wow!
- Thread starter emraphoto
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 4K
Ducky
Well-known
- Local time
- 8:44 AM
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
Ducky, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that photographers should not be allowed to cover war because, so far, photography has not eliminated war? Or, are you just trying to make an academic point?
Yeah, something like that.
Finished with thread!
Yeah, something like that.
Finished with thread!
Turtle
Veteran
At times, the heavily politically laden agendas of some photographers can get in the way of the work by grating on one's own social and political sensibilities. When work is presented without such associations you get to take away what you wish about the human factors and place them into a context that makes sense to you. Surely our ability to empathise with fellow humans should transcend any political badge we might otherwise wear, and if it does not, then ought we not ask ourselves some hard questions?
As for conflict photography and change, surely the first part of this is understanding the context and consequences of our actions. This comes not just in the form of bodies crumpled into heaps, but in finding as much humanity as possible in the images which allow us to create some sort of a sense of what this all means in human terms that we can relate to. Opinions are what cause individuals to vote a particular way and to lobby and support particular groups and they are shaped by information.
Going back to the point above, by leaving out the personal politics, nobody is being told what to think here or what to do about it. While wars will continue, I am very confident that photography has played a significant role in preventing the human aspect being lost in the political throng. I would feel very uncomfortable if all conflict photograhers downed tools tomorrow and we were left blind. Importantly, I am terrified by the potential for some to exploit the darkness that would follow. While images may not have the immediate and universal war stopping effect some would want, I think they do have an influence (as John as already commented) and are there to constantly balance wayward minds and provide a communal reminder of the reality we are dealing with. Knowledge helps people make appropriate, informed decisions and it need be no more complecated than that. Perhaps conflict photography can be seen not only as active, but passive, valued for what it helps prevent and contain?
As for the truth, I am not a great believer in looking for absolute truth in photographs (although not quite as strongly as Winogrand), but we can perhaps find vignettes of the truth or small truths which allude to something greater. Sometimes the only truth we glean is the fleeting sense that we have somehow touched upon what something means to fellow human beings but without being entirely sure as to the details. To me, this has great value, because this is the backdrop against which all the politics takes place; its that fundamental.
While plenty of superb work is shot with the assistance of NGOs and other organisations, this is not always the case and were I to be cynical, this can be about access more than anything else. NGO links would not change the work, but for some might provide some sort of stamp of moral acceptance, which suggests a lack of confidence on the part of the observer. Its rather like being unable to purchase a painting you love without a buyers guide under your arm to tell you its 'really art.' While many are superb, some NGOs can also be hugely cynical using photography to elicit emotions to increase revenue to secure jobs and expand careers etc... even when the work has no tangible positive impact or could even be considered self-interested! All I am trying to suggest here is that trying to unravel the varied motivations on the part of photographers and NGOs etc can rarely be done in simple terms with scant knowledge. By defaulting to mutual human compassion, and by ignoring badges, things get a lot simpler and more universal.
Looks like the images were shot mostly in the 28-35mm range (or equiv) with a few normal/teles and a couple of 21s or similar thrown in.
As for conflict photography and change, surely the first part of this is understanding the context and consequences of our actions. This comes not just in the form of bodies crumpled into heaps, but in finding as much humanity as possible in the images which allow us to create some sort of a sense of what this all means in human terms that we can relate to. Opinions are what cause individuals to vote a particular way and to lobby and support particular groups and they are shaped by information.
Going back to the point above, by leaving out the personal politics, nobody is being told what to think here or what to do about it. While wars will continue, I am very confident that photography has played a significant role in preventing the human aspect being lost in the political throng. I would feel very uncomfortable if all conflict photograhers downed tools tomorrow and we were left blind. Importantly, I am terrified by the potential for some to exploit the darkness that would follow. While images may not have the immediate and universal war stopping effect some would want, I think they do have an influence (as John as already commented) and are there to constantly balance wayward minds and provide a communal reminder of the reality we are dealing with. Knowledge helps people make appropriate, informed decisions and it need be no more complecated than that. Perhaps conflict photography can be seen not only as active, but passive, valued for what it helps prevent and contain?
As for the truth, I am not a great believer in looking for absolute truth in photographs (although not quite as strongly as Winogrand), but we can perhaps find vignettes of the truth or small truths which allude to something greater. Sometimes the only truth we glean is the fleeting sense that we have somehow touched upon what something means to fellow human beings but without being entirely sure as to the details. To me, this has great value, because this is the backdrop against which all the politics takes place; its that fundamental.
