Anyway, back to the WPP
One of my favourite photographers is Steve McCurry
The only photographer ever to have won 4 first prizes in the world press photo contest in same year.
Easy for me to forget now that he's one of bravest photojournalists alive today, because he has taken some amazingly beautiful images in the midst of carnage. No matter where he is in the world he can pull beauty out of thin air or air filled with death and burning oil.
Have a look at his middle east gallery below
http://www.stevemccurry.com/main.php
On magnum
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.a ... 7O3R1PWYZX
Photojournalism is just a genre of photgraphy and does not guarantee an artistic outcome. It's difficult to combine art and photojouralism, you can view a photo and the power of the event can sweep aside all mistakes made in the camera, such as Robert Capas shot on D day. It's a great photo but i don't believe it to be art (but he was a great artist) it's a document of the chaos of war.
Nick Uts iconic shot of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, running after her village was naplamed in 72, is one of the most famous war images ever taken, but is it art? It documented an important event, but an important event is not enough by itself to create art nor does art it have to be a concern
There's no one genre that is more artistic then another. There are no dull subjects, only dull ways of capturing them.
I know that's not the debate you started, it's just something that i feel is worth discussing
My all time favourite photographer W. Eugene Smith, once said:
"Humanity is worth more then a picture of Humanity, which ultimatley can serve only for exploitation"
Some photojournalism is simply that;
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -
W. Eugene Smith