Steve McCurry’s Depiction of The Developing World
If we assume/accept for a moment that substantial image/scene manipulation has occurred, it’s perhaps most important of all to ask ‘why?’. Why has McCurry, whose reputation was so formidable, stooped so low as to ‘shop out’ swathes of the ‘real world’ he is surely supposed to be sharing from his scenes? I’m going to suggest a possible explanation that is quite simple and which may make McCurry fans quite uncomfortable. It is my best ‘thinking out loud’ explanation for what we are seeing and I am putting it out there for discussion. It is personal opinion, based on what I have seen and read, and it goes like this:
‘McCurry’s depiction of the world is a fantastic fabrication. The vision Steve McCurry ‘shares’ with us through his photographs does not exist. It vanished decades ago, yet he is compelled to continue to produce work according to the same winning formula: a somewhat condescending view of the developing world in which the subjects are afforded the status of ‘noble savage’ and which pleases a privileged Western audience. McCurry’s photography does not attempt to show a version of ‘what is out there’. Maybe he is not trying to document and share with us unguarded moments at all? Maybe he is sharing images that show the developing world as some (who don’t inhabit it) might like it to be? It is comfortable. It is nice. It feels good, even if the subjects suffer from poverty or work their fingers to the bone as child workers. It’s pictorial candy floss (cotton candy to Americans). We aren’t learning new perspectives. We aren’t being enlightened, or challenged. We are just being given what we are asking for: nice, colourful, comfortable photographs of cute kids, animals and old people looking, well, wrinkled but adorable. It’s the ‘photojournalistic’ equivalent of kittens and balls of wool.
Inconveniently for McCurry, the developing world is actually developing. In contrast, his world view seems to be frozen at an imaginary point in history. The photographs he wants to show are becoming increasingly divorced from the real scenes he encounters. McCurry said in an interview, “perhaps India is losing its Indianness”. What on Earth is that supposed to mean?) I take it as meaning exactly what I just said: India looks less and less like the depiction of post-colonial quaintness he wants to present. It is shifting ever further from an ideal. His ideal.’
India Today 😉
If McCurry were like Madonna, he’d have changed with the times, but the acid test is this: do McCurry’s images from India/SE Asia today look much different to those he shot 20 years ago? I don’t think they do. If I were to be harsh, I would say McCurry has been like the a musical one-hit-wonder, who for years has been rearranging his hit song to make enough tracks for album after album. It is rumoured that Steve McCurry has been very financially successful (compared to other Magnum photographers) and maybe this is part of the issue: is there a formula for making images that sell and which he daren’t stray too far from?’
Conclusion
What a mess. I’d be fascinated to hear the discussions inside Magnum over this. I can only imagine that there are some absolutely horrified members. To state this in very English terms, I find myself profoundly disappointed. What about the men and women who have been inspired by McCurry to seek out magical moments just like his ‘unguarded moments’? Were they chasing a mirage? How many other much admired photojournalists and documentary/reportage photographers are up to similar (apparent) antics? I am sorry if my tone has been harsh in this piece, but I find it hard to gloss over the magnitude of what has occurred. Put in simple terms, arguably the greatest icon in modern Nat Geo image making history appears to have been caught making it up. On their own, I was just about OK with McCurry’s many lovely, but all-too-comfortable photographs (although I wish he stretched a little (OK, a lot) further and revealed much more depth). But this casts a film of dirt over all ‘real life’ photography. What will the public think when they see a hard to believe but honest photograph of yours? Wrinkled noses and knowing smirks of knowing suspicion? What does this say about the world Nat Geo has shown to us for decades? What will you think next time you go an an exhibition of remarkable (but honest) work? Will you find the images too remarkable?
I think one piece of good news to take from this is that in the communications era, it will be increasingly difficult to set up images or manipulate them and get away with it (at a high level). The other ‘plus’ is that you are all better photographers than you thought you were, assuming you have been making your documentary/street/reportage images the hard way, i.e. no set-ups and no cloning! Amazing photojournalistic/documentary/reportage images are entirely possible without heavy use of the cloning tool, or the use of actors. Thousands of talented professional and amateur photographers across the world are doing so every single day. Mr McCurry needs to go back to using film and re-learn his craft. Legions of no-name photographers are already way ahead.
The other bit of good news is that I have discovered just a bit more tea (Lapsang Souchong to be precise) in my flask to wash down the last chocolate digestive. Excellent.
