By Kenneth Jarecke
Paolo Pellegrin is one of the most successful photographers working today. He works with the most high-profile magazines, he publishes books, is a member of the most prestigious photo agency (Magnum), contributes to interesting projects and regularly wins major contests. So naturally, he?s easy enough to hate.
Still, until his work was called into question last week by BagNews Notes, it?s fair to say he was also widely respected.
Predictably, Pellegrin is catching most of this heat from people he doesn?t know, while receiving most of his support from people he does. Which makes me wonder, not knowing him, but having admired his work for a long time and owning at least one of his books (maybe more), what kind of advice I would have given him last Friday when the story first broke.
Here?s the original piece by BagNews Notes.
So if Paolo was a friend of mine, I would have first been upset that BagNews Notes didn?t contact him and get his side of the story before they published their piece. I know BagNews doesn?t consider themselves a journalistic operation, but in a story that has this much potential to destroy a person?s career, you should give them a call.
You do it for three reasons. One, to give the accused a chance to defend themselves (even the condemned get to say their last words, or at least given time for a smoke). Two, you want to appear to be fair. And three, you want your target to have a statement on record that isn?t a carefully crafted response written by a PR firm designed to pick apart your accusation. Basically, you want to help them hang themselves with a hasty and panic driven response. It?s journalism 101 folks, maybe that?s why BagNews screwed it up.
After I was done being upset with BagNews, I?d be upset with Paolo. I would have advised him to immediately contact BagNews and admit he had made a mistake with his captions. I would have told him to take all the blame upon himself. I would have encouraged him to make a full apology to the subject in his photo, the people of Rochester, the judges who rewarded him for this work, his fellow photojournalists and to disqualify himself from the competitions.
That said, Pellegrin is not a friend of mine, and it appears no one else offered him this kind of advice (or if it was offered he chose not to follow it).
Here?s Pellegrin?s response.
Instead, Paolo Pellegrin attacked… everybody. He took no responsibility for his own actions. He constructs straw-men to whack down while at the same time blaming everyone but himself.
My way, end of controversy. Paolo?s way, fuel on the fire.
Here?s BagNews? response to Pellegrin?s response.
Caption mistakes are one thing. Anyone can make that kind of mistake. Personally, I?m not a big fan of captions. I want viewers to see the photograph and then go to the caption to enhance and add to their understanding of the image. This controversy is no longer about poor, misleading or ?lifted? captions. This is now about a self-proclaimed ?documentary? photographer who manipulates people and uses them as props to illustrate a story narrative he?s made up in his head.
I thought these issues had been worked out by now. You don?t use people for props. You don?t manipulate them into doing things they aren?t doing and you don?t ask them to pose for you and then pretend it?s a situation that you?ve happened upon. This is the 21st century and as journalists we?ve had these conversations countless times. Walker Evans shouldn?t have moved the furniture. Gene Smith shouldn?t have sandwiched negatives. The guy who?s name I don?t remember shouldn?t have removed the Coke can.
Were we not clear on this?
I thought we?d moved on to questions that are harder to answer, like how much can we tweak our color palette?
Photographs aren?t a clear representation of reality. A skilled photographer willing to shamelessly manipulate a person can make them appear to be whatever they want. That?s why it?s important to have an ethical code of standards. Not just for the industry as a whole, but as an individual also.
My code goes something like this;
I try to represent the person I?m photographing in the most truthful way possible. They should recognize themselves in the images I make of them. This doesn?t always result in the best image, but it?s an attempt to be truthful and ?true? to the subject.
My second responsibility is to myself. I want to make images that I?m proud to hang on a wall or see published in a magazine. If the image doesn?t meet my standards I could careless if the publisher thinks it?s a great image or not.
The final responsibility is to the editor that hired me. I don?t want them to regret the fact they did. I want them to go into the layout meeting with an image that?s better than they or their bosses could have hoped for. That way nobody losses their job and I might even get hired again. However, I?m not going to construct an image that misrepresents my subject even if it means the image doesn?t meet my standards or the publishers.
Over the years I?ve taken a lot of heat and lost a few jobs (and probably a contest or two) because of this personal set of rules. To paraphrase Lite, Put your seatbelt on, boy. I don’t ride with anybody ‘less they wear their seatbelt. It’s one of my rules.
To be honest, I do bend this rule when it comes to politicians (and sometimes people of power). I figure a politician on the campaign trail is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each day to manipulate me and my photos, so they?re fair game. It?s a more honest approach than the mock ?behind the scenes? images so popular today. Where the magazines throws out any pretense of objectivity in exchange for not losing this prized ?access? by publishing a photo that might be displeasing to the politician or his staff.
