Five, six, seven...

[Roger Hicks]

Photographers aren't one dimensional. And, political and social views shape our photography.

Exactly, and I have never quite seen how it can be otherwise.

As I said, I did not originally post this as a political thread, just as an example of what one might call traditional and powerful photojournalism. On the other hand, the aim of photojournalism is seldom to glorify war, poverty and the other things is illustrates.

On reflection, I think I'd still have posted the link, even given the likelihood of political discussion, because the pictures need to be seen and one of the reasons they need to be seen is to help us understand politics and history.

To view them exclusively as 'powerful pictures' would be voyeuristic, shallow and disrespectful, and to ignore powerful pictures because they don't suit someone's (anyone's) politics is hard to defend from any viewpoint, photographic, historical, aesthetic, or any other. A lot of nazi propaganda embodies aesthetically brilliant photography: so look at it, try to see how it works, which strings they are pulling, and what it makes you think about.

This would apply equally to pro-Taleban pictures (assuming they can have them -- I'd have thought that the prohibition about making images might be relevant). A free press, after all, is not just 'the press we like'; it's also the press we don't like, that makes us feel uncomfortable, and that rouses us to do something about the message it conveys (be it support or opposition).

Finally, I'd have thought that most of the comments on war in this thread have been reasonably grown-up, analytical, historical and non-partisan. How far do you try to suppress that, in order to suppress a few strident viewpoints?

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

I agree. It is very hard to discuss controversial photos without discussing the reasons the photos were shot to begin with.

Not really. I do not need to know the meaning behind the wars Capa photographed. Most don't even know what the war was where the soldier is falling, what it was fought for, on what side the dying soldier was on, even what country it is. I can discuss his controversial photos without being a partisan, or indeed, without even knowing anything about the sides in question. I know what war is - that is more than enough for the purposes of discussion of the photograph.

 

[oftheherd]

Not really. I do not need to know the meaning behind the wars Capa photographed. Most don't even know what the war was where the soldier is falling, what it was fought for, on what side the dying soldier was on, even what country it is. I can discuss his controversial photos without being a partisan, or indeed, without even knowing anything about the sides in question. I know what war is - that is more than enough for the purposes of discussion of the photograph.

There is truth to that. But photographs that evoke emotions are likely to produce responses to those emotions. If those emotions aren't just envy of the photographer's being where he was, or at his technique, or his equipment, they will likely be related to specifically what is represented by what he depicts.

Comments based on emotions or deep felt beliefs aren't always going to be sterile or logic based. After all, they are "emotional."

So my questions are, what do you think the purpose(s) of the photographer were? Was he simply reporting objectively without emotion? Was he reporting but trying to be sure he could evoke emotional responses? Did he have an agenda of his own? Is he right or wrong, or is there right or wrong in his photography?

 

[Trius]

I have not read every post in this thread, and I'm late to seeing the thread anyway ... as to the photos, I think they're mostly "OK". By that I mean good but not great, as a whole, though I like 2, 4, 8 & 9 enough to say they're "really good". I would prefer b&w to colour, except for #2.

So there, now that I've dissed the work a tad, let's see if this thread heats up some more!

I do agree with Roger's point in the OP, however, that they're better than a lot of sharp-super-clean-file stuff that we tend to see.

 

[bmattock]

Actually, the controversy over many of Capa's photos is directly related to his politics, and can't be correctly understood without that discussion. He was a partisan, not an objective observer. It is important for people to understand that, so the discussion is necessary.

OK, fair enough - so let's hear Capa's views. But I don't need to hear yours - you don't need to hear mine. That's where the anger starts (perhaps, depending on you and me).

 

[MartinP]

What surprises me is that anyone thinks "the press" is an entity which is intrinsically worthwhile, or which has a magical positive effect.

I suggest, to a large extent, information and education make people who they are. "The press" is just another means of distributing information, and can be made to do that to suit whoever pushes a point-of-view. There are plenty of press reports about positive aspects of events in places where one would least expect it, although these may be more or less widely believed at any particular moment.

