Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm not sure that argument stands up. Here's why: Capa was without doubt in my mind a great photographer, who developed enormously, and a very brave man. But he was also certainly a gambler with an eye to the main chance, most especially in the early days of his career. This is clearly supposition, but I don't think it's impossible to imagine Endre Friedmann, newly re-named (as a bit of a lark) Robert Capa, in Spain taking pictures during a civil war in which he was utterly biased (as I too would have been), trying to make his mark, setting up a picture to help both himself and the cause. I think this Capa is quite different to the consummate professional who waded ashore on Omaha. Incidentally, I didn't mean to intimate that Capa wouldn't have known whether the Soldier was shot or not. Sorry if I gave that impression. P. ******* Paul Hardy Carter www.paulhardycarter.com www.digitalrailroad.net/phc +44 (0)20 7871 7553 ******* On 22 Mar 2006, at 14:23, B. D. Colen wrote: > Why 'worry' about it? Because, to some degree, Truth still matters. > And by the way - a combat photographer sure as hell knows if he's just > shot > a guy who's just been shot, or if he posed the guy. And IF Capa posed > the > guy - and for the Xth time, I believe in the integrity of the photo, > that > act calls into question the entirity of his body of work as a war > photographer. And frankly, I think that that body of work, and the > risks he > routinely took, which ultimately cost his life, are as close as we will > ever come to "proof" that the photo is real.