While plenty of superb work is shot with the assistance of NGOs and other organisations, this is not always the case and were I to be cynical, this can be about access more than anything else. NGO links would not change the work, but for some might provide some sort of stamp of moral acceptance, which suggests a lack of confidence on the part of the observer. Its rather like being unable to purchase a painting you love without a buyers guide under your arm to tell you its 'really art.' While many are superb, some NGOs can also be hugely cynical using photography to elicit emotions to increase revenue to secure jobs and expand careers etc... even when the work has no tangible positive impact or could even be considered self-interested! All I am trying to suggest here is that trying to unravel the varied motivations on the part of photographers and NGOs etc can rarely be done in simple terms with scant knowledge. By defaulting to mutual human compassion, and by ignoring badges, things get a lot simpler and more universal.
Looks like the images were shot mostly in the 28-35mm range (or equiv) with a few normal/teles and a couple of 21s or similar thrown in.
dfoo
Well-known
Wow. I've rarely seen such ignorance displayed. That is neither the definition nor the spirit of war profiteering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
"A war profiteer is any person or organization that improperly profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war."
Your statement is unbelievably insulting for those people that deliberately choose to put themselves in harms way so that we who do not can see the horrors of war. If we, the general public, cannot see it then little children grow up to believe war has no human cost, and is glorious when the reality is that war is death.
Those that claim that war photography hasn't prevented war have little appreciation or knowledge history.
emraphoto
Veteran
"By defaulting to mutual human compassion, and by ignoring badges, things get a lot simpler and more universal."
a strong arguement for independent photojournalism.
a strong arguement for independent photojournalism.
javimm
Established
Ducky, don't leave the discussion. I agree that the discussion would be better in a face to face environment, around some coffee/beer 🙂
Incidentally, I attended a Cappa exhibition a week ago Madrid, about the Spanish Civil War. Apart from the famous pic of the republican soldier just shot, it shows what war brings to our lives. Those pics, IMO should be shown to spanish future generations to show them what horrors happen in wars. It's a pity in this particular case, that the Civil War is so politized, as nobody can see a picture of the suffering from the other side, but that's a whole different story.
Visual medio DO change things. The TV images and pics of beatings in Iraq and Guantanamo jails, to say a recent example, have changed things. Pics of Vietnam did change things too. That's my POV, and I understand that everybody has one.
I really think that the world will be better the day that people realize that war is a huge waste, and I think that the media has a lot to help making people understand that.
If you felt insulted by my post, I sincerely apologize.
Incidentally, I attended a Cappa exhibition a week ago Madrid, about the Spanish Civil War. Apart from the famous pic of the republican soldier just shot, it shows what war brings to our lives. Those pics, IMO should be shown to spanish future generations to show them what horrors happen in wars. It's a pity in this particular case, that the Civil War is so politized, as nobody can see a picture of the suffering from the other side, but that's a whole different story.
Visual medio DO change things. The TV images and pics of beatings in Iraq and Guantanamo jails, to say a recent example, have changed things. Pics of Vietnam did change things too. That's my POV, and I understand that everybody has one.
I really think that the world will be better the day that people realize that war is a huge waste, and I think that the media has a lot to help making people understand that.
If you felt insulted by my post, I sincerely apologize.
Ducky
Well-known
- Local time
- 8:44 AM
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
If you felt insulted by my post, I sincerely apologize.
No, no problem. Nice discussion.
Those that claim that war photography hasn't prevented war have little appreciation or knowledge history.
Dfoo, prove that statement please.
No, no problem. Nice discussion.
Those that claim that war photography hasn't prevented war have little appreciation or knowledge history.
Dfoo, prove that statement please.
Turtle
Veteran
I have a question for those who are widely/generally critical of conflict photographers:
Where would you hope to get information from in their absence?
Is literary journalism any less vulnerable to self-interested exploitative elements?
If the answer to the above is that they are essentially 'no different from each other' what is the remedy, while not losing access to information on a grand scale just to cut out a few bad apples?
Perhaps the price of information about the darker side to life is that we have to accept a few bad elements, but that the benefit outweighs the negative associations?
How is a journalist who enjoys chasing the gore purely for his or her own glory (but ultimately produces work that provides an insight) any worse for society than a shady lawyer or cavalier plastic surgeon (who actually make other peoples' lives miserable)?
Just thoughts!?!
Where would you hope to get information from in their absence?
Is literary journalism any less vulnerable to self-interested exploitative elements?
If the answer to the above is that they are essentially 'no different from each other' what is the remedy, while not losing access to information on a grand scale just to cut out a few bad apples?
Perhaps the price of information about the darker side to life is that we have to accept a few bad elements, but that the benefit outweighs the negative associations?
How is a journalist who enjoys chasing the gore purely for his or her own glory (but ultimately produces work that provides an insight) any worse for society than a shady lawyer or cavalier plastic surgeon (who actually make other peoples' lives miserable)?
Just thoughts!?!