Sermons in religious establishments can fulfill the same informing and educational purpose, although personally I would say those have a foundation based on foolish superstition and so are distorted in a different way right from the start.

In what way is the photo-journalist/press channel different to the priest/preacher/mullah in the dissemination of information and the human activities resulting from it ?

Note. Obviously I know they are 'different', but think about exactly how, and the functionality of the process from the point of view of the end-of-the-chain, the 'normal' person.

Now . . . . where did I put my flame-proof underwear . . .

 

[bmattock]

although personally I would say those have a foundation based on foolish superstition and so are distorted in a different way right from the start.

And that is where the trouble starts. Many people are heavily emotionally invested in their religious and political beliefs. What you see as a simple statement of personal opinion is to some an attack or a poke in the eye. At the very least, you've called 3/4 of the world 'stupid' because they have 'foolish' beliefs. Don't expect them to like it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What surprises me is that anyone thinks "the press" is an entity which is intrinsically worthwhile, or which has a magical positive effect.

Dear Martin,

It's not so much that a free press has a magical positive effect, as that its presence makes it harder for a single-party state to control people's thoughts. In a totalitarian state, there is only the Party Line. In a state with a free press, there are countless biased accounts that can be played off, one against another; and anyone who reads critically will soon learn how to see the inherent biases.

Thus, at school in the 1960s, at my suggestion, the VIth form comon room subscribed to both the North Vietnam Peace News and the British Union of Fascists newsletter. Not because we supported either organization; rather, as an illustration of how bias works.

This is why it strikes me as deeply disingenuous to deny that it is useful to know about a photographer's politics, and about the politics of where his images are published. Anyone who does not know that Capa was a committed communist, avowedly shooting propaganda, during the Spanish Civil War is likely to get far less from the falling soldier shot.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MartinP]

That's exactly why I used the word "personally" here. [In reply to bmattock's post #58, there have probably been several more posts since then but I have been typing instead of reading themof course].

There are plenty of intelligent and thoughtful people in any religion I have come across (so far) who might accept that considerate-atheism is just another way of living, just as I will happily accept the existence of non-hateful religious people.

I was trying to say that the starting point of anybodies reactions was their education and the infomation they have recieved, whether that starting point comes from some sort of deity or a politician. Further down the line of making and shaping the information, in some cultures, is the photo-jourmalist - but s/he is a part of his/her culture, together with the reactions garnered.

I recall that on British tv, during the Jugoslavian wars, each weekday evening there was a thirty-minute (or was it twenty ?) roving video-diary report of life in Sarajevo. That had a disproportionate impact politically in the UK and is another example of a process of change assisted by journalistically presented information.

 

[Roger Hicks]

At the very least, you've called 3/4 of the world 'stupid' because they have 'foolish' beliefs. Don't expect them to like it.

But unless someone suggests this, they may never even consider the possibility that not all of their beliefs are actually defensible, and we'd still be stoning adulteresses. All of us, that is, not just some of us.

Exactly how you phrase your arguments will depend on where you are, and here on this forum, I'd have thought most people could handle a reasonably robust attack on our beliefs.

Whenever criticising someone else, I find it useful to remember Oliver Cromwell's famous remark,"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken," and to apply it to myself.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[bmattock]

This is why it strikes me as deeply disingenuous to deny that it is useful to know about a photographer's politics, and about the politics of where his images are published. Anyone who does not know that Capa was a committed communist, avowedly shooting propaganda, during the Spanish Civil War is likely to get far less from the falling soldier shot.

I do not think it is disingenuous at all. A photograph can be presented as an object, without context, and be judged as that which it is and that which it appears to represent, without being judged according to the historical, sociological and psychological reasons why it may have been taken or presented in the manner it was.

As to my comment on current viewership of Capa's photos - well, it's true - most people don't even know what the Spanish Civil War was. Sad though it may be, it is the truth.

