Concepts The difference between documentary and photojournalism?

[sirch]

I have a feeling that pictures in the genre of "documentary" are different to photojournalism but is it possible to define one as distinct from the other? Is it just the intended use that makes the difference or even just who pays for it?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Stolen from the web

"Photojournalism images are just focussed on the short term audience involvement, whereas as the name suggests, documentary photography images are stored for the long-term study. The photojournalism images are just published in the newspapers, TV Channels, etc. hence these are used only in short term. Whereas the documentary images are filed and stored for the future usage. These images literally tell the history or the past. Closely the Photojournalism and the Documentary photography are interrelated, But the only difference is that in the way they are used"

I'm not saying the above is correct, but it certainly is a starter for 10 in this discussion. If it is 'correct' then I would suggest that some 'photojournalism' images become 'documentary' images in the fullness of time

 

[Nod]

My thought is that photojournalism is a subdivision of documentary rather than the two being different "genres".

 

[myotis]

I have a feeling that pictures in the genre of "documentary" are different to photojournalism but is it possible to define one as distinct from the other? Is it just the intended use that makes the difference or even just who pays for it?

My understanding of these is that documentary refers to long term photo stories, which can be about anything.

Photojournalism is about using photographs to tell "stories" about current events. So going deeper than "reportage" photography which is more about illustrating a current event story e.g. a grab shot of some celeb arriving at an event.

As with everything I suspect the edges are a bit blurred.

 

[Ed Sutton]

My hastily considered view, in broad brush terms, is that photojournalism tends to be for immediate consumption in the news media, documentary tends to be slower burning and often made to highlight a long term issue with a view to changing public opinion or recording something of cultural interest. Photojournalism becomes tomorrow's chip papers, documentary becomes historical record.

These days there is also a further sub-division of documentary which I think of as 'art documentary' where the aim is to make pictures to show in galleries and put in photobooks. It is often (for me) difficult to work out from looking at the pictures WTF the photographer is on about! More so when the artist (they are always artists) are subverting/critiquing/interogating the genre of documentary by faking staging things (e.g the much lauded Afronauts).

Maybe more later. Busy day today.

 

[sirch]

Thanks all, pretty much what I thought too.

a further sub-division of documentary which I think of as 'art documentary'

That's interesting, I guess documentary is a fairly broad field but I perceive a real difference between, say, Chris Killip and Martin Parr both of whom I believe are thought of as documentary photographers. I guess Parr is more in the art documentary area

 

[Ed Sutton]

That's interesting, I guess documentary is a fairly broad field but I perceive a real difference between, say, Chris Killip and Martin Parr both of whom I believe are thought of as documentary photographers. I guess Parr is more in the art documentary area

Parr can cross between the two, there are more obtuse photographers in the 'art documentary' arena. I might dig some out (much) later.

 

[droj]

Afronauts

The thing with Afronauts (and many other books) is obviously that they're not to be viewed literally - they are inventions that reference the 'real' world in an imaginative way rather than portray it. You have to enjoy the game. But they can make statements that might be oblique.

What about Dalston Anatomy, with its juxtaposition of realism and invention, as a portrait of place?

Or Asylum of the Birds, documentary of a fantastical reality?

Chris Killip and Martin Parr

An odd pair there. Killip appeared to have compassion for his subjects, whilst Parr to me tends to give the appearance of taking the p***.

Categories are one thing, but work doesn't always fit into neat slots ...

 

[Mr Perceptive]

An odd pair there. Killip appeared to have compassion for his subjects, whilst Parr to me tends to give the appearance of taking the p*** ...

The former is a 'proper' documentary photograher (and I'd suggest that any NE fans also look at the work of Mik Critchlow, Tish Murtha and the whole Amber Collective), the other is an the work of an 'observational' photographer.

 

[droj]

The former is a 'proper' documentary photograher

As in producing themed bodies of work ...

the other is an the work of an 'observational' photographer.

As in hit and run ...

