Hacker News Reader

That's exactly what great photojournalism is, simply being there. Being in the right place at the right time often pays very well. The idea that great photos are meticulously planned is, generally, incorrect. Most of the iconic photos of the 20th century were not in any way planned. John Filo, a photo j student at Kent State, won a Pulitzer for essentially being in the 'right place at the right time:'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Filo

Another example: the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination, shot by a private citizen on a spring-wound Bell & Howell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

I'd never heard of John Filo before so I followed your link. His account implies his picture didn't result from merely being in the right place at the right time.

- He had been shot at once (by a representative of his own government), began running (for his life?), but had the presence of mind to return and take pictures.

- Being a photographer, he had useful equipment at the ready. Many other people were around, but they didn't have the equipment. This was 1970 -- not everyone had a camera in their pockets.

- Being a photojournalism student, he may have sought and framed pictures differently than the average person. He said he was running out of film, implying he had to choose wisely. An untrained person may have run out of film or taken images that wouldn't become iconic.

I'm not arguing for or against the main issues in this thread. I was just impressed by the photograph, what it took to take it, and wouldn't characterize it as the result of just being in the right place at the right time. Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.

Despite the disagreement on that characterization, thanks for sharing that link. I'm glad to have seen the photograph and learned the story.

It is a great story, isn't it? But I think we're actually kind of agreeing on this, albiet from slightly different perspectives:

>Someone holding their ground when someone is shooting at them is ipso facto specifically choosing their place.

That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. It's not -necessairly - about the quality of equipment or technical training or 'meticulous' planning.

More than any other single factor, it's about the photographer's location. Photojournalists are trained and paid to actively seek out news and choose their locations so they -might- be there to capture that perfect moment, but if someone with an iPhone just happens to be in that ideal spot instead, it doesn't mean their photo is worth any less.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving away your photo, but I think people should be aware that, if they happen to find themselves in a newsworthy situation, they could choose to get paid for what they record, sometimes quite a bit.

The point is more "the photo was taken from Twitter without permission and now hundreds if not thousands of media organisations are using it to make money, without any compensation to the photographer."

Those organisations are used to paying for content. They make money from its distribution. Often they charge for their own.

By taking the picture without paying they are essentially being hypocritical, and the lowest form of pirate, without even the "it might mean I buy some other pictures in the future" or "she needs a new business model, not my problem" defences.

It has nothing to do with the photo's intrinsic value, whatever that is.

If we decided that art could only be produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned', the world would be a far less interesting place.

Curious if you can point out any examples of well-appreciated art that was not produced by 'experienced professionals', using 'expensive professional equipment', and must be 'meticulously planned'? I can't at the moment. Just curious what you might have in mind.

If we're talking about amateur stuff that gets thrown out at random, that's cool. But I'm not sure that putting well-appreciated art and random amateur art in the same category is a constructive argument. Like even all the really good Youtube artists who are hitting it big these days go bling bling on equipment and put a ton of effort into their work, and they're getting paid via Youtube ads to boot.

First thing to pop into my mind is xkcd. Certainly Munroe didn't need professional equipment of any kind when he started the site, still I'd argue that it is a work of art. By making a distinction between 'professionals' and 'amateurs' you stipulate that nobody can cross this border by chance, it would always require a directed effort; and that's nothing I'd call constructive.

Go back to the start of XKCD and it mostly sucks (IMO). And he currently makes his living from XKCD so he is clearly a professional today. Where each of those lines crossed is difficult to say, but at best I think it demonstrates the transition.

Agreed. As well, the art in XKCD is not in the drawings, it's in the wit. Bet you guys the wit takes a lot of effort and doesn't just come bubbling out of his head. Look at what professional comedians say about how they make their jokes. Bet the process is pretty much the same.

"Fountain", by Marcel Duchamp. You might argue that Duchamp was an experienced professional at art in general (being 30 and the producer of less-famous works), but it's a urinal that he purchased in a store and signed.

It's also one of the most influential art pieces of the 20th century. It, and his "found art" movement in general, are the cornerstones of the redefinition of art and mark the invention of conceptual art. Art no longer has to do with who made it, or how, or how much effort was put in. It's about intent. If you buy a pencil and say it's art, it's art (if perhaps not very good art).

Apparently Duchamp actually went to great lengths to create or to modify the items he "found", and then denied changing them at all, in what is perhaps yet another level of irony. Or so I've read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp#Do...

That's not what s/he is saying. He says the pictures are neither art (defined as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” by the New Oxford American dictionary) nor the work of a professional photographer (such a photo-journalist) that will use expensive equipment and maybe plan the photo (such as a fashion photographer).

Missing the point. These people simply took their phone, snapped a picture and put it on the internet.

And then after the fact, are reacting this way. They're not shooting for a project, to build their portfolio, etc. They simply took a picture of something they saw.

I think it would be a mistake to confuse the artistic value of something with its monetary value—the two are only loosely coupled.

The monetary value here is tied to the rarity of the picture. Sure, it sucks, and it was taken in 2s. But it's still unique. And interesting. So it's worth a lot.