There is nothing wrong, of course, with understanding more about the photograph in question - it is laudable to want to know and understand such things. Context is, after all, often the entire point.

But *my* point is that it is seldom on an online discussion forum that one can state Capa's communist beliefs without someone else piping up about the #*@&$# Commies and someone else throwing in their two centavos about the *@&^$ Republicans. And then we're off to the races. It quickly stops being about Capa's beliefs and becomes MY beliefs or YOUR beliefs, and then someone's ox gets gored and the fun begins.

So although such understanding is wonderful, and such discussion is worthy, experience has taught me - not here. Leave it out, we'll all be happier for it.

 

[MartinP]

In reply to Roger et al.

I am not very good at explaining the point of view that 'the press' is a part of people being able to look at the world - but it is only a part isn't it ? The main factor is education surely ? Isn't information just a part of ongoing education ?

Look at the reactions to the picture of the exhausted soldier. Everything from "probably got a hangover" (though I didn't see that text myself, it was mentioned previously) to "that's an exhausted soldier". The whole informational/educational atmosphere is what might shape reactions to particular reporting, not the reporting on it's own.

EDIT: (Pressed the wrong button)
So I suppose we can try to propagate our points of view, but it would be very rare (examples anyone?) for one report/picture to have a huge effect globally, but that doesn't mean some sort of continuous search for information isn't a good idea. In the supposed democracies the information is part of the political system, but that also means that there is an agenda behind it simply due to the size of the system. By the time the report of the intrepid, brave and socially-responsible photo-journalist is widely seen it will likely have been redefined somewhat - but this is the best we can do at the moment, so . . . . .

 

[bmattock]

But unless someone suggests this, they may never even consider the possibility that not all of their beliefs are actually defensible, and we'd still be stoning adulteresses. All of us, that is, not just some of us.

As true as that may be, it simply stirs the pot. First one states that another's beliefs are 'foolish' and then implies that if they are offended by such statements, they're not open-minded enough to entertain the possibility.

But people are often close-minded on the subject. That's their right too. Offending them and then insulting them for not being open-minded is precisely how such fights get started, despite the superiority of the logic of your statements.

My atheist 'friend' is a prime example. He believes that religion is anathema to logic. Fair enough - that's something we could discuss at length, and without rancor. But then he refers to Jesus as a "Dead Jew on a Stick." He can't imagine why anyone would be offended - is it not a true statement? Baiting while feigning innocent logic is not one of the traits I admire in others. [edit: or myself]

Put more simply - using the word 'foolish' and 'superstition' to describe one's feelings about religion is not going to result in a calm and rational discussion - despite how 'innocently' one feels the terms were used. One is not saying merely that they disagree with the beliefs of another, but that they have little or no respect for that person for holding those beliefs.

 

[Murray Kelly]

For a little insight into personal beliefs and how they can change dramatically, consider George Orwell (Eric Blair) and his report from his perspective in Catalunia in the Civil War in Spain. A compelling insight into how a reporter can gradually see the futillity of war and the manipulation by polititians of 'facts' which change his entire attitude to any one war. PJs are exposed to this over time and will undoubtedly come to much the same conclusion as he did, I'm sure.
Murray

 

[Roger Hicks]

But people are often close-minded on the subject. That's their right too. Offending them and then insulting them for not being open-minded is precisely how such fights get started, despite the superiority of the logic of your statements.

Dear Bill,

On technique, fair enough, but if someone is totally closed-minded, sorry, no, that's not a right. It's as close as I can readily imagine to the concept of 'sin'; the closed-minded are usually the most eager to stifle debate, and so thin-skinned that they see even a reasonable request -- such as Cromwell's -- as an attack and an insult.

As for your other point, about not needing to know about the background to the picture, I fully understand what you say in one sense; but equally, I am deeply uncomfortable with judging it solely in terms of its immediate impact. In one sense, he is every soldier who ever died; in another, it is a self-admitted propaganda picture which has long been suspected of being staged; though quite honestly, I am not sure how much it matters whether it was staged or not, as men must have died like that on both sides.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Martin,

"Isn't information just a part of ongoing education ?"

