Tim Hetherington talking crap
Written by duckrabbitThis is what he says on the Times Lens Blog:
If you are interested in mass communication, then you have to stop thinking of yourself as a photographer. We live in a post-photographic world. If you are interested in photography, then you are interested in something — in terms of mass communication — that is past. I am interested in reaching as many people as possible.
All I can say to Tim is if we really are living in a ‘post-photographic world’ somebody forgot to tell Facebook (in 2008 there were 10 Billion photos on the website, around 15 Billion photos are served daily, traffic daily reaches 300000 photos per second)
More people will look at photos on just the BBC website in a day then will go to the cinema and watch documentaries like Restrepo in a year. There is just no factual basis to say that photography does not reach a mass audience, which is the point Tim makes so unequivocally.
By the way I don’t see Tim advertising himself as a post-photographer when his website comes up on google.
The rest of the article though is worth reading and a lot of what he says is bang on.
UPDATE:
I think Tim is bang-on throughout, in the context of his own practice and the intentions of his work …
all being relative, his film going on general release multiplies the audience much more than any other form of media.
Read ¨post-photographic¨ as within the context of his film release, then think on ¨war photographer¨ by way of example – the mass audience bought to that body of work..
facebook? really?
duck RESPONSE:
Thanks David.
I certainly think the idea of us living in ‘post-photographic world’ is total crap. There is no basis for that statement. Photography has never been practiced by so many people and never reached so many people. Facebook is the classic example. A website that is likely to reach one billion users sooner and to which photography is key. Imagine taking all photographs off Facebook, the site wouldn’t survive very long. Then there’s Flickr.
Tim himself no longer counts himself as a photographer. That’s totally different. But why do you have to stop thinking of yourself as a ‘photographer’ if you are interested in mass communication? I’m pretty confident that an audio slideshow on the BBC website will be seen be more people in a week than everyone who goes to see Restrepo at the cinema in a year; probably by a multiple of about five.
Later this year I’m making a documentary with the ‘photographer’ Joseph Rodriguez that will be heard by around 8 million and the photos seen by about 500000. I didn’t sell the the doco on the basis of working with a ‘post-photographer’.
It seems to have escaped Tim that people can think of themselves as more that one thing. You can be a photographer and a business man, or a teacher, or a father, film-maker, or a prat. You can be all those things, and more.
Tim was discussing similar points at his PhotoVoice seminar in May, it certainly divides people. I don’t feel he’s talking crap, but I do feel he makes some pretty sweeping statements regarding ‘mass communication’.
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (42 Comments)
i think what he’s trying to say is that he’s a storyteller first and foremost. photographers are not really verbose people
i think tim is bang-on throughout, in the context of his own practice and the intentions of his work..
all being relative, his film going on general release multiplies the audience much more than any other form of media.
read ¨post-photographic¨ as within the context of his film release, then think on ¨war photographer¨ by way of example – the mass audience bought to that body of work..
facebook? really?
Thanks David.
I certainly think the idea of us living in ‘post-photographic world’ is total crap. There is no basis for that statement. Photography has never been practiced by so many people and never reached so many people. Facebook is the classic example. A website that is likely to reach one billion users sooner and to which photography is key. Imagine taking all photographs off Facebook, the site wouldn’t survive very long. Then there’s Flickr.
Tim himself no longer counts himself as a photographer. That’s totally different. But why do you have to stop thinking of yourself as a ‘photographer’ if you are interested in mass communication? I’m pretty confident that an audio slideshow on the BBC website will be seen be more people in a week than everyone who goes to see Restrepo at the cinema in a year; probably by a multiple of about five.
Later this year I’m making a documentary with the ‘photographer’ Joseph Rodriguez that will be heard by around 8 million and the photos seen by about 500000. I didn’t sell the the doco on the basis of working with a ‘post-photographer’.
It seems to have escaped Tim that people can think of themselves as more that one thing. You can be a photographer and a business man, or a teacher, or a father, film-maker, or a prat. You can be all those things, and more.
I don’t think he’s talking crap at all. It’s a very interesting interview. Many valid points in there.
Tim was discussing similar points at his PhotoVoice seminar in May, it certainly divides people. I don’t feel he’s talking crap, but I do feel he makes some pretty sweeping statements regarding ‘mass communication’.
He has got one thing right. New York girls are way hotter than UK chicks!
Now you really are going to kick off a debate ADAM
Duck,
I’m not sure that I agree Tim is ‘talking crap’.
It’s a very interesting article and there is no doubt that he raises points that I’ve certainly never thought about.
This idea of becoming (how I see it) a ‘jack of all trades’ and the notion that we no longer need(?) to become specialists in our fields is a new concept (especially to photographers) – and why not if it suits the cause?
Is this an effort to ‘rebrand’ himself, most likely.
I don’t think the facebook argument really fits into this discussion – of course there has never been so many photos, our digital world is rife, but i’m sure most would agree you cannot compare that relentless overflow of 1’s and 0’s by millions of people world wide with professional photography (in any genre).
Surely it is because of the facebook world that I believe we are or soon will be in a ‘post-photographer’ world….at least from a professionals standpoint of business, happy clients and the now rare achievement of actually making money from stills and stills alone.
Matt
Hi Matt,
please read what I wrote again. I am referring specifically to the quote at the top of the article. I then say he goes on to make some very good points.
You are making all kinds of distinctions and qualifications here that Tim does not make. If he did then he wouldn’t be talking crap.
He states that we are living in a ‘post photographic world’ and quite clearly we are not.
Upon re-reading admittedly I did go off on a tangent, I guess that’s what I picked up off the complete article.
I completely agree we certainly do not live in a ‘post-photographic’ world (as mentioned in my original post in my round about, sort of, ‘relentless digital’ analogy.) – but I don’t think you can compare the two.
Is the comment meant to be taken from the point of view of a (very successful) ‘traditional’ photographer? – I hope so!
Also, another point, does our ‘post-photographic’ world of billions and billions of images actually hinder the mass communication he talks about? I think so.
True … ‘Mass communication’ is a term out of the eighties, as Zarina points out and as I think you’re saying here. We’ve moved on a lot. The flow of information is now in many many more directions, but we still read books, still go to the cinema and still look at and take photographs … just more so!
Matt, I agree entirely with your point that the interview is — in part — an attempt to further “rebrand” himself in a highly competitive marketplace. The notion that we live in a post-photographic world is an extravagant exaggeration, as I’m sure he’s perfectly aware.
As for Facebook… Seems to me that it’s absolutely on point. Those billions of photos on the site remind use of the power of the still image. We — all of us, I think — will always want to see moments captured in time, to be able to study, as we do on FB, the faces and antics of friends and lovers. In documentary work and journalism, the still image does and will allow us to study, to contemplate, to look deeply, to see more clearly. I don’t think we’re disagreeing on this.
I do like the interview as a whole. Much to think about. I’ll probably use it in my teaching.
this would be my take home message as it gives me the most food for thought: ‘forget photography…[the issue is] the authentic representation of things outside ourselves’ (twittered by David Campbell yesterday). I think Tim Hetherington is trying to shed the label “photographer” and all the ballast that goes with it …
And of course photography is STILL an important way of representing the world, authentically or otherwise. To suggest otherwise is illogical.
I agree and I’m sure it always will be. I think this ‘forget photography’ statement is about approaching subjects not necessarily as a photographer but somehow in broader terms. It’s about thinking about which tools and techniques can communicate a story across in the best way (today!).
or maybe the man is just trying to provoke a reaction … much the same as is often done on this blog 😉
“mass communication”… ah last time i used those phrase was in mid-90s when i was at uni. i think the keyword now is “multimedia.”last week i hastily asked Sally Soames at her show of any advice to young photographers. she said, “forget it. it’s all digital now.” (i must ask her again to elaborate for my article). what is it about the new way of communicating today that make photographers so jumpy? i can speak on behalf of younger generation who are born knowing only multimedia and digital photography; they love photography and still aspire to be called “photographers”. but the way they use/communicate it is completely different.
I totally agree Zarina, ‘mass communication’ feels like a term off a dodgy media course.
Duck; you’ve set a few hares running here!
I don’t think Tim is talking ‘crap’ at all. I think he is making some points you actually agree with. I’ve engaged Tim online over his Afghanistan work (see http://www.david-campbell.org/2009/05/22/embedded-in-afghanistan/, especially the extensive comments between us) and I enjoyed talking with him Newcastle good a couple of months back when he presented his excellent Liberia work at the Side Gallery. It gave me a sense of where he is coming form in the Lens interview.
The point of contention depends on what one means by “photography”. Of course, it would be ludicrous in a world of expanding imagery to say that photographic practice (the making, distribution and consumption of images) was anything but more important then ever. But that’s not what Tim is talking about in my view.
He is cautioning against making “Photography” (better expressed with a capital P), understood as the profession, the particular history, the gatekeepers, the award givers, etc etc, the major concern. So the quote I tweeted yesterday reads, in full —
“My point about not being a photographer is that we can’t protect photography – forget photography – when we are interested in the authentic representation of things outside of ourselves.”
The best way to understand what Tim is getting at is to contrast his interview to the recent statements of Jean Francois Leroy of Visa pour l’image. Like others (I’m thinking of the Digital Journalist last year), Leroy issues annual statements that effectively bemoan the “death of photography” or “death of photojournalism” given the way the mega agencies (whose money Visa doesn’t mind taking, as @foto8 pointed out) and the traditional media outlets don’t commission or fund or publish photographic work like the did in the alleged “golden age”.
Tim’s point is forget this nostalgia and desire to return to a past that is long gone. Instead he wants people to concentrate on the story, and use as many platforms as possible to get the story out. On both counts I think he is spot on. And that, I’m sure, is something you concur with.
Thanks David.
I can’t comment on what he says based on people extrapolating all kinds of meaning that isn’t there in the statement I quoted.
Tim says:
‘We live in a post-photographic world.’
You say
‘It would be ludicrous in a world of expanding imagery to say that photographic practice (the making, distribution and consumption of images) was anything but more important then ever.’
I agree and that’s why clearly on this point he’s talking crap. Whichever way people spin it we are not living in a ‘post-photographic’ world. How many photos came out of Haiti by professionals?
The same goes for the point about mass communication. I think the illustration of pictures on the BBC or New York Times website, largely taken by professionals and seen by huge numbers of people illustrates that. Infact the presentation of them is much more modern than watching his documentary in the cinema. (something I love to do!)
I’m not arguing with anything else Tim says in the article. As I wrote most of it is bang on. But Tim himself is coming from an old school perspective because every new generation of photographers re-invents the way things are presented and the tools they use. As Zarina points out:
‘I can speak on behalf of younger generation who are born knowing only multimedia and digital photography; they love photography and still aspire to be called “photographers”. but the way they use/communicate it is completely different.’
I see that at LCC on the Masters course. I was surprised, none of the students I taught wanted to photograph like Nachtwey, they all have different aspirations, but they are all fiercely proud of being photographers.
The truth is the term ‘photographer’ or ‘photography’ is only a problem if it suits us to make it one. It’s not a barrier to achievement. It hasn’t done Tim any harm. Besides, as you are pointing out, it’s not the label that matters, because the work should do the best talking.
So why does Tim get hung up on it?
Duck – you say “I can’t comment on what he says based on people extrapolating all kinds of meaning that isn’t there in the statement I quoted.”
But you are extrapolating, just like everyone reading the interview. Statements don’t have unequivocal meanings, which is why we are having this debate. I can’t speak on Tim’s behalf. I can just offer a reading based on my interpretation of the interview, filled out with some background from his Newcastle presentations. There are competing views here of that event too — Brenda, below, claims “Hetherington seemed jaded when he was in Newcastle, bitter even.” I didn’t see or hear anything to support that view, but each to their own.
‘Photography’ can encompass many different aspects. You want to read it one way and say if TH says ‘post-photographic’ it has to mean only one thing. My point is that there might be other issues at stake here, and we should consider those alternative interpretations. The new generation of image makers might be proud to call themselves photographers, and why not, but that doesn’t mean they buy into the ossified view of professional practice espoused by Leroy and others does it?
Thanks David,
You make good points and its true having heard Tim you’ll know a lot more where he is coming from. A duck can’t be a rabbit, unless he/she sees two sides!
Agreeing with what you say and agreeing with much of what Tim says later in the interview I still just can’t work out how ‘we are living in a post-photographic world’; no matter which way your read that statement. Maybe I lack a bit of imagination!
Also if we can extrapolate any meaning we want from the statement, doesn’t that make the statement itself meaningless?
Even if we somehow equate Tim’s words with a movement away from Leroy’s world then surely that’s not ‘post photography’, afterall Leroy is just a single voice, but actually a reflection that we are living in a world that photographically is just less elitist? Dare I say it more interesting?
I guess it could be argued that we are not as reliant on photos as we were in the past. Also that we have less belief in them, but that’s a long way short of saying we are post photography.
You yourself have argued so authoritatively that what has really changed is the economics. Photography, even professionally taken photography is more accesible than at any other time in history. How does Tim’s statement sit with the fact that the interview appears in the New York Times Lens blog. Surely the blog itself is testament to the fact that we are not living in a post-photographic world?
Tim does qualify his statement by saying,
‘If you are interested in photography, then you are interested in something — in terms of mass communication — that is past. I am interested in reaching as many people as possible.’
Again, he’s making a statement, but isn’t there something a little bit absurd about stating that photography as a form or reaching people is past in an interview on The New York Times Lens website? We are debating this and not Restrepo exactly because I can go on the Lens blog, whereas Restrepo remains out of my reach (unless I download it illegally)
To me this reads like someone whose photos didn’t achieve what he hoped. Is that because the march of time has somehow changed the impact of photography, or because Tim bought into a myth about what they could/would/might achieve?
Of course it could be both, or if you believe in rabbit’s neither!
We’ll have to take your word for it, David. You express these ideas with much greater force and clarity than Hetherington does in the interview.
Duckie was picking up, correctly, it seems to me, on the inconsistencies in what Hetherington was saying: post-photographic world, not interested in traditional techniques… Yet, as the same time, extolling the power of stills in Vogue and the book and the virtues of “working across the spectrum” of techniques, which obviously includes traditional ones.
You know what he means. Someone coming to the interview cold might not.
That said, The interview is fascinating and, as I wrote above, I may well use it in my teaching. But it’s as much about marketing (himself) as it is analysis (of the industry).
“…extolling the power of stills in Vogue and the book…”
Err… That would be Vanity Fair, of course.
well – i think it´s all been said now :ø)
for me it is about context, and if tim is talking from the perspective of the single image no longer being able to ¨change the world¨ then it´s not crap at all – vindicated in part by your efforts to release multimedia and a documentary of your own, duckR.. photography is one ingredient of your output and not a conclusion.
harking back to an age when all the photographer had to do was deliver a set of astonishingly harsh photographs in order to effect change is naive,
ergo – if you are interested in mass communication (with the intention of effecting change) we live in a post (simply) photographic world..
the consumption of photography on flickr and facebook is a different case in point and utterly irrelevant.. photography is thriving, subjectively speaking, for most people.. for people who are delivering content professionally, subjectively speaking, the simple snap is no longer enough.
You see I’ve never believed that the single image changes the world. Its just part of the mix and it’s as powerful for me now as it ever was.
Some people I’m sure exaggerated its power!
I agree with John Edwin Mason:
‘As for Facebook… Seems to me that it’s absolutely on point. Those billions of photos on the site remind use of the power of the still image. We — all of us, I think — will always want to see moments captured in time, to be able to study, as we do on FB, the faces and antics of friends and lovers. In documentary work and journalism, the still image does and will allow us to study, to contemplate, to look deeply, to see more clearly.’
.. and i totally agree that the single image relegates video and movie to wallpaper in terms of power – because i am a photographer ..
might it be that the general population has moved on and settled into the familiar folds of face/flicker/space, gorging on comfort and respite while leaving us to contemplate our own proverbial navel in each others work?
i don´t think it´s tim that is hung up on it..
:ø)
Good point. I knew that one was coming!
labels and boxes aside, whatever the struggles we are each having to keep up with the changing landscape – it´s the photographer and their efforts / wide-thinking, (perhaps more than the output in itself), which is key..
so more power to ducks, tims, charlie and jims who do much more than click the shutter button and file snaps..
My god, this debate is descending into a love in! That’s not very internet. Where are the anonymous ranters and ravers?
Look I agree with you all, because I know that you are all lovely people. Lots of you are photogs. The fact that I know lots of lovely photogs makes me think the stereotype about them being all egotistical wankers a bit exaggerated!
The truth is at duckrabbit we are sticking up for photography. Not from an elitist point of view, but because it rocks our world. It also rocks the world of a lot of people we know.
Maybe the world has moved on. Maybe …
Duck,
I think it’s time that you came back to the real world….photography is dead and should only ever be described in the past tense.
😉
Its a sitting duck
photography is dead? long live photography
dreading that commission to catch the king of norway shaking hands with himself on 3d apparatus, simultaneously recording audio, video and stills, then compiling it all into a MM feast for t´internet.. and all for a measly 50 quid..
pah, i tell you
pah.
(..free rant for your love there duck)
pea´s
d
Be careful with your rates .. charge 50 quid and someone will undercut you …
Hetherington seemed jaded when he was in Newcastle, bitter even. I was moved by his Liberia work but it was very intense, much of it quite hard to look at.
Most ‘photography’ is young women taking pictures of their social lives and thereafter, their children growing up. Young men do it too, but not to nearly the same extent. This anecdotal evidence from someone who ran a dev shop for many decades. That’s what’s on Facebook, and long may it continue.
Lots of this kind of thing about at the moment: but photography has been declared dead many times, most vociferously at the advent of colour neg. Long live colour neg. I can’t even see that disappearing soon.
Nice comment thread. Ty all.
David:
since you use the plural, I assume there were several presentations.
What confused me about the interview is how young photographers could be inspired by it into finding these new ways and platforms, reaching all these audiences. Tim has a great reputation, built on powerful achievements, that started in the traditional photography he is now leaving behind. How can young artists trying to make a name for themselves start creating the opportunities that will allow them to follow in these footsteps, should they wish to do so? How can they be seen by a great audience? To me, that is the intriguing part – the part that I seek answers for – and I get no concrete thoughts on that. I am left wondering to what audience Tim is directing these statements and how this audience can be inspired into succesful creativity. My feeling is Tim’s statements reflect his thoughts on his own situation only, there is no broader perspective, the generalized wording is just somewhat unfortunate.
Diederik,
thanks for your comments. I think you have nailed the issue. Tim is branching out into these new things because he has mastered photography. Its through his reputation as a photographer that these opportunities have come.
Only a few questions. Tell me, please, what mass media don’t use photos to communicate. Give me an example of a story telling of documentary that is only video or writing and is part of the mass media. Simple. In my opinion mass media need photos, writing and videos, art, whatever. But documentary mass media without photos, i don’t think this is real. If yes, well, then i am living inside a nutshell for some time. Kind regards
Agreed, utterly.