Well I have found 9 changes to the second image on second viewing (7 changes on first). Fascinating and good for observation training. A bit like Where’s Wally? (Waldo for Americans). Flippancy aside it completely destroys any pretence that these are documentary images and I find it all extremely unethical. I hope he gets expelled from Magnum.
Now that you’ve made me go back and look more thoroughly, I have found 12 individual changes :O Amazing…
I doubt Magnum will expel him, although I struggle to see how he could remain a member (what would this say about the agency?). I’d imagine McCurry’s revenue makes a significant contribution to their budget, although I have no idea how significant it is in real terms.
People will probably begin to speculate about all his work now and scrutiny may well be applied to even his most iconic images. In a way I feel a little sad for the chap because I doubt this controversy will die down quickly, and it’s all so unnecessary – I don’t feel that the quality of these two examples has been improved significantly by such manipulation and removing people from images smacks of totalitarian procedures, as practised by some very unpleasant regimes, past and present. Reputations take years to gain but can be lost overnight.
I don’t think you have been harsh at all. I have long thought Steve McCurry as a pictorialist and orientalist. Just take a look at his Angkor Wat photographs, they are so obviously set up, with monks placed perfectly among the ruins and roots. I’ve been there several times, and while there are monks there they don’t seem to wander among the ruins much.
Dark or milk chocolate?
An interesting take, Tom. What I found very strange was this McCurry remark in a TEDx interview earlier this year (via Fstoppers):
“I believe that the picture should reflect exactly what you saw and experienced when you took the picture. I don’t think you should have any adjustments in terms of Photoshop — kind of garish colors. I want to just capture life as it is without really interfering, and I want it to reflect reality, actually”.
Thanks Jonathan – that’s quite unambiguous! It makes me wonder how on earth he got into this situation. He must have been fully aware what was happening to his files ‘in the lab’, because he shot them, right? He’d see the originals, he’d see the final ‘ready for print’ versions, surely? Maybe it started out as removing very minor blemishes and just gradually snowballed from there? Regardless, there appears to be nothing less than a chasm between what he has been saying his work is and what it seems to be.
I just googled one of McCurry’s images (Sleeping with Snake, Tonle Gap) and found a blog by Kevin Cashe in which he writes about the McCurry exhibition in Malta. He says, “Let us hope that the freedom digital cameras have given the photographer are not wasted on the current generation of photographers. Let us hope that more images of this power are captured to again prove that Photography can be so great a medium. Let us hope that more photographers go back to the basic capture of images which tell a story and which convey a message and leave fiction to the writers!“. This makes me feel for Cashe. You can feel the awe at McCurrys photographic genius in the way he writes.
Earlier Cashe writes, “When one keeps in mind that the bulk of McCurry’s work has been shot with conventional film and cameras, and most of the times in difficult situations, his results are so much more amazing.” Yes, until you consider the possibility that they might have been staged. This article is quite direct in stating that McCurry has been doing just that for decades.
My next question is pointed firmly at Nat Geo. Surely those handling his negatives knew very well. The film strips would tell all. If you are staging shots and aiming for that natural look, you’re likely to have a few variations on the same scene, to get it looking ‘authentic’ and ‘off the cuff’. Maybe it was all too successful for anyone to be dare to raise an eyebrow. Reminds me of Terry Richardson…
well there’s another pub discussion… the difference between Terry Richardson and Nobuyoshi Araki?
Integrity? Transparency?
Very true! I think it as simple as you say: doing what you say, or saying what you do. I don’t particularly care what people choose to do when the are honest and it does not affect me (or others) negatively. But this is not such a case. As a young aspiring photographer 20 years ago, I looked up to McCurry. His colour work set the standard for ‘cultural travel photography’. I thought long and hard about what he was doing and wondered how me managed to do it. Guile? Incredible personality and ability to vanish in plain sight? Charisma? My thoughts strayed no further than his matter of fact claims to be a genuine photojournalist. Now I know better, but actually, I don’t feel McCurry has lowered the bar, but shown how much higher others have hurdled. The fall is his personally and those who have not moved stand that bit taller because of it. He must have known this moment would come, but then why not prepare for it and rebrand himself while ahead (rather than after getting caught and shamed first)?
