The perils of “creative documentary photography”

Oct 28, 2016

Allen Murabayashi

We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.

Oct 28, 2016

Allen Murabayashi

We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

worldpressphoto

Eyebrows were raised in the photojournalism community yesterday when World Press Photo  – an industry stalwart – announced the creation of a new contest that would “not have rules limiting how images are produced.” The contest would allow staged and manipulated images – dubbed “creative documentary photography” – in support of contemporary storytelling.

One the one hand, this is outrageous. It’s more than a matter of semantics to reappropriate the meaning of “journalism” and “documentary.” Lives have literally been lost in the pursuit of the ideals espoused by these words.

But let’s take a step back and acknowledge that the contest is still unnamed and that “creative documentary photography” is, perhaps, a working title for an unfinished product.

In film and literature, creative license has been exercised for decades. “Historical fiction” and “based on a true story” are compact and effective means of storytelling. They might have an air of truthinessto them, but that doesn’t mean their efficacy as storytelling devices is diminished.

spotlight

The 2016 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture, “Spotlight,” is a perfect example. Although the writers and director took artistic liberties in telling the true story of the Boston Diocese sex scandal, the end result provided both compelling entertainment and increased awareness of a notorious issue that has plagued the Catholic Church for decades (and by the way, had the support of the actual journalists including Marty Baron, now Editor of the Washington Post).

Of course, the film wasn’t presented as a documentary, but audiences are familiar with this form of storytelling and sophisticated enough to recognize its limits. In other words, they are visually literate with the genre. They might not know precisely what is and is not historically accurate, but the director’s vision and end goal can be realized nevertheless.

Strangely, we don’t really have such a vocabulary in photography. We have the “editorial” and the “staged narrative,” but neither of those forms are used in a way the film/literature counterpart might be – at least not insofar as the documentary community is concerned (insert snarky McCurry joke here).

Documentary photographers are a passionate bunch. They work incredibly hard, often with paltry compensation, to cover topics that are important to them. They sometimes use photo contests as a way to shine a spotlight on issues that are unknown or ignored by the public, and treasure the increased exposure that winning can provide. There is no effective storytelling without an audience.

YouTube video

You might remember the viral video “Kony 2012” which garnered over 100 million views and raised awareness of a virtually unknown warlord, Joseph Kony, who terrorized swaths of the Congo and the Central African Republic. The video was criticized for inaccuracies and oversimplification of the issues, but from a storytelling perspective it was a massive success that led to military intervention. At the time it was released, I spoke at an Illinois Press Photographers Association event and rhetorically asked why hadn’t a photojournalist created such a viral sensation? Are we so boxed in by convention that we allow ourselves to be lapped by other creative enterprise? Numerous ethical (and moral) discussions will undoubtedly emerge from the discussion, but that is a good thing.

Time will tell whether World Press Photo can successfully navigate and perpetuate “creative documentary photography.” I hope that they rethink the name, but I also hope that photographers consider the rapidly evolving landscape of storytelling and how this experiment may prove to be a valuable one for the industry.

About the Author

Allen Murabayashi is the Chairman and co-founder of PhotoShelter – a photography workflow site, which regularly publishes resources for photographers. Allen is a graduate of Yale University, and flosses daily. This article was also published here and shared with permission

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

DIPY Icon

We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 responses to “The perils of “creative documentary photography””

  1. Sean Avatar
    Sean

    I totally disagree here. Things like Spotlight and Kony2012 bring awareness to known or unknown issues in a manner that will hold viewers interest and hopefully seek out more actual facts. Photojournalism on the other hand is ABOUT the truth as is it and nothing more. Docudramas like Spotlight, Kony2012 and any similar videos/photos are NOT the absolute truth, they are a biased representation of the truth as seen through the eyes of the maker. In today’s FB and social sharing world, people quickly grasp on to ANYTHING they see or read as the TRUTH regardless of how outrageous and without ANY factual basis. Just look at the current US Presidential election….it’s rift with this type of crap. I think the only thing that this new category will do is further dilute the work of true, honest, ethical photojournalists.

    1. Adam Avatar
      Adam

      Totally agree.

  2. Adam Avatar
    Adam

    This is inherently wrong. Pandering to photographers who try to turn journalism in to art are already damaging the reputation of photojournalism not the eyes of the general public. Look at the figures for public trust of press in America. Europe is no different. This award affords legitimacy to those who cheat. The arrange caught directing/moving points of interest. Photography is capable of producing great works of artistic worth but it is not art till you mess around in software, becoming a digital artist, leaving behind the photojournalist and integrity in search of fame and awards. Even in documentary I see no excuse for distorting the truth just to emphasise/sensationalised a point. The truth can not be malleable. The more anything is possible the more we must hold onto the truth and realities. To those who say ” o but Ansel Adams spent ages in the darkroom, sure to draw out the best representation of reality. He hated pictorialism, it’s twisted truth in the name of beauty, appeal.
    Photojournalist should be pushing for greater limitation of manipulation to ensure greater public faith, not their own personal image. Even in documentary photography or any form of visual story telling the further me move from the somewhat more dullness of reality the closer to Hollywood’s fantasy we step in the viewers eyes as photographers. History is the calling, not entertainment and showbiz.