Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, Let me give you about a cent and a half's worth of change relating to this continuing debacle. Many folks have written about resurrections, dragons and a plethora of nonsense. Now,when I go to the beach should I wonder who a whale will cough up in front of me? If this sounds silly be assured it is as logical as your post. 1. When it becomes "rigid" to question what is most obviously questionable, The Easter Bunny help us all. 2 .Authenticity confirmed by someone with an agenda, such as Whelan's, is not proof but merely supposition...In the case of events 60 years old the chance of error becomes exponential. Any "surviving" relative would either be octogenarians or would have been toddlers when "Tio Federico" was blasted. (Speaking of old guys, ask B.D. how difficult it is to get the responses he wants from an interview?) 3. This was the only photograph taken during the Spanish Civil War to be called the "greatest war photo ever taken". All the other set-ups could RIP Speaking of facts, both VU and Life captioned the photo as that depicting death. If I had a 100 dollar bill for every time that's been denied I'd buy myself a Noctilooney. Your argument "he did not exploit the picture and did not even have the roll immediately processed" would seem to contradict its value to Capa. It could be Capa always seen film off in one of those little brown bags we all used to carry until the digital age?. 4. All it would take to prove anything related to the image is a contact sheet of those films still in existence. Until then, much like our dear departed friend Johnny said, "if it don't fit you must acquit". Even admiring Robert Capa work as much as I does not mean he didn't get caught up in a situation that was out of his control. Walt Marc James Small wrote: >The authenticity of "the Falling Soldier" is really not an issue of two >rigid sides unwilling to discuss the point. This issue did not arise until >Philip Knightley questioned it in his 1974 book on war journalism, THE >FIRST CASUALTY, and a perfervid debate then erupted, fueled in part by >Capa's having given several different versions of the taking of the picture. > >However, the authenticity was confirmed in the middle 1990's when the man >in the picture was identified as Federico Borrell, who was indeed shot and >killed at the date and time the pictuire was made and his identity was >confirmed from the photograph by his surviving relatives. Following this >confirmation, the debate has died down and the picture is generally >accepted as authentic. > >This is not the only picture to have been taken during the Spanish Civil >War, incidentally, and the authenticity of the others has not been >questioned. And Capa's own actions argue against a faked scene -- he did >not exploit the picture and did not even have the roll of film immeidately >processed, but sent it to his editors in Paris, who printed the roll and >had this particular picture printed. Capa did not learn of its fame until >he returned to France three months after the picture was taken. > >Those interested in this matter are encouraged to read the relevant >portion, Chapter 5, in Alex Kershaw's BLOOD AND CHAMPAGNE: THE LIFE AND >TIMES OF ROBERT CAPA. > >Marc > >msmall@aya.yale.edu >Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir! > >NEW FAX NUMBER: +540-343-8505 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >