"Pictures on a Page"

Part of a suggested reading list I have been reading "Pictures on a Page" (Evans H (1978) Pictures on a Page Pimlico Ed. London Pimlico) over the last few days. In essence the book is a primer for would be photojournalists and there is a great deal of information about the way such a person should work and a mass of examples from some of the best in the business. I am not quite sure why it was suggested that I read it as I have absolutely no intention of being a photojournalist. However on the the general principle that there is always something to learn from every source however irrelevant it may seem to be on first acquaintance I persevered.

My first response is that there is nothing in the book that is solely relevant to the world of the photojournalist. Emphasis is placed on the needs for good composition including cropping that is true for all photographs irrespective of purpose. There would be something seriously wrong if a student of photography had reached the final elements of the Course without having absorbed the fundamentals. He may choose to ignore them but he should at least understand why the decision to break the rules has been taken. We are also introduced to the work of the member of staff who has decided what story to pursue (and probably the line to be taken both by the reporter and the photographer) and the person who chooses the image to be published. Probably most photographers whether working for a paper or not has a person or persons in their life who have a similar function. Happily for the majority their livelihood does not depend upon the whim of an editor or the vagaries of news stories where the 'major' story is pushed of the pages by a bigger event. In essence there is nothing unique about the work of a photojournalist as is evidenced by the move by newspapers and magazines to reduce their full time photographic staff to an absolute minimum. Why face all the costs of a full time employer when the amateur is offering you images taken on a smart phone or a telephone call to the Press Association or Getty images will provide you with what you want?

Harold Evans worked as an editor with both the Sunday Times and The Times so it is inevitable that he will plead a special case for the single image in the newspaper over the newsreel beamed directly into our homes. His argument is based on his belief that the still photograph is akin to the way that we remember important events. He asks the rhetorical question of the reader how we remember the Vietnam war suggesting strongly that it will be through the impact of a single photograph. I am not convinced that this is generally true and certainly is not in my case. My memory is of the footage on television of the people being taken off the roof of the US Embassy. Similarly my memory of the Iraq war is of a newsreel fill of Cruise missile crossing the night sky to a destination unknown. In the latter case the reason why this is a strong memory is because the 'commentary' is by my son-in-law. An image, such as the children running away from a napalm bomb attack, is memorable because there is something about it that does not ring true and I am left with the wish that I could see both the beginning of the incident and the outcome. Images of the assassination of JFK fail to have the impact of film footage where, with knowledge already gained, we watch a smiling man accompanied by his wife being driven towards his death.

Evans does suggest that the single image can be "rich in meaning because it is a trigger image of all the emotions aroused by the subject" (p5). I agree that this is the strength of a single image providing we have some understanding of what we are seeing. It is also a weakness because our reaction to an image is largely controlled by our interpretation - an interpretation that depends, almost fully, upon our world view. Take as an example the famous Robert Capa photograph of the death of a fighter in the Spanish Civil war. How one interprets this photograph depends upon which side you see yourself on or whether it matters to you that someone has been killed in the fight for 'justice'.

Evans suggests (p13) that "We have learned to 'read' black and white photography so effectively that you are unlikely to have been actively aware that the pictures (in the book) were not in colour". He goes on "the black and white picture may appear more real than the colour picture. We have learned to supply our own colour information to a black and white picture". It has to be remembered that the book was written (1978) when virtually all images in a newspaper were black and white so that our learning was thorough familiarisation rather than a conscious action. Furthermore the majority of television until the late 1960's was black and white. The dominance of black and white in the media providing the general public with news information meant that black and white images were seen to be more truthful. I have given a considerable amount of thought to Evans' other assertions. Was I actively aware that 'the pictures were not in colour'. No - largely because my expectations were that the pictures would be in black and white.

The final assertion 'We have learned to provide our own colour information to a black and white picture' I believe to be tenuous at the best. As far as I am aware I do not 'colour' the image in my mind. I have to recognise that this may be, in part, because I have decided to study black and white photography for my major project so I am more interested in the range and quality of the many tones of grey. However as far as I am aware the only time I may colour the picture is when asked by someone else such as when I am showing my grandchildren photographs of their parents when young children (the ultimate parent's revenge!) and they ask the question what colour dress is mummy wearing.

Perhaps the part of the book that resonated most strongly with me was Evans' question "Is photography art" (see Introduction). He quotes Cartier-Bresson ("I don't know is photography is art or is not art") and tells us that Edward Steichen, who did not give a hoot in hell about photography as art, wanted it to explain man to man. Evans argues that the question has not become answered by the idea that - what is important is the soul of the photographer. He goes on "True some photographers may be inspired to imaginative exploration, but it will be a pity if concern with technique, and the externalisation of inner fantasies suborn the value of content.". I could not agree more. Self-indulgence in expressing ones innermost thoughts and fantasies through ones work is a recipe for disaster and yet is encouraged by academia. Perhaps all photographers should have a big sign above where they work - "How I see the world and represent it to mankind is solely mine. What is not mine is the way that the world will interpret my work. Genius needs to be tempered with reality."