There is a possible explanation and it lies in some comments I read on the internet many years ago about how McCurry was not quite the same nice guy behind the scenes. I recall the comments were from someone who had worked with him on some of his workshops and was writing in disgust. Who knows whether the allegations were accurate, but they struck me as authentic rather than someone just grinding an axe. The same dichotomy was referred to in the case of Lance Armstrong. Maybe they are both exploitative people who will do all it takes to win and will keep on taking liberties until eventually caught? Armstrong was systematically doping and had extensive procedures in place to evade detection. Throughout he made categorical denials and assertions of innocence, while not letting up one bit on his scheming. McCurry has seemingly been staging and photoshopping away merrily for some time, while never deviating from his Unguarded Moment™ brand. He has been incredibly specific in stating that he has not been doing any of the things he now seems to have done. As an aside, this sort of exploitative unscrupulous behaviour is typical of Cluster B personality disorders and psychopathy. It takes some balls to be able to stand in front of people again and again and lie to their faces, not to mention doing so when there are legions of people out there who know very well you are not telling the truth (Armstrong and McCurry again). If I were to take a guess, I’d say there’re more to McCurry than meets the eye. He still hasn’t made a statement that really takes ownership of this and probably never will.
It”s like doping in sport. An unedifying Lance Armstrong episode complete with lying deflections. His outcomes are based on cheating and lying.
I will be most disappointed if Magnum don’t expel him in the same way Lance was dressed down by his sport.
Do they really have any option, given who they are in photojournalism, despite what financial contribution he might be making?
Would they – should they – survive such a lack of integrity?
Imagine those awarding the Pulitzer finding out a winning author plagiarised a novel and doing nothing about it.
Absolutely, the Armstrong-McCurry parallels are remarkable. As for Magnum, this is a real moment for them. I feel for them too. They have struggled in the new digital media era and this is the last thing they need. I will be shocked if they just wait for this to blow over, because I think it will spell the end for them in the long run. As you say, what will their collective stand for, if not high standard and a seal of integrity? But canning him draws more attention and creates more short term harm? They’re between the devil and the deep blue sea and hope they do the right thing regardless…
Seems that every story has at least two sides. Interested parties might like to read the following link
http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2016/06/09/guest-post-23-robert-dannin-on-steve-mccurry/
The writer was the editorial director at Magnum for a relevant part of McCurry’s tenure. His take on matters differs a great deal from the unanimous recent brouhaha … has little good to say about NatGeo and its photo policies. (I found this link in a Bill Pierce posting at RangefinderForum. Thanks, Bill.)
— Mike
Thanks Michael, as you say, it is very much the other side of the argument and a passionate one in a way.
I read it, then George’s comments and also find myself uncomfortable with Robert Dannin’s take on it. I take on board everything he says, but without wishing to sound like a puritan in an imperfect world, it sounds like the abdication of responsibility to me. Other people may have benefitted, but I do wonder if a greater good was served here, or whether it will have been counterproductive in the long run.
At the end of the day it was McCurry who made certain claims about the integrity of his work and then we have these compelling allegations. I find it hard not to see him as responsible for that. Regardless of who or what he was keeping afloat, he will still have been a major beneficiary I would expect. He also appears to have been party to systematic deception and he did not have to do that. Nobody forced his arm. Nobody was going to be saved from the firing squad by a few ‘white lies’. I suppose it comes down to what a person’s integrity is worth. I wonder how McCurry would evaluate the cost-benefit analysis now, or if he cares? Maybe he is a lovely chap who just didn’t think it mattered because nobody was getting hurt. I guess we will never know, but I think choice is a major factor here. Plenty of people make choices like this every day, but I suppose plenty of people don’t get to be famous either. It’s funny how those two things so often seem to be connected.
What do you think?
Tom:
I agree generally with you and George, as I am something of a puritan on this subject myself.
I wrote and then did not submit the comment below this paragraph when you first posted on it. I’ll submit it now, as it may clarify my personal take on the matter. In addition, I took a look at the photos by the newly announced Magnum members and associates and I got the impression that some of them were not exactly in line with photojournalistic puritanism (but I don’t find their work featured on the Magnum website today as it was earlier.)
****
Your tone and critique of the situation is quite justifiable and dead on the mark. It’s hard for me to be optimistic about the continuing degradation of standards in photojournalism and the publications which contain it. The “market” forces that I see at work seem unrelentingly hostile.
Consumers want free or nearly-free publications; publishers rely on advertisers; advertisers pay exclusively for consumer attention; consumers greatly prefer attending to entertainment and confirmation of their biases rather than to unalloyed journalism (photo and print). Its just another example of how free markets often amount to little more than economic populism and to result in a race to the bottom, as populism seems prone to.
