Aesthetic?

This article really brought up some strong points about photojournalist photographer that have crossed my mind before, but I never truly thought in depth about it. "Consumer-society photographers approach but do not enter. In hurried visits to scenes of despair or violence, they climb out of the plane or helicopter, press the shutter release, explode the flash: they shoot and run. They have looked without seeing and their images say nothing." I agree with this comment, but at the same time disagree. To someone that does not know how to read a photograph, they see those photographs that these photo journalistic photographers are taking, and it gets the point across to them. But for someone with knowledge in photography, might see it completely different; even as an empty photograph. I always wondered how a photojournalist can take photographs at awful things, leave the scene as soon as you get your photograph, and then get paid for it. Some people see it as their job, but I see it as something that is not completely right. Which is probably why photojournalism never interested me. I really see where Galeano is getting when he said that. And then there is the controversy of whether or not you can consider these photographs to be aesthetic.

After reading this I thought back to the class where we spoke about some controversial photographs, and I wondered how these photographers felt okay making money off of such awful subject matters. And then there are some photographers that it hits them, and they don't want to make money off of them, but they feel like the photograph should be seen, to document history and to let the rest of the world know what is going on. I guess there is much to debate about whether photo journalistic photographers.