Yes. That was precisely my point. It is quite possibly an essential part. The information conveyed by a free press is not like the information conveyed by a state press.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[MartinP]

Put more simply - using the word 'foolish' and 'superstition' to describe one's feelings about religion is not going to result in a calm and rational discussion - despite how 'innocently' one feels the terms were used. One is not saying merely that they disagree with the beliefs of another, but that they have little or no respect for that person for holding those beliefs.

I tried to specifically make it clear that this was my personal point of view and I most certainly did not disparage any particular views honestly held by others. That is something added by yourself and is perhaps an indication of the absolutism of some peoples views.

Your friend, who you quoted above, does not represent anyone but himself/herself.

Most people do not wake up one morning and say "wow I'm an ancestor-worshipper" or "gosh, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist". I think these things come about because of where they are, by means of the education and information they are exposed to.

Someone mentioned Blair/Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia" above. If anyone goes off to read it, perhaps it could be closely followed by "Animal Farm" which was written a few years later.

 

[bmattock]

You seem to be saying that it is not possible to discuss a photo in a forum beyond saying you like it or not, it's pretty or ugly, it's well exposed or badly exposed, in or out of focus. But photography is much more than that, and if that's all you can say about the photo, that's pretty boring. You've reduced the discussion to one only technicians could care about.

Art is bound up in the social and cultural structure in which it was created. To ban discussion, or even debate over it's meaning and impact related to that social and cultural context is to make discussion of the art impossible.

I agree with both of your statements.

a) it is not possible to discuss a photo in its political and/or religious connotation in an online discussion forum without straying into the realm of personal beliefs, anger, hurt, and insult.

b) those precise discussion are important and indeed vital to have. But not here.

Can anyone recall a discussion involving a photographer's religion and/or political beliefs which did not end in acrimony on RFF. I've been away for awhile, admittedly - maybe we've all grown up a bit. But I have no such recollection.

So I summarize - such discussions are important and useful - but they don't work here and are best left out.

 

[brachal]

I appreciated the photos; I thought most of them were very well done.

I think the photojournalist serves a very valuable role by reminding us what war is -- regardless of the side or politics. It doesn't matter whether it's Gettysburg, the Somme, Iwo Jima, Chosin, Saigon, Afghanistan, or someplace you've never heard of. It doesn't matter why you're fighting. Inevitably innocent people are hurt and killed. Nobody comes through unchanged. Some things are worth fighting for, but we should never forget that there is always a terrible price to be paid.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

On technique, fair enough, but if someone is totally closed-minded, sorry, no, that's not a right. It's as close as I can readily imagine to the concept of 'sin'; the closed-minded are usually the most eager to stifle debate, and so thin-skinned that they see even a reasonable request -- such as Cromwell's -- as an attack and an insult.

I must disagree. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, the freedom of their own mind, regardless of how awful others may find it. Racists, bigots, and the most depraved of people must be free to believe as they wish.

But not to act as they wish. We live in societies, and societies sacrifice individuality when survival of the society is threatened. RFF is a society-by-choice of sorts. One (hopefully) is clearly aware that previous attempts at rational, logical, and enlightening conversations regarding politics or religion have ended poorly. So it behooves the group as a society that I shut the hell up regarding my own religious and political beliefs. I have not always done so in the past, but I hope I have learned from my mistakes.

As for your other point, about not needing to know about the background to the picture, I fully understand what you say in one sense; but equally, I am deeply uncomfortable with judging it solely in terms of its immediate impact. In one sense, he is every soldier who ever died; in another, it is a self-admitted propaganda picture which has long been suspected of being staged; though quite honestly, I am not sure how much it matters whether it was staged or not, as men must have died like that on both sides.

Again, I can only agree with you. However, like the need to obey nature's call, it may be an imperative, but doing so here is considered bad form.