Finding reliable sources of hard, vetted information requires constant vigilance, as even the most respected former providers can be seduced by Mammon and celebrity to sacrifice their hard-won integrity. McCurry, Nat Geo, Magnum, etc are responding to market forces in the same way that most any person or organization does when their emphasis becomes profit or popularity rather than any more serious but less remunerative or principled mission. A famous US social gadfly once said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.” He said that about 100 years ago, and it remains true today. The internet seems to be rapidly spreading that truism to the entire planet (if it weren’t already true elsewhere).
Hard news seems mostly to still maintain higher standards of near-objective veracity than typical consumer periodicals and publications. Though hard news is having a hard time competing with tabloids, cable news, cat videos, political “news” websites and the many other profitable panderers to popular preferences, it exists and can be found with enough effort. Even there, however, I sometimes detect a relaxation of standards. The writing style in “news features” and their accompanying photo-illustrations masquerades as journalism and is justified as boosting circulation (and ads). I also sometimes see covert value-judgements rendered in news stories via strategically placed, extraneous and bias-laden adjectives. So perhaps my sanguine view of hard news will eventually become misplaced, and we will perforce all wallow together in all-propaganda/drivel all the time.
— Mike
I read this with inerest. He seems to be having it both ways. He seems to be critical and at the same time excuses him. The argument seems to be that since others treated their membership of magnum insensitively (in different ways, mind) Steve’s transgressions should be viewed in a context that moderates the amplitude of offence. It’s a messy world, we are told, so keep it in context. Well, the notion of integrity means nothing if it is only to be maintained in the absence of challenges to it. The notion that since his money has kept them afloat also moderates the offence astonishes me. What, we expect integrity unless you can buy yourself out of the obligation? Seriously?
In addition, he suggests that we ought not focus our ire on Steve but focus on the bigger issue – the state of photojournalism. Steve is part of that problem not seperate to it and if Magnum keeps Steve it will have joined the forces chipping at its foundations in order to stay alive.
Hoewver McCullen is probably right, it is already in ruins. If Magnum can’t proceed with integrity, perhaps it should not proceed in name alone and bow to the fact that photojournalism is dead – the world has changed.. Better to hang the boots up and say ‘there we won’t go, and here is our record’.
Again, this would’t be such a big deal if Steve had not actively lied repeatedly and as you say Tom, perhaps pathologically, about what he was doing. That is the pivot of the argument.
If we are to identify a bigger worry, then it would be that a very important instrument of democracy – photojournalism – is gone. It no longer buttresses the edifice. It has been white-anted by the click bait dross of the internet. I hope Magnum doesn’t contribute to this by ‘wearing’ Steve.
History conrinues and democracy is contingent.
The whole business is a can of worms. Totally immoral. Unfortunately, however, morality and ethics don’t count today and are for losers. Thus it always was, sadly!
I’m afraid i did sound a little puritanical from here in my armchair, but I stand by the substance of what i said.
I too have wondered about the calculus of patholagy and “success”. Perhaps at the very least a measure of narcissism is necessary for the self belief that will cary you through the competition with others chasing the prize.
Every ‘successful’ person I’ve met i believe either inherited their success and maintained it or was a bit of a cnut just under the surface. A little depressing really.
But i digress from the subject of photography.
Great article Tom, I am thrilled to gave discovered your site.
As much as I am “disappointed” in Steve McCurry, as someone who grew up dreaming with NatGeo; I also feel betrayed that the world I was yearning to discover on my own; possibly did not quite exist as presented., just as I suspected all along.
I do feel there is a difference between staging a shot by slightly repositioning the subjects vs manipulating the image in photoshop by adding / removing elements.
I can tolerate the first a lot more than the second.
Thanks Suat G! I think your feelings are those of many and it has been interesting telling non-photographer friends the story of what has happened. It seems that without any history of an emotional connection to his images, they have been unanimous in their condemnation, just looking at events on their own. I leafed through South Southeast a few days ago and his images just aren’t the same any more and so many I’d forgotten about stand out as strong contenders for obvious set-ups. Such a shame, but when one door closes….
I am late to this thread.
My interest was sparked by two things. Comments made about McCurry’s work in other forums and conversations which I have had with several retired and currently working photojournalists.
For me it all started this summer when I went to a exhibit of McCurry’s work here in Singapore. Before this I had nothing but huge respect for the man. He was what I (we?) wanted to be.. The prints were very large. I walked into the exhibit, strolled around. Then did so again. I felt like I was in a painting gallery. The pictures were —- off. Someone my mind told me they were just not right. Either the colours were too saturated, some felt very staged, others had been obviously been photoshopped extensively. Lets face it folks, his picture ‘Taj Mahal and Train’ is so obviously staged that it is pretty funny in retrospect.
