Garrett Hollowell- Steven McCurry

I'm not a real big fan of what Steven McCurry did. It feels like he knew the whole time that what he was doing was wrong so he never told any one he was using extensive photoshop on his works.  So eventually, when it came out in an article from Time, that he was at fault for the manipulation of his photos, he came up with the excuse that he's really just a "visual storyteller". Everything about it just screams bs to me. If Steven McCurry is really a visual storyteller and not a photojournalist, than why would he keep selling his work as if he was a photojournalist? In an article from Time, McCurry reflects on his use of photoshop on his works and even points a bit of a finger at National Geographic. He references the cover of the magazine's December 1984 issue and how the magazine added more water to the photo so it would fit the margins of the cover. McCurry said it was a great move by the magazine, saying, "I thought it was appropriate because the truth and integrity of the picture were maintained."(Laurent). National Geographic now says that type of alteration would never take place nowadays. The fact still remains, however, that in McCurry's mind, it's ok to alter photos as long as their integrity is maintained.  With that comes the question, how far can an alteration go and keep a photos truth and integrity?  For many, the answer is entirely relative to the individual, which can be tricky when working as a photojournalist. For photojournalism, it's said that any alteration ruins the integrity of a photo, turning it into a lie. So for people like Steven McCurry, photojournalism might not seem like the right field. But Steve can take a mean photo, which is undeniable, so if he just stayed away from the photoshop, he would have been in the clear. I think what ultimately makes me not like what he did is that I'm sort of on the same page as Nat Geo as to how I feel about photo alteration. I think it's a misrepresentation of what's really going on in the scene of the photo when photoshop is used, and to just call yourself a visual storyteller after you get caught in the lie is just a sad way out. Even in his "apology" about his actions, Steve sure does sound awfully condescending. He essentially says that he thought he could do what he wanted with his property and realizes how confusing it must be for us sad little plebeians who see him as a mere photojournalist and not the master artist that he truly is. Everything he says in all the articles and on his website just sounds so pretentious and condescending, with a constant feel of him directing blame towards others and never really owning up to his mistakes. For that, I don't feel like McCurry should be truly forgiven until he really owns up to what he did.
McCurry, Steven. “Home.” Steve McCurry, 20 Dec. 2017, stevemccurry.com/.
Cade, DL. “Botched Steve McCurry Print Leads to Photoshop Scandal.” PetaPixel, 7 May 2016, petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/.
Laurent, Olivier. “Steve McCurry: I'm Not a Photojournalist.” Time, Time, 30 May 2016, time.com/4351725/steve-mccurry-not-photojournalist/.