kevin m
Veteran
I honestly have no idea why these men do what they do. If war photography has any effect on human nature it has yet to become evident.
emraphoto
Veteran
again i recommend you dig more into what Hetherington has done in the past. he (Tim) was far more than the snap it and file it fella.
kitaanat
kitaanat
Sad news. RIP
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
A very sad and unfortunate event indeed, he will be missed by many. We need to remember though, that although technology and the modern age has changed the way war is covered, it is still full of risk and danger. We should never be shocked or surprised when people are injured or killed in combat, but rather surprised if there are not losses.
newsgrunt
Well-known
Honestly. How will or can we ever know what is truly happening without dedicated photographers like Hondros and Hetherington and countless others who risk their lives so that we can be a more informed people ? Some of the comments here baffle me and show a lack of understanding and appreciation for the work and risks journalists take so that efforts at reform such as in Egypt and Libya can be known.
kevin m
Veteran
Did you read both my sentences? There were only two and they were quite short.
"IF" one of the goals of war photography is to raise human awareness of the cost of war, then I think it has, so far, been a failure. Or perhaps it has worked. Perhaps we humans are "aware" and we just don't care. In any event, despite the huge number war images available, war doesn't seem to be on the wane.
As to the rest of your post:
A desirable outcome in that conflict, but the image was stage-managed for effective use as a morale booster in the field, according to historical accounts, and it hardly seems the sort of "awareness" most war photographers seem to be striving for.
And yet that war still went on for 7 more years, correct? So the real effect of that particular image was what? A bit of momentary queasiness for those who chose to see the image, then on about the day? And despite all the imagery to come out of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, those conflicts don't seem to be drawing to a close. If and when they do, I don't think it will be because human awareness played a very great part.
Good God, that was a completely fabricated event staged for United States media. As naked a bit of propaganda as we're ever likely to see. If it clearly illustrated anything, it's that we citizens in the United States seem to be willing dupes in our own deception.
I still have no idea why these guys do what they do. On one hand it seems as though they're doing God's own work. On the other, it seems to matter not a whit.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Did you read both my sentences? There were only two and they were quite short.
"IF" one of the goals of war photography is to raise human awareness of the cost of war, then I think it has, so far, been a failure. Or perhaps it has worked. Perhaps we humans are "aware" and we just don't care. In any event, despite the huge number war images available, war doesn't seem to be on the wane.
As to the rest of your post:
A desirable outcome in that conflict, but the image was stage-managed for effective use as a morale booster in the field, according to historical accounts, and it hardly seems the sort of "awareness" most war photographers seem to be striving for.
And yet that war still went on for 7 more years, correct? So the real effect of that particular image was what? A bit of momentary queasiness for those who chose to see the image, then on about the day? And despite all the imagery to come out of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, those conflicts don't seem to be drawing to a close. If and when they do, I don't think it will be because human awareness played a very great part.
Good God, that was a completely fabricated event staged for United States media. As naked a bit of propaganda as we're ever likely to see. If it clearly illustrated anything, it's that we citizens in the United States seem to be willing dupes in our own deception.
I still have no idea why these guys do what they do. On one hand it seems as though they're doing God's own work. On the other, it seems to matter not a whit.
So since you "have no idea why these guys do what they do" I guess your suggestion is for war not not be photographed or reported? Would that serve some greater good?
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
And war certainly is "on the wane". While there may not be fewer wars, the way we fight them and the acceptability of civilian casualties has been transformed, perhaps in large part due to images available. 40 years ago it was acceptable strategy to have free fire zones and carpet bomb civilian areas, today a few deaths are a public relations nightmare (yes they happen; in Iraq especially) but even just the fact that awareness raised has forced a change in military rhetoric shows promise.
oftheherd
Veteran
Did you read both my sentences? There were only two and they were quite short.
"IF" one of the goals of war photography is to raise human awareness of the cost of war, then I think it has, so far, been a failure. Or perhaps it has worked. Perhaps we humans are "aware" and we just don't care. In any event, despite the huge number war images available, war doesn't seem to be on the wane.
