Re: [Leica] Re:Nachtwey was Sally Mann, digest V17 #195

["Gerry Walden" <gerrywalden@cwcom.net>]

I have met Don McCullin on more than one occasion, and he would be keen to
describe himself as an "anti-war photographer" who is now a disillusioned
man believing that he has failed in his efforts to change the way of wars by
showing their brutality and pointlessness.   I find Nachtways work, in
comparison, to almost glorify in the gore and by presenting it in such a
large coffee table style book to be adding to that glorification.   As for
Sally Mann, I just love what she does and the way she does it - if we can't
freely record those around us in the way with which they are happy, and so
is the photographer, then there is little left in photography for me.

Gerry


- ----- Original Message -----
From: <ARTHURWG@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: 26 June 2000 18:07
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:Nachtwey was Sally Mann, digest V17 #195


> Howard. As a journalist by profession I agree that pictures like these are
a
> necessary record and proof that these events occured-- evidence that could
or
> should lead to a "solution" of some kind or even help to prove guilt when
it
> can be located. . I don't have a problem with looking at them, exactly. I
> "love" great war photography like Capa and (my favorite) Don McCullin.
What I
> was trying to say about Nachtwey, as opposed to some others, is that I see
> something intangible in his photos that I distrust and dislike. Unlike
> McCullin, for example, Nachtwey seems to hold himself superior to his
> subjects; like one critic said, it's difficult to distinguish the living
from
> the dead. He seems a cold fish who might even enjoy, in some sense, his
> grizzly work. Perhaps this is unfair; but I don't buy into his
self-described
> sainthood.  He may be doing the Lord's work, but I think he may be working
> for the devil. I will agree, however, that he is a great photojournalist.
> Arthur