It’s an interesting question, one that photographers debate about constantly, especially between those who are, and those who aren’t. The general view of photographers is that Paparazzi photography is below a photographer’s credibility and those who do it are after a quick buck and couldn’t care less about the nature of photography itself. This maybe true but is there merit to what they do?
Most people, when asked about Paparazzo’s, see that money hungry person with a camera relentlessly pursuing and harassing celebs for that shot, going to any extent to get it, regardless how much danger is puts themselves or others in. However paps are also those guys who stand at red carpet capturing the stars as they pose more then happy to have their photographs taken and published in the same magazines that the trashy ones that they tried to avoid having taken appeared just the week before. This kind of attitude that Paparazzi are fine when it works for me but is an invasion of privacy when it works against me, is what causes a lot of these photographers to claim this smacks of double standards, and they probably have a point.
Just in the last few days, Queen Elizabeth II has warned British tabloids not to run any unauthorised Paparazzi photos of the royal family. Click here for more details. In other words the same photographers that are free to run the photos of Prince William giving a speech at a charity ball, or Prince Charles attending one of his many charity organisations, cannot publish the shot of Harry wearing a swastika at a fancy dress party. Many would argue that this isn’t fair, and that anything or anyone in the public view is fair game, others would ask for boundaries and restraint. But then whose version of said “boundaries” do we adhere to? My idea of what is acceptable will be very different to the view of my grandparents, or even my parents for that matter. Who is to say what is off limits?
A photographer has mounted an interesting exhibition documenting the scandal full life of sought after celebrity Gigi Gastow. The exhibition contains covers of magazines from the sixties when she was at the height of her fame, it includes her various album covers and EP’s and clippings from tabloid magazines from that turbulent period where she had a passionate affair with famed and seemly happily married actor Giorgio. The exhibition documents and existence that was rife with scandal and mixed with success and tragedy, the only thing is, Gigi doesn’t exist. The whole collection is a fabrication, quite deliberately by photographer Josh Gosfield, shot with his Nikon D300, using Photoshop he created these very authentic looking damaged archived photographs, each suiting their time period exactly. Josh Gosfields exhibition “Gigi Gastow: Black flower” can be seen here.
This raises questions and causes us to reflect on everything we think we know about people simply because we read about it in the media.
No Paparazzi may not be the most popular photographers in the world, but they are performing a service for which people are looking for, I see more tabloid magazines being sold then any thing else. So love them or hate them, the will not be going away anytime soon.
Glen.