I guess this is what really upsets me about Paolo Pelligrin?s work and the caviler attitude towards objections and criticism people have made about it. He claims to be broaching subject matter that the ?elites? wouldn?t dare touch when in reality he?s manipulating those without power to promote his own elitist agenda.
In a world where the press has abandoned its traditional watchdog role, and is only concerned with giving itself awards and cuddling up to the powerful he?s not an anomaly, he?s their ideal creation.
Magnum, the most prestigious photo agency of all time, doesn?t know what it is. Is it a place for artists, journalists or some type of combination of the two? Magnum?s most successful photographers are probably in the artist camp and are masters of the ?found? image. While one of their most successful documentary photographers (not Paolo) is widely known to regularly set-up pictures. This is a problem.
Photo editors, who encourage photographers to ?make it happen? (oh how many times I?ve heard those wretched words) and/or disappear for month long stretches to prepare their contest entries are also a major problem.
Contests… well, if World Press or iPOY doesn’t demand to see the entire take… I?m talking Pellegrin?s entire hard drive from Rochester and scrutinize how he works from start to finish (are there fifty frames with different poses and lighting schemes of the ?portrait? in the parking garage), their credibility is over. These are photojournalist contests after all.
The bottom line, is this photojournalism thing is broken. If you?ve ever seen a horde of Dutch photographers (home of World Press Photo) work a woman?s team of gold medal winning water-polo players, you?d agree. The people that should be working to fix this, the powerful editors and highly respected older statesmen, are (with some notable brave and bold exceptions) either making excuses, keeping their mouths shut or benefiting from the situation.
Sling your rocks and arrows below. Please don’t hesitate to remind me that I’m old and outdated, so I have no idea what I’m talking about.
Predictably, Pellegrin is catching most of this heat from people he doesn?t know, while receiving most of his support from people he does. Which makes me wonder, not knowing him, but having admired his work for a long time and owning at least one of his books (maybe more), what kind of advice I would have given him last Friday when the story first broke.
Here?s the original piece by BagNews Notes.
So if Paolo was a friend of mine, I would have first been upset that BagNews Notes didn?t contact him and get his side of the story before they published their piece. I know BagNews doesn?t consider themselves a journalistic operation, but in a story that has this much potential to destroy a person?s career, you should give them a call.
You do it for three reasons. One, to give the accused a chance to defend themselves (even the condemned get to say their last words, or at least given time for a smoke). Two, you want to appear to be fair. And three, you want your target to have a statement on record that isn?t a carefully crafted response written by a PR firm designed to pick apart your accusation. Basically, you want to help them hang themselves with a hasty and panic driven response. It?s journalism 101 folks, maybe that?s why BagNews screwed it up.
After I was done being upset with BagNews, I?d be upset with Paolo. I would have advised him to immediately contact BagNews and admit he had made a mistake with his captions. I would have told him to take all the blame upon himself. I would have encouraged him to make a full apology to the subject in his photo, the people of Rochester, the judges who rewarded him for this work, his fellow photojournalists and to disqualify himself from the competitions.
That said, Pellegrin is not a friend of mine, and it appears no one else offered him this kind of advice (or if it was offered he chose not to follow it).
Here?s Pellegrin?s response.
Instead, Paolo Pellegrin attacked… everybody. He took no responsibility for his own actions. He constructs straw-men to whack down while at the same time blaming everyone but himself.
My way, end of controversy. Paolo?s way, fuel on the fire.
Here?s BagNews? response to Pellegrin?s response.
Caption mistakes are one thing. Anyone can make that kind of mistake. Personally, I?m not a big fan of captions. I want viewers to see the photograph and then go to the caption to enhance and add to their understanding of the image. This controversy is no longer about poor, misleading or ?lifted? captions. This is now about a self-proclaimed ?documentary? photographer who manipulates people and uses them as props to illustrate a story narrative he?s made up in his head.
I thought these issues had been worked out by now. You don?t use people for props. You don?t manipulate them into doing things they aren?t doing and you don?t ask them to pose for you and then pretend it?s a situation that you?ve happened upon. This is the 21st century and as journalists we?ve had these conversations countless times. Walker Evans shouldn?t have moved the furniture. Gene Smith shouldn?t have sandwiched negatives. The guy who?s name I don?t remember shouldn?t have removed the Coke can.
Were we not clear on this?
I thought we?d moved on to questions that are harder to answer, like how much can we tweak our color palette?
Photographs aren?t a clear representation of reality. A skilled photographer willing to shamelessly manipulate a person can make them appear to be whatever they want. That?s why it?s important to have an ethical code of standards. Not just for the industry as a whole, but as an individual also.
My code goes something like this;
I try to represent the person I?m photographing in the most truthful way possible. They should recognize themselves in the images I make of them. This doesn?t always result in the best image, but it?s an attempt to be truthful and ?true? to the subject.