 

[sirch]

Parr to me tends to give the appearance of taking the p***

I know what you mean but for me it's more ironic, tongue-in-cheek than p-taking

I think Parr produces themed bodies of work, it seems to be more about the style and the "edit", i.e. what he includes and what he leaves out

 

[Ed Sutton]

The thing with Afronauts (and many other books) is obviously that they're not to be viewed literally - they are inventions that reference the 'real' world in an imaginative way rather than portray it. You have to enjoy the game. But they can make statements that might be oblique.

What about Dalston Anatomy, with its juxtaposition of realism and invention, as a portrait of place?

Or Asylum of the Birds, documentary of a fantastical reality?

What about them? Photography is a literal medium as far as I'm concerned.

"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."
Paul Reas

An odd pair there. Killip appeared to have compassion for his subjects, whilst Parr to me tends to give the appearance of taking the p***.

Parr's earlier work was very much in the traditional 'Magnum style' (e.g The Nonconformists). In amongst the irony he still does 'celebratory' stuff (e.g. The Rhubarb Triangle). But let's face it, some things need the p*** taking out of them.

 

[sirch]

Reflecting on this I guess photojournalists are photographing to illustrate a short form story which more often than not happens over a constrained period of time, hours to weeks, be that the village fete or a humanitarian disaster (no jokes about what's the difference please). Documentary can be much more varied, longer-form, over much longer periods and may be just a largely unbiased collection of pictures or can have the photographer's influence much more strongly represented in it.

 

[droj]

Parr's earlier work was very much in the traditional 'Magnum style' (e.g The Nonconformists).

I find even much of that content p***-taking. The effect is that he appears to objectify his subjects rather than to identify with them - which witholds from them the dignity that should normally be accorded to fellow human beings. Yes, some things need the p*** taking out of them, but does it need to be so routinely predatory?

"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."

Yes, there's something in that, but at the same time it's a generalisation.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I find even much of that content p***-taking. The effect is that he appears to objectify his subjects rather than to identify with them - which witholds from them the dignity that should normally be accorded to fellow human beings. Yes, some things need the p*** taking out of them, but does it need to be so routinely predatory?

Parr's UK work is very much about class, and I think how it is perceived depends on which class someone considers themselves to belong to relative to the particular class being portrayed. If you are of the class photographed you might not see the pictures as critical, but simply as representative of how things are. Witness the reactions to A Last Resort when it was first shown.

Yes, there's something in that, but at the same time it's a generalisation.

Generalisations keep us from being bogged down in pedantic hair splitting. Generally speaking...

 

[droj]

pedantic hair splitting

The pedant splits hairs, whilst the generalist splits their sides. The trouble with pedants is that they're so resolutely miserable ...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Generalisations keep us from being bogged down in pedantic hair splitting. Generally speaking...

It seems to me that there is a spectrum of image recording that runs from hard news single images through the photojournalism of Life and Picture Post on to the picture library style of J. Allan Cash and thence to thematic books such as Rodney Tibbs's series on the Fennland and Cambridgeshire.

Further on we come to the more (for want of a better term) lyrical style of Martin Parr, which I think merges into the area of entertainment, rather than information.

 

[FishyFish]

Parr's UK work is very much about class, and I think how it is perceived depends on which class someone considers themselves to belong to relative to the particular class being portrayed. If you are of the class photographed you might not see the pictures as critical, but simply as representative of how things are. Witness the reactions to A Last Resort when it was first shown.

The BBC documentary series that acompanies Parr's Signs of the Times is well worth a watch.

Signs of the Times

Examining perceptions of good and bad taste in the British home.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[cardiff_gareth]

I think Parr's work sits between documentary and photo journalism as he is able to record the ordinary in plain site, what we might call social history? Take for example his book Martin Parr: In Wales. not all images shout Wales but are familiar sights up and down the country. This book goes back to early mid 70's where he shot in black and white before moving to the 80's and mid millennials where he shot in colour and recorded life, fashions etc of that period.