Larry Clark

Larry Clark was a small town photographer, taking pictures of him and his friends, taking drugs, getting laid and handling guns. In essence he was just a boy with a camera taking snapshots of the normal every day life him and his friends were having. The pictures he took were always on that decisive moment, weather if it was someone injecting or some kind of sexual act in progress, but without a doubt it was always on the precise exact moment. But then in 1973 Larry Clark made his debut when he released a book called Tulsa showing his black and white photos which opened a whole new scene to the photography era. Shortly after the book Tulsa was published, in the same year Larry was awarded the Photographers Fellowship award from the National Endowment for the Arts.







As you can see in these pictures that Larry Clark took, it illustrates my point of nudity, drugs and guns.
When Larry published his work in the book Tulsa it gave photographers a completely different view to what a portrait can be. It shows that not every portrait has to be prepared and put in place in a certain way. E.g. standing in a certain way, having a certain look, his photos really unmask in essence the falseness that portraits show. His snapshots show the reality of what a portrait can actually be, he shows the reality of what life was actually like. Not the staged, put on clothes, facial expressions, or environments that some many photographers do show in there portraits.

Larry Clark one was of the very first photographers who did open up a whole new area of photography. As I was saying above his work was different from all the others, his work was unique in his own way. But how? How does it show that his portraits were different from other photographers portraits? If we use as an example Larry Clarks work vs Diane Arbus' work then it is very different indeed.



If you look at this photo that was taken by Larry Clark, its a picture of two of his friends, one half nude and injecting drugs into them. This photo can come across as an on the moment photo, it can come as crude, because of the task that is happening within the photo. But yet even though it seems normal to Larry Clark, to many other people including many other photographers, this isn't what a portrait was suppose to look like. It just wasn't what people were used to in some many pieces of work.



But then if you look at this photo that Diane Arbus took its very different. This is what a portrait was suppose to look like. It wasn't a snap shot of something that was happening. She took the photos how she wanted them to be. Even though sometimes she took pictures of different things such as amputees, she still took the pictures how the photographers and public were used to them. Rehearsed and pronounceable. They had to be placed in a certain way with a certain emotion showing.

In conclusion if you compare these two photographers. In some ways they were different but in some ways they were familiar. Larry Clark took pictures of a genre that people just weren't used to. Drugs, sex and guns. But then Diane Arbus also took some photos that people weren't used to such as amputees but she took them in a way that the public were used to seeing and wouldn't feel awkward or embarrassed to look at. But on the other hand they were very different photos. Larry Clarks were snap shots taken of the moment, not planned or rehearsed.  Diane Arbus photos had to be how she wanted them, standing or sitting in a certain way showing the emotion or facial expression that she wanted to be shown through the photo.

Henri Cartier Bresson

Why is he famous?

Henri Cartier Bresson is the godfather of photo journalism. He is famous for his incentive on the spot/moment photos. In 1932 Henri took his most iconic photo. A man jumping over a a puddle.
The reason this is his most famous photo is because it got described as "a European man jumping into the unknown".  Henri believed that if you wanted a good photo you would wait for it. Another one his famous photos is him at the stop of a spiral stair case. The reason this is famous because he was like a pschcic he knew if he stood at the top of these stairs someone on a bike would ride past, and that would be the on the moment photo he would capture.

Henri Cartier Bresson

France, Paris, Place de l'Europer, Gare Saint Lazare 1932

France, The Var department, Hyeres, 1932

Why is his work significant in photo journalism?

His work is significant because photojournalism is about taking that decisive photo. That on the spot moment that would capture an image that would speak to you and tell you a story about what is happening in that picture. Henris work did this very well, the way he capture photos does tell a story, which is why so many photographers looked up to him at the time and still do now. Also this is why his work is so significant.

What camera / technique did he use?

Henri was know for using only one type of camera all his life for all of his work.

Leica rangefinder, and only one lens, a 50mm. He used this camera because it was best for his technique which was pulling his camera up to his face and pulling that one instant shot. Using this camera he always knew what he was capturing inside the frame and showed best to his on the spot moment pictures technique.

