Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] OT- War Photography.
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:51:37 -0800
References: <005901c3c368$4492eac0$b673793f@dimarcojr.pressroom.com>

Sal DiMarco,Jr. said:
Subject: [Leica] OT- War Photography.


> Verbal Combatants...
>     The photo you are referring to the burnt Iraqi in a truck, was never
> offer to the wires because it was shot by Ken Jareck(Sp?) who was working
> for TIME.
>     If, I remember correctly his military "minder" did not want him to
make
> the picture in the first place and they "had words."<<<<

Hi Sal,
"Been there.... had the same kind of words!" 1967, Sinai desert and
destroyed Israeli tank with bodies.  OOPS!!! Wrong subject with an Israeli
military minder along.  However, made a few frames from a slightly discreet
angle and it appeased the officer. His concern was for the families of the
soldiers than anything else. Well OK that's what he said.

But I feel we should shoot the pictures when we are motivated by what we
see. Trust me you are always motivated by shock if nothing else. What
happens to them later is someone else's call.

However, in some cases I've been so emotionally over come I've put the
camera down and walked away because, "is my picture going to make any
difference?" Not likely, certainly when I had the choice of many bodies
grotesquely burned and twisted and is one more horror picture going to make
the politicians stop ordering young guys and gals off to kill other young
guys and gals?

Not bloody likely.

I believe two things happen in these situations, you have the controlling
government not wanting to show dead soldiers of the nation, therefore they
want visuals to be as little as possible and showing victory if at all
possible. Or long shots without the in the face teeth showing with face
burnt away!

Or there's a sensibility thing of newspaper editors not running the shot
because it would upset their readers. This is done all the time and has
nothing to do with war scenes!

I have two feeling about this.

It's not likely any war horror pictures, still photo, is going to move very
many people to have the government change their political minds and call a
war off. The other is, war is horrible to photograph, done two and though
asked to do others, I've refused because nothing is accomplished by the
pictures except make people become less immune to the horror of it all.

Much like the violence we see on the tele these days, it makes younger
generations and some older, less concerned when a kid gets beat up in a
school yard and killed.  "Well gee whiz we saw it on the television the
other night and it looked cool!"

No matter what anyone thinks, photographing war isn't worth a damn, it can
leave you scarred even though you were not a combatant, and you'll wear a
mill stone for years. And some of the guys somewhat revered as war
photographers are a touch of a fruit cake if the truth be known and they'd
admit it if you could get them to do it..     or they're dead!!

Sorry a bit long and not a Leica note to it. However, I did use Leica's '67
& '68!

ted











- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Sal DiMarco,Jr." <sdmp007@pressroom.com> ([Leica] OT- War Photography.)