He is not a photojournalist. As he now says, he is an image maker. His images are the India of the mind as was said earlier some post colonial fantasy. When you see them up enlarged and up close. It smacks you in the face.
He should drop all pretence.
John Andrew Lee
Singapore
Hi John, I saw what is probably the same exhibition in Budapest and could not agree more. My first thought was ‘has Peter Lik done McCurry’s post processing?’. Colours were over saturated in most of the prints (glaringly so) and it just felt wrong on so many levels.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but perhaps this whole episode says more about how difficult it is to disagree with the prevailing wisdom? ‘McCurry is the world’s greatest photojournalist!‘is what people’s individual doubts were up against. Still, I am as surprised as you seem to be that it took so long for the blindingly obvious to break out into the open.
many good things have been said here, in your article and in the comments. much clearer than in most other places. big thank you for that.
hearing about the surfacing of McCurrys photoshopping my first thought was basically “why all that fuzz? while i don’t admire this, an artist is free to do what he wants with his photos”. but it never left me, and i think it is not easy to pin down if and what exactly is wrong. so i read a lot about it, and your article was one that cleared my thoughts. those photos were not clearly published as documentary photos, yet everybody thinks they are, in a way.
why i’m writing here, is to share two statements, that very clearly point out the wrong in this situation.
one is by Peter van Agtmael, a rather young fellow photographer at magnum, in an article published in ‘time’. while he is not directly opposing McCurrys approach, he adds:
“There is one very important qualifier I’d add. Any photographer working predominantly in a photojournalistic context needs to be rigidly transparent about digital manipulation […]”
and this pins the point: McCurry didn’t lie per se, but with his background everybody thinks his work is kind of documentary, and he surely knows that. so not pointing out the manipulation means knowingly keep people believing in wrong circumstances.
and similar goes for magnum, which has a very strong emphasis on documantery work, on catching life as it is. further looking for any statment coming from magnum on that issue, i found one in the closing sentence of their ‘about magnum – overview’ page:
“It [magnum] remains loyal to its original values of uncompromising excellence, truth, respect and independence.”
uncompromising truth is something that is clearly violated when a photographer known for documantery work removes unwanted subjects from a photograph without very clearly indicating that.
i think magnum should very clearly and very openly put out a statement on this issue. saying that this was not correct, saying that they are very serious about this issue, mildly accusing McCurry (and themselves) of sloppy proceedings, and put a permament code of conduct about use and indication of photo manipulation on their website. this would prevent more damage to magnum itself, to professional photographers in general, and even to McCurry himself, putting his early documentary work back into the light of thruthfulness, and with it his reputation.
Thanks Georg! I’m not sure if Magnum has spoken about the McCurry situation to clear things up, but they may have thought it would only add fuel to the fire (if they haven’t). McCurry and his work does not fit naturally into Magnum and so the suggestion that his membership was intended to boost revenue makes a lot of sense. Its a tough call…. as someone commented earlier, what if the commission on his income helped keep the agency afloat? I’m not sure what to think really, other than focusing more on the man himself. Whatever the agency did, nothing absolves McCurry of his responsibilities as someone claiming at the time to be a journalist. It just strikes me as such a shame, which is why I am finding colourful solace and much pleasure in Harry Gruyaert’s work instead 😀
hahaha, exhilarating work by Harry Gruyaert indeed!
thanks for pointing there 🙂
it’s difficult there to do the right thing, for sure. and the first reactions of McCurry were defenitley not. however, for an institution like magnum and especially in times like these it is really important to clearly have and to hold values. i think that both magnum an McCurry (plus the profession as a whole) would greatly benefit from a credible reaction, in the long run. even more so in a situation you suppose.
so facing a controversy with a person who’s recent work was rather avoiding that virtue, maybe i can return something for your hint regarding work that is a little more multifaceted, namely pointing at Chris Leskovsek.
Help me out. I take photography for my one enjoyment but recently began selling some prints and postcards in a local shop of area attractions. One of my favorite places is an abandoned train station close to my house in downtown Wichita, KS. The problem is the city installed a rather ugly mercury vapor light stand on top of the platform. I remove it in Lightroom. I hadn’t really considered photography ethics before. I never stage my shots ( I take landscapes) or alter my physical surroundings. But after reading this article and the photography ethics section, I am having 2nd thoughts. Here is a link to two twitter images that illustrate what I am talking about: https://twitter.com/scatteredlodge/status/962865023344398336
Thoughts?
