[Leica] War Photographers

[manolito at videotron.ca (EPL)]

Many comments about combat photojournalism and "war photography" end with a
statement like: "Someone needs to document this" or "the world needs to see
this."

I say: wrong.

First, the most gory and disturbing images of war, death and bloody
suffering rarely make it into wide circulation, despite the courage, skill
or simple foolhardiness of the men and women with cameras who capture those
images. 

Editors and publishers do not publish such scenes. They clash with the
almighty advertisements for perfumes and fine cars and plush footwear which
pay for publications.

Such scenes go largely unseen.

And even in the Internet age, when such scenes can be found on your
favourite browser, they are there too amidst depictions of other exploitive
degradations, flashes on the screens of those who seek and those who sell a
bit of entertainment, whatever it takes.

It is all too much show biz.

Consider that the rise of photography and photojournalism coincided with the
rise of increasingly brutal mechanized warfare.

Photos of the Crimea did not lessen the brutality of the Civil War. The
images of that war did seemingly little to mitigate the horrors of WWI.
WWII brought new photographers with sleek Leicas and the horrors increased.
Then Korea. Then Vietnam. All kinds of new photo technology and more brave
photographers and even Ron Haberle's images of My Lai did little to bring
the perpetrators to true justice.

The Guardian article -- excellent as it is -- shows that the photos from the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and Congo exist on a continuum, which leads
from those places to photos from Afghanistan and Iraq and then Libya, the
digital and satellite immediacy touching our hearts no more than before and
causing no more real action than before. New wars. New brave photographers
dying. New photos. New horrors. Same old song and dance.

Who's next? And which perfume or automobile or shoe manufacturer is paying
next time?

We don't seem to learn much from the photography we see. The pictures are
blips on the screens of our entertainment-seeking days.

Arguably, the kinds of photos from war which are published seem to only
encourage more war and more warriors, because they avoid depicting the
horror. And the people who see the photos are not that thoughtful anyway.

And how could the photos depict the truth, anyway? Most of us who consume
photojournalism live in societies anesthetized from death. Who of us wishes
to imagine war tonight?

So let's all boycott war photography. Just ignore it. Encourage
photographers to photograph love and beauty and to bombard our every senses
and our hours with just that, as much as possible.

It's the only antidote.

Emanuel



I've gotten passed the mantra of bearing witness as a means or an end. It's
a nice idea, conceptually, but it doesn't seem all that functional.