The View on and from Photojournalism

Photojournalism is a very interesting concept.

While normal photography is generally interpreted as the "Window to the World", it is not always an honest window at all. While the photo has captured a moment as it happened, or captured a person doing something, is that photo a true representation of what actually occured? Has it been manipulated in a subtle way to convey a message that contrasts with the actual content of the photo?

Such is the minefield of photography, as while the photo can be manipulated by the photographer to tell a completely different or even biased tale, the viewer can interpret it in their own way, too. This means, as hard as it may be to accept, that photography can be the biggest liar of them all, you just have to look past the image and see for yourself, if you look hard enough.

Take this image, for example, taken by Guy Tillim:



Outwardly, we see a large crowd of Congolese people at a gathering. The situation seems aggresive and suggests a protest that may turn violent. The man to the right is pointing to the left and shouting at someone off camera, and a dancer stands above the crowd, seemingly rousing them into fervour. Other subjects in the photograph seem equally aggresive and the overall aura suggests an undercurrent of unrest. But is that the actual truth?

The image is scarcely colourful, in fact the colours are very subdued and bordering on monochromatic, apart from a few select reds that "pop", ie your eye is drawn to them and they contrast massivelly from the rest of the colour pallette. Red, in the natural world and indeed psycholigically is seen as an aggressive and harmful colour, a colour that warns us, a colour that makes us feel uneasy, especially if presented in certain situations. The fact these colours are emphasised while others are subdued shows that the photographer may be trying to convince us the crowd is a seething mass of voilent and angry people, and this is shown nicely with the dancer wearing red also (again "rousing" the crowd into action).

The sky is overcast, which conveys a greater sense of foreboding, that something is about to happen and it wont turn out well. This deepens the subdued and monochrome colours.

If you look closely though, you can see no weapons, no metaphorical torches and pitchforks, as would typically be associated with a voilent crowd of protesters. Indeed, some of the people are raising their hands as if the crowd is a dance of celebration, not of violence. The face of the dancer seems happy, though her face seems very out of focus compared to some of the faces which, while further away and lost in the morass of people, seem clearer and sharper. What is interesting about this is while the dancers face (upon closer inspection) seems cheerful, the sharper and clearer faces seem emotionless.

What I can see in this photo is that there is far more than meets the eye. Select colours are emphasised to convey a different message than the actual reality of the situation unfolding before the photographers eyes. Although there isn't a lot of backstory to this photograph, it is hard to see why he would do this. Perhaps the protesters are sympathisers to the current (and oppressive) regime and the photographer does not want these people coming across as good people, despite their happy mood. It could also mean that, after a prolonged and bloody battle the winners are celebrating victory, but the photographer is trying to subdue the mood, as while it is a happy one, it rose from bloodshed which is not something ever to be celebrated.

However, the juxtaposition of photojournalism is that the photo is interpreted by the viewer as much as it is by the photographer. While Tillim may have been trying to make a certain statement about the content of his photograph, the end viewer is ultimately the one who makes the final decision about what they are seeing, and this can lead to a mixed message or even an altered message altogether. The person who sees the photograph will have different opinions based entirely on their personality, political views, maturity, opinions, and their personal outlook on life.

The above picture to an optimist may speak volumes of the human struggle of the people photographed at the rally, that their life of oppression and their commitment to changing this for the better is a wonderful thing. A pacifist may see the expressions on the faces of the crowd as aggresive and shameful, that violence to solve violence will and in a simple sidestep rather than a step forward. The subdued colours of the photograph may cry out to the pessimist and the ignorant. They would view the picture cynically and see it as just another pointless rally that will end in bloodshed and with no change at all. Someone who has viewed the picture fleetingly wouldn't see anything other than the bright flames of the fire and the red shirt of the protester mixed in with the monochrome colours and pick out these traits as a message of violence, the picture needs more deep viewing to really see that there is more to it than violence.

This is just one facet of photography and how it can be manipulated to bend the truth to the photographer's own views on the reality they have captured. But the other crucial facet is how, while the photographer may have been trying to communicate a certain emotion in the photo he has taken, may be lost completely to the person sitting at home viewing it in a newspaper or looking at it in a museum.