As to the rest of your post:
A desirable outcome in that conflict, but the image was stage-managed for effective use as a morale booster in the field, according to historical accounts, and it hardly seems the sort of "awareness" most war photographers seem to be striving for.
And yet that war still went on for 7 more years, correct? So the real effect of that particular image was what? A bit of momentary queasiness for those who chose to see the image, then on about the day? And despite all the imagery to come out of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, those conflicts don't seem to be drawing to a close. If and when they do, I don't think it will be because human awareness played a very great part.
Good God, that was a completely fabricated event staged for United States media. As naked a bit of propaganda as we're ever likely to see. If it clearly illustrated anything, it's that we citizens in the United States seem to be willing dupes in our own deception.
I still have no idea why these guys do what they do. On one hand it seems as though they're doing God's own work. On the other, it seems to matter not a whit.
My goodness sir, that sure puts a negative light on all war photographers. Would it also fit those referred to in this thread?
I'm not saying a government wouldn't be glad to use a photograph in its own best interests as with the Iwo Jima photo. But I was never aware it was staged only for propaganda.
As to the shooting of the VC, that was a powerful photo. It and the mis-reporting of the media on the results of the '68 Tet offensive did have an effect in the USA.
I don't know if you were in Vietnam at the time and saw it differently or not. The reporting of the Tet offensive sure had an effect on the war there as waning war support in the USA disappeared much faster, and the dissenters were much strengthened.
I have no idea if the Iraq photo was staged or not. I hadn't heard it was. I did hear that the serviceman involved got into some difficulty for doing it without authorization. Maybe I heard wrong.
At any rate, I think war photographers are human just as we are. Some of them just enjoy photojournalism wherever it takes them. Some have an agenda (prejudice) of their own and shoot photos that show their agenda; for or against war, for or against a particular regime, for or against idiologies. We react the same way. It doesn't make what they do any less valid, or so I think. Of course, you are welcome to disagree sir.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
I believe Kevin is under the assumption that the ultimate effect of war photography should be the end of war, or something along those lines (correct me if I'm wrong). Under that assumption, I totally agree with Kevin's assessment and really wish it was that easy.
However, in their mind's eye, there is little reason or logic - it's rather instinctual. They report because this is how they are wired; if it's there to document, true reporters document it without bias or philosophic baggage.
The philosophy and purpose behind war reportage is defined by the critics and cheerleaders, not them.
However, in their mind's eye, there is little reason or logic - it's rather instinctual. They report because this is how they are wired; if it's there to document, true reporters document it without bias or philosophic baggage.
The philosophy and purpose behind war reportage is defined by the critics and cheerleaders, not them.
Ade-oh
Well-known
I had some dealings with Tim Hetherington a few months ago, in the process of setting up a screening and Q&A of 'Restrepo' at my son's school. He seemed a very decent, warm and humane man. Very sad that he and his colleague should die this way.
przemur
Newbie
This is all very sad. It reminds me how lucky I am living in a safe, calm (if a bit boring) place, far from war.
I was going to watch 'Restrepo' during a local war films festival (the film wasn't normally projected in cinemas in Poland). I bought the tickets, but my daughter got sick and I couldn't go see the film. I still regret it, even if it was few months ago. Just a small, insignificant story that connects with the killed journalists...
I was going to watch 'Restrepo' during a local war films festival (the film wasn't normally projected in cinemas in Poland). I bought the tickets, but my daughter got sick and I couldn't go see the film. I still regret it, even if it was few months ago. Just a small, insignificant story that connects with the killed journalists...
GSNfan
Well-known
These threads about dead war photographers always turn bitter for some reason.
While death is a tragedy, in my view its a bigger tragedy for those caught in the middle without any choice, rather than those who volunteer to go there for work.
I deeply respect Chris Hondros and he was a great PJ with great work. Tim Hetherington was not really a PJ in the classic sense and his publication, Vanity Fair, is not the first place people turn to for war photography.
