Ever the completist

[slowfox]

I picked up World Press Photo 09 yesterday evening - it's actually been out for a whole month without my having procured it, but that state of affairs was never going to continue for long ;-)

Although the images are always stunning, because it's a yearbook of photojournalism, the judging panel don't necessarily go for the best photo, but seem to look for more of a balance between the picture and the story behind it. This makes sense, of course, but this year's winning image leaves me a little bit flat.

I've been collecting the World Press Photo annuals for a while, now, and have them going back to 1992 (they've actually been publishing them since 1955, but I think that the chances of extending my collection backward through time are remote). Flicking through the earlier collections, you keep getting reminded of things that were Big News back then, but have faded into the background from today's perspective.

's good stuff, though, but not necessarily uplifting stuff: a couple of people have commented that the annuals are 'those books full of photographs of people dying'. Which would be a fairly accurate summary, truth be told. But they're a (selective, stylized and contrived) reflection of the world we live in, so what should you expect?

Comments

[slowfox]

When I've been weeding the bookshelves, the World Press Photo albums are at the absolute summit of the 'Keep' list :-) They're not pleasant reading, a lot of the time, but they are, as you say, pretty neat - not just from the historical perspective, mind: the actual images themselves are generally awesome, too! http://www.amazon.com/World-Press-Photo-2009-Foundation/dp/0500976899/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1244620401&sr=8-1

Were you actually in London?

Briefly! Got to the hotel c8pm on Monday evening, and then was in a conference on Tuesday, back home straight after.