I am reading Serge Tisseron's essay “What is a Symbolic Image?” in W. Eugene Smith Photographs 1934-1975. It's a really interesting discussion about the nature of photojournalism and the fact that many archetypal images we remember as defining moments of photojournalism and history were arranged or manipulated. Just as an example, one of Smith's most famous photographs from Minamata series is that of an environmental poisoning victim Tomoko Uemura in her bath. The image and the lighting were very carefully arranged. Indeed, it is impossible not to see the obvious compositional reference to Michelangelo's Pietà. The lighting is Rembrandt or Caravaggio perfect. What is interesting about it is that this constructed image appeals to our Western sensibilities precisely because it looks familiar.

There are, of course, questions that arise from Smith’s approach to photojournalism. First of all is it photojournalism if the image is directed and carefully constructed? (Just imagine what Smith would be doing with Photoshop these days.) Well, I don’t know. Photojournalism is about telling stories through photography and Minamata image certainly does that in a very compelling way. Personally I don’t arrange or direct anybody in my photos – probably because I know I am lousy at it. I use flash if I have to, but I don’t fancy lagging around set of lights.

What I think is even more important question is whether esthetics and photojournalism should mix and to what degree. Should we be making esthetically beautiful photographs depicting human suffering? If the beauty of the image compels a reader to pay attention to a social issue, is that okay? I tend to think that it is – work of people like James Nachtwey and Sebastião Salgado comes to mind. I think the problem with esthetics comes up when it is combined with censorship because it than leads to misrepresentation rather than interpretation. War in Iraq is a good example. The official coverage is very tightly controlled and the photojournalism, as in telling the story and showing the consequences of an armed conflict (dead bodies, destruction etc…) is left to very few independent reporters and bloggers. This contrasts sharply to the coverage of the Second World War and Vietnam

Any thoughts on the subject are welcome…