       

Photo Journalism War Photography

Robert Capa / Tony ViccaroDescribe the different circumstances that these photgraphers experienced as Photojournalists in WW2:

Answer: Robert Capa and Tony Viccaro were both Photographers in World War 2. In some ways there were similar such as they were both taking pictures of the war. But in other ways they were completely different, taking pictures of different events and soldiers in different places while the war was going on. But both of them were both taking photos in different circumstances. Tony Viccaro was a solider in the war whose daily assignment was to take pictures of the war, in essence to document the events that were happening, as an ordinary GI. But then Robert Capa was a photographer who worked for a magazine taking pictures for the public so they could see what was happening in the war. Through out time they have both been compared to each other. Taking pictures of similar things such as a solider getting shot dead. Even though one of them was a solider/photographer fighting for his country and documenting everything that happened around him, and the other one was just a photographer working for a magazine, they were both monitored on the pictures they took. If pictures were found which officials didn't want the public to see such as dead american soldiers  they pictures would be destroyed. In some ways Tony Viccaro was monitored more on what he took pictures of than Robert Capa was, simply because the army wouldn't allow certain photos to be show because they didn't think the public were ready for them. The pictures they both took through the war represents what happened and how they helped to win the war. It shows the reality of what was going on, there photos documented a massive patch of chaos that showed everyone back home what they were really going through. Some of the photos that were taken by the two photographers really made your heat skip a beat because of what some of them contained.

 'Landing of the American troops on Omaha Beach, Normandy, June 6th 1944'

Some of the pictures that Robert Capa took where of the American Troops landing in Normandy on Omaha Beach. Capa took 4 films worth of photos, some of these films had extraordinary photos on according to interviews with Capa. He said he was so excited to get them developed he rushed the development, but due to development being rushed, all but 11 photos got destroyed because when they got put out to try the emulsion ran and melted them all. All that was left was 11 amazing photos, know as the Magnificent 11. As you can see below these are the 11 photos that were captured. Even though there's only 11, they still show the meaning of war, and what the soldiers had to endure on a day to day basis. Cold weather, bullets being hailed at them, dead bodies every, and the prospect of them being one of those lifeless bodies. As said earlier Robert Capa wasnt a solider, just a photographer that was hired by a magazine. Even though he did not fight you can still see some of the conditions he was put through to get the photos that he wanted and that he needed.

That right there is one of the differences between Robert Capa and Tony Viccaro. Robert capa put him self in those conditions to get the pictures he needed. Tony Viccaro was thrown into those conditions to get the pictures someone else wanted, while fighting for his life at the same time. One is done to show the public, the other is to document the war.

Find and upload to your blog some work of theirs:

Answer:

Robert Capa:  

Robert Capa Work:

Tony Viccaro: 

Tony Viccaro Work:

 

Describe the difference between the video footage and the photograph of the "Execution"

When this photo was taken it capture a lot of people around the world. The reason for this is because when you watch the video it happens so quick you don't have enough time to let your feelings connect to anything in the picture, you just simply see someone getting shot. But when you look at the photo it demonstrates a much larger effect on your feelings. The reason for this is because you can see the pain and fear in the mans face who has been captured. This causes everyone to feel emotion for him. It shows every one that the war they think is happening i.e. the heroic american men with some Vietnamese fighting along side them, is actually american men fighting with Vietnamese who are executing people in the street with hand cuffs on and no trial to be seen or heard of. This causes a massive about of emotion for this picture. A photo like this is one of those on the spot photos. If Eddie Adams took the picture a second early it would be just two people standing there. If he took it a second late it would just be some standing over a dead body. But he took the picture so accurately that he managed to catch that feeling of what the war was like. In the video it captured the whole event. Yes it showed what the war was like, but it doesn't produce the same amount of feelings that the photo does. At the end of the day that's what Eddie Adams wanted to happen, he wanted sorrow and sadness to be shown for the man being shot.

If I add my own opinion to this photo and compare it with the video. I would say that you can see how this photo has captured that moment. It shows that even though the video captured it as well, the photo was the one piece of evidence that was shown reliable. It was shown reliable because more people would compare other examples, or compare there emotions with the picture rather than the footage. This one photo shows how iconic the photographic industry is and how reliable it can be in capture those moments, which will shown anyone else who wasn't there what is really happening behind the scenes. Its shows whats really happening and is giving the people of the public the chance to discuss and vent there own views and opinions on the matter at hand. In my this photo right here is why photojournalism is so iconic and reliable in providing the evidence people need to see what is really happening in certain situations.

Now days photographs and video footage are still an effect way of gathering information and showing what is happening in major events. But on the other hand there are many more effective ways. As time has gone on social media has taken over the media industry. For example the London riots...