My second responsibility is to myself. I want to make images that I?m proud to hang on a wall or see published in a magazine. If the image doesn?t meet my standards I could careless if the publisher thinks it?s a great image or not.
The final responsibility is to the editor that hired me. I don?t want them to regret the fact they did. I want them to go into the layout meeting with an image that?s better than they or their bosses could have hoped for. That way nobody losses their job and I might even get hired again. However, I?m not going to construct an image that misrepresents my subject even if it means the image doesn?t meet my standards or the publishers.
Over the years I?ve taken a lot of heat and lost a few jobs (and probably a contest or two) because of this personal set of rules. To paraphrase Lite, Put your seatbelt on, boy. I don’t ride with anybody ‘less they wear their seatbelt. It’s one of my rules.
To be honest, I do bend this rule when it comes to politicians (and sometimes people of power). I figure a politician on the campaign trail is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each day to manipulate me and my photos, so they?re fair game. It?s a more honest approach than the mock ?behind the scenes? images so popular today. Where the magazines throws out any pretense of objectivity in exchange for not losing this prized ?access? by publishing a photo that might be displeasing to the politician or his staff.
I guess this is what really upsets me about Paolo Pelligrin?s work and the caviler attitude towards objections and criticism people have made about it. He claims to be broaching subject matter that the ?elites? wouldn?t dare touch when in reality he?s manipulating those without power to promote his own elitist agenda.
In a world where the press has abandoned its traditional watchdog role, and is only concerned with giving itself awards and cuddling up to the powerful he?s not an anomaly, he?s their ideal creation.
Magnum, the most prestigious photo agency of all time, doesn?t know what it is. Is it a place for artists, journalists or some type of combination of the two? Magnum?s most successful photographers are probably in the artist camp and are masters of the ?found? image. While one of their most successful documentary photographers (not Paolo) is widely known to regularly set-up pictures. This is a problem.
Photo editors, who encourage photographers to ?make it happen? (oh how many times I?ve heard those wretched words) and/or disappear for month long stretches to prepare their contest entries are also a major problem.
Contests… well, if World Press or iPOY doesn’t demand to see the entire take… I?m talking Pellegrin?s entire hard drive from Rochester and scrutinize how he works from start to finish (are there fifty frames with different poses and lighting schemes of the ?portrait? in the parking garage), their credibility is over. These are photojournalist contests after all.
The bottom line, is this photojournalism thing is broken. If you?ve ever seen a horde of Dutch photographers (home of World Press Photo) work a woman?s team of gold medal winning water-polo players, you?d agree. The people that should be working to fix this, the powerful editors and highly respected older statesmen, are (with some notable brave and bold exceptions) either making excuses, keeping their mouths shut or benefiting from the situation.
Sling your rocks and arrows below. Please don’t hesitate to remind me that I’m old and outdated, so I have no idea what I’m talking about.
“I try to represent the person I?m photographing in the most truthful way possible. They should recognize themselves in the images I make of them. This doesn?t always result in the best image, but it?s an attempt to be truthful and ?true? to the subject”……….Kenneth Jarecke
The above hits the nail on the head perfectly. ‘Truth’ is at the very core of what is now increasingly absent in contemporary photojournalism practice today. Yes, we have all had it hammered into us ad nauseam that truth in photojournalism can never be absolute. But the truth as Jarecke describes here and he employs as part of his code is as close as we can get to the truth within all the restrictions and power imbalances that exist between photographer and subject. Even this less then perfect truth is a very important truth to both subject and audience who ?read? photographs. It could be suggested that this form of truth is a fundamental human right for both subject and the audience who read the image.
Truth in photojournalism is now under siege. Why? This is the ME generation of photojournalism. Photojournalism has increasingly become more about the photographer then the subject – or more correctly put – the participant. The participant comes in a poor second place to the photojournalist. Many photojournalists today are driven by raw ambition with the singular objective of attaining ‘fame’ and/or celebrity. Not only attaining fame or celebrity but attaining fame and celebrity at Warp 5 speed. So so so instant coffee. The people and issues photojournalists document along the way almost seem incidental. Combine this with excessive and aggressive digital post – processing in Photoshop or Lightroom and truth is further diluted. For the most part the manipulation (a highly contentious issue within itself) that is applied to their images produces a hyper – reality, garish, lurid colour that is almost as ugly as their narcissism and the hubris that the photojournalists who author it, are drowning in.
Whatever happened to photojournalists being visual poets and storytellers? Whatever happened to the subject/participant/issue being core in importance not the photojournalist? 2013: Why can’t photojournalists be photojournalists without Hollywoodizing (no such word I know) themselves? When did the symbiotic relationship between photojournalist and subject/participant transition to a parasitical relationship between photojournalist and subject/participant?
Solipsism is a dirty word.
Jack Picone