  The first one was about the effects of Vietnam War photography on popular support for the war and the military.  (I wrote this one at W&M.)  The second was about Rosenthal’s Iwo Jima photo and the connotations it carried and still carries.  Anyways, Chapnick’s article provided a nice example of how photography has become more complex over time, growing from single photos to the photographic essay.  (If a pictures is worth a thousand words, couldn’t I have just turned in 2 or 3 photos for my final papers?)  Granted, some of the photos in these essays can stand on their own,  Others require viewers to have a prior understanding about something (a sculpture, a reference, etc), as is also the case with satire and irony.  I’m just hoping I can tell my one-day story well.

There are lots of “subjects” and “ideas” around us, but which ones do we choose?  Sometimes, we don’t really have a choice.  If we’re on assignment and an editor tells you to cover an event you don’t care for, you still have to come back with something.  Other times, we get to choose.  Sometimes it’s overwhelming.  There are many possible ideas to start with.  It can be like a multiple choice test when you don’t know the answer and the process of elimination just isn’t working.  Jay and Hurn are right to suggest starting with a list.  I foresee doing this for project seminar.  I want to choose a subject that I will enjoy working on for 14 weeks.  From that list, you start cutting it down, selecting the subjects that are most realistic and still enjoyable.  I liked that Hurn reminded me, “photography is only a tool, a vehicle, for expressing or transmitting a passion for something else.  It is  not the end result.”  Sometimes I feel that in the jschool, we’re expected to take on serious topics.  The show choir project isn’t serious, but it’s fun and I enjoy it.  I think that comes through in the photos.  As I’ve gotten to know the kids, I find myself (quietly) cheering them on.  Objective?  No.  Real?  Yes.

I feel that last semester was the first time I really heard people advise me to pick projects I was interested in, if not passionate about.  The first year was very much about the basics, which makes sense.  I guess they figure that we are not yet sure what we are passionate about, though it would’ve been nice to begin hearing that advice then.  Anyways, I agree with Hurn that “a unique style… is the by-product of visual exploration, not its goal.”  I’m finding that I do my best work when I’m inside and moving around.  It’s hard to explain, but I feel I get a better representation of the event or people when I’m free to move amongst them.  This opportunity doesn’t seem to present itself often in sports, so I feel I don’t have many, if any, intimate photos from sports.  I actually haven’t shot many sports since coming to Mizzou, while it was the main thing I shot my last two years at W&M.  I guess I just like that intimate style, and seek out situations that lend themselves to it. Read more…

This week, we started Anne Lamott’s “Bird by Bird,” and Loup Langston’s Photojournalism and Today’s News,” and listened to a Lenswork podcast.  In the latter, Brooks Jensen suggested that talent is perhaps overrated, and that photographers should work on the development of our own eye (how we see something, how a photo could be better, etc).  To that end, he agrees with Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule and Ansel Adam’s 10,000 negative statement.  Essentially, practice, practice, practice.  Talent is nice, but even the best get better by taking lots of photos and experimenting.  We have to keep at it.  The fact is, many of those photos will not be great, but they are necessary.

I felt the podcast was a nice companion to Lamott’s book.  It echoed many of her sentiments, even though she is focused in the writing process.  She has a chapter called “Shitty First Drafts.”  They happen.  They suck.  They’re necessary.  It takes a lot of work to make a good piece.  As with the writing process, many of those 10,000 photos will be cringe-worthy, if not absolutely horrible.  Nonetheless, they are learning experiences.  They happened.  Now, what can I learn from them?  To that end, Lamott reminds us to avoid allowing perfectionism to control us.  Obviously, this is often easier said than done, but we need the mistakes to help us fine-tune our skills. Read more…

Is it selfish to say that the stories that appeal to me are my own?  Maybe I’m just being pragmatic.  After all, being passionate about, or at least interested in, the subject keeps me motivated on a story.  Starting with my work from last semester, I’m finding that there is a big difference in quality when I’m interested in the subject versus when I’m not.  I also see a difference when a story comes about from my involvement.  Let me explain.

The Appleseed Project story came about from my own desire to learn how to shoot a gun.  It was a world I had only seen from the outside, and from a negative slant.  I wanted to learn more about this culture.  Not because I wanted a story (though I was constantly looking) but because I genuinely wanted to learn more about that culture.  The resulting story was a reflection of what I learned as much as what the people believed.  I am not saying I necessarily agree with everything I heard, but to paraphrase Howard Chapnick and Bill Jay, it was reflection of me as well as my subjects. Read more…