History
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.