NY rightly dedicated an article to Chris, because he was not getting the attention he deserved from all the coverage in the media of this event:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/parting-glance-chris-hondros/
While death is a tragedy, in my view its a bigger tragedy for those caught in the middle without any choice, rather than those who volunteer to go there for work.
I deeply respect Chris Hondros and he was a great PJ with great work. Tim Hetherington was not really a PJ in the classic sense and his publication, Vanity Fair, is not the first place people turn to for war photography.
NY rightly dedicated an article to Chris, because he was not getting the attention he deserved from all the coverage in the media of this event:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/parting-glance-chris-hondros/
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
I've read numerous photographer's comments about wanting to raise awareness of war, its costs, damaged lives, etc., not ending it per se.
andersju
Well-known
I like how Susan Sontag put it in "Regarding the pain of others" (part of it also in her preface to Don McCullin's 2003 retrospective):
"That we are not totally transformed, that we can turn away, turn the page, switch the channel, does not impugn the ethical value of an assault by images. It is not a defect that we are not seared, that we do not suffer enough, when we see these images. Neither is the photograph supposed to repair our ignorance about the history and causes of the suffering it picks out and frames. Such images cannot be more than an invitation to pay attention, to reflect, to learn, to examine the rationalizations for mass suffering offered by established powers. Who caused what the picture shows? Who is responsible? Is it excusable? Was it inevitable? Is there some state of affairs which we have accepted up to now that ought to be challenged? All this, with the understanding that moral indignation, like compassion, cannot dictate a course of action."
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Only goes to show it has no effect on you.
To prove you wrong: Nick Ut's shot of the napalm-burned Vietnamese girl tilted public opinion in the US on that war.
And how about an another gruesome event, the Twin Tower attacks. Did seeing that not change anything for you?
I guess you did not think that comment through really good...
EDIT: sorry I misread. Concerning human nature you might be right, concerning human politics you are dead wrong though...
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
If you read that carefully and break it down, its pure verbose nonsense.
emraphoto
Veteran
I believe this comment highlights the importance of Tim and Chris' work. Despite the bill of goods being sold to us... Smart weapons, Precision strikes, Intel etc... The truth is entirely different. Civilian casualties, measured as a percentage of the total count, have soared into the atmosphere compared to conflicts of the past century. I believe civilians make up somewhere around 90% of all casualties in Afghanistan.
As folks like newsgrunt have stressed, it is VITAL that we have people like Tim and Chris in the field. The alternative is just not acceptable to myself and a lot of others.
As per conflict coverage. The idea that it is the realm of adrenaline junkies and adventure tourists is a well repeated myth from the mouths of the ill-informed. To witness the wholesale destruction and death of non-combatants can be a life altering event and until you have seen it I urge you to reserve judgement.
Snacks
Established
Sad to hear. Hondros graduated from my university in 2006 and the story is in all the papers here.
Chinasaur
Well-known
I don't get what's scary about this. Death is the end result of life. Whether a long or short life.
I say celebrate the guy! By the response to his death, he seems to have had an impact on others. That's fitting epitaph for anyone.
Raise a glass to his memory and be glad he died doing what he WANTED TO DO. Because sure enough, nobody MADE him go there. HE CHOSE TO BE THERE. Unlike the poor, unfortunate residents of Libya who have no recourse but to die or endure.
There is NO better end to a well lived life than to die in a place of your own choosing doing what you love.
Rock on buddy.
I say celebrate the guy! By the response to his death, he seems to have had an impact on others. That's fitting epitaph for anyone.
Raise a glass to his memory and be glad he died doing what he WANTED TO DO. Because sure enough, nobody MADE him go there. HE CHOSE TO BE THERE. Unlike the poor, unfortunate residents of Libya who have no recourse but to die or endure.
There is NO better end to a well lived life than to die in a place of your own choosing doing what you love.
Rock on buddy.