Aaron
Hi Aaron, I think these decisions always come down to how you are presenting the work. In the context of postcards and prints in a local shop, I would argue that you are in an area that offers more flexibility than, say, documentary photography or photojournalism. Postcards and touristic images do need to be fairly faithful; however, they are often idealised in one form or another. Removing a light, which was added to a structure (and therefore not always present) doesn’t sound too bad (to me (and I have looked at the images)) for what you’re doing. This is considered against a backdrop in which it is not unusual to see tourist orientated images turned into watercolours, with faded backgrounds, mixed B&W and colour, or with other forms of manipulation to highlight attention on a particular element of the scene. Were you producing a documentary series about urban design, urban decay, train stations etc, it would be a very different matter IMO. I understand your angst and unease, but I’d be surprised if you’re selling work to people who are paying very large sums for work defined by a particular concept or fidelity to a particular process. Such customers are unlikely to place much emphasis on a missing light. Should you start selling a series of images of local architectural features in a local gallery for hundreds of dollars per print, then you could also legitimately continue as you are, but it might be prudent to disclose that you have altered certain image details to maintain emphasis on the structures depicted. Andreas Gursky’s Rhine II is an example of an image within a series that actually uses change/idealisation as a key concept. This is something else you may consider. You don’t have to produce unaltered images at all. The important thing is to be straight up and honest about what it is that you are doing. FWIW, I can see why you have removed the lamp. It fundamentally disrupts the form of the original architecture and one could argue that it is not relevant to the subject you’re photographing. Its an inconsequential ‘add on’. Bottom line: don’t sweat it.
I was going unleash a scathing tirade about how precious people have become and how very quick the mob are to throw in more kicks and punches when someone is down, but seriously, you and the armchair experts are not worth the time or effort.
Don’t ever make a mistake Tom……
Hi Jay, A tirade wouldn’t have been helpful or useful for anyone. A well reasoned explanation as to why you feel this way would have been both, no matter how concise. I actually articulated my points and explained them, having thought this matter through exhaustively. Neither you, nor anyone else, is obliged to agree with what I said, but thinly veiled insults do you no credit. This isn’t about making ‘a mistake’ or a ‘couple of mistakes’. From the information I have seen, the personal conclusion I reached is that there appears to have been decades of bending the truth and eventually something broke. Are you suggesting that it is OK to deceive people about the nature of one’s work? A few times? All the time? As far as I am concerned, people in positions of authority or influence can and should be expected to set an example, by setting a high standard. McCurry has fallen well short of my expectations of professional integrity and many other people’s too. Not everyone shares the same ethics, but to rubbish those who aspire to (and hopefully meet) high standards says more about you than about them.
Let’s take a simple example: if a ‘nobody’ were to enter pretty well any photojournalism or documentary photography award and it transpired that he/she set up the shots or got busy photoshopping major elements in or out, the photographer would be disqualified. Nobody would argue that this is unfair. Yet when one of the biggest names in photography appears to have done the same thing, systematically, over years, it’s somehow something we should gloss over? When that person has been a role model for so many aspiring photojournalists (who themselves would have their feet held to the fire by peers or by industry associations/bodies), that role model is exempt from those same rules? Do famous people always get a pass? Should we not hold our role models to account, because of the harm it may do to other people’s perceptions of their greatness i.e. idols/heroes must never be allowed to fall?).
I have a healthy concern, but I’m not overly worried about making mistakes, because I go into decisions taking responsibility for them. In McCurry’s case, didn’t he blame the extensive Photoshopping in several images on ‘the intern’ and decline to comment on the allegations of staging shots? He then also changed his ‘label’ from Photojournalist to visual storyteller, which in itself says rather a lot.
I’d be fascinated to hear your arguments. In my view, it does not matter how you label someone; whether it is as an expert, an armchair expert, or “precious”. Their credibility lies in their ability to debate a point and, thus far, you’ve failed to make any point at all. OK, maybe one: you have a tendency towards scathing tirades when people have different opinions to you.
Over to you.
Another great article.
Steve Mc Curry reminds me of the photographer Edward Sheriff Curtis. Curtis has been praised as a gifted photographer but also criticized by some contemporary ethnologists for manipulating his images. By reinforcing the native identity as the noble savage and a tragic vanishing race, some believe Curtis deflected attention from the true plight of American natives.