Don McCullin TV Programme

[Paul Heester]

Mike has pretty much answered this for me I would have replied in a similar vein.

We have certainly seen the last of the true war photographers.

Why do you say this?

[davidc]

Hmm were those guys as famous THEN as they are now? Or have the intervening decades not made them more famous than they were when they were alive? As for naming one, Paul Hansen won World Press 2013 this year of, surprise surprise, dead children (all too common from this type of photography).

Also it was more what defines a "true war photographer"? We certainly have lots and lots of those, more than ever in fact, and just because they themselves are not famous doesn't mean their images are not striking, that the image won't eventually become the equivalent of McCullin's work and they won't become as famous after they are dead than those names you mention. If anything, I think the rise of the cameraphone means we'll be seeing MORE truly memorable images - after all the best camera is the one you have with you - but there will always be a place for quality work produced by dedicated war photographers quietly going about doing their thing. And their higher quality work is the stuff that's likely to make it into the history books rather than the lower quality (but easier disseminated at the time) cameraphone stuff.

I think it's probably a case of the artist not being appreciated until after their time rather than the demise of the swashbuckling rogue braving life and limb for that perfect image

[Mike Farley]

Hmm were those guys as famous THEN as they are now? Or have the intervening decades not made them more famous than they were when they were alive?

All the photographers I mentioned were well known in their lifetimes. It is true that Ansel Adams did not make a lot of money from his photography until quite late in his life, but that was not due to a lack of public awareness. There are a number of people who tell the tale of him offering an original print of "Moonrise over Hernandez" for $500 and, much to their subsequent chagrin, declining it.

As for naming one, Paul Hansen won World Press 2013 this year of, surprise surprise, dead children (all too common from this type of photography).

I would expect you, as someone with a keen interest in photography, to be able to give such an example. He is not exactly a household name, though, is he? Some people might be able to recall Tim Hetherington, but would not necessarily recognise any of his images. More likely they will simply know him as "that guy who was killed in Libya".

Also it was more what defines a "true war photographer"? We certainly have lots and lots of those, more than ever in fact, and just because they themselves are not famous doesn't mean their images are not striking, that the image won't eventually become the equivalent of McCullin's work and they won't become as famous after they are dead than those names you mention.

I did not say that we are not seeing the same standard of photography as a few years ago. We undoubtedly are, but for various reasons they are not entering the public zeitgeist as in previous eras.

If anything, I think the rise of the cameraphone means we'll be seeing MORE truly memorable images - after all the best camera is the one you have with you - but there will always be a place for quality work produced by dedicated war photographers quietly going about doing their thing. And their higher quality work is the stuff that's likely to make it into the history books rather than the lower quality (but easier disseminated at the time) cameraphone stuff.

Alex Majoli covered the Iraq war using just a couple of Olympus compacts as he did not want to be burdened with a lot of equipment. He needed two as their buffers rapidly filled when he took a burst of shots, so he had them around his neck and when one stopped working he dropped it and picked up the other one.

As for quality, think of Robert Capa's D-Day landing shots, which of which were ruined due to a processing error and only a dozen or so survived with very grainy results. Arguably their very grittiness enhances their appeal as some of the greatest wartime shots ever.

Will we still have books as we know them in a few years time, or will everything be multimedia with the demand being for video clips?

I think it's probably a case of the artist not being appreciated until after their time rather than the demise of the swashbuckling rogue braving life and limb for that perfect image

Sometimes it happens, most famously Van Gogh of course, but many artists achieve fame during their lifetimes. And the reverse can happen, with well known artists going out of favour after their deaths. There are no hard and fast rules.