[Leica] War Photographers

[photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Phil Forrest)]

Emanuel,
A rather pessimistic view in the eyes of the greater media consuming
audience but one which I share for the most part. 

The folks who actually see the images that war photographers make are
so far removed from the conflicts usually that they could be on a
different planet. Most of the populations of the people covered
(Rwanda, Uganda, Somalia, Iraq, the Balkans, SE Asia and the list goes
on) never get to see the images. All the way back to the beginning of
photography it can still largely be a medium for the upper
socio-economic echelon of civilization. 
Like you say, war photographs have not changed anything. Margaret
Bourke-White's (among others) work to document the horrors of Nazi
concentration camps may have helped to put the nail in the coffin on
the atrocities of that conflict but they did not prevent future
conflicts or future genocides. Now that visual information services
are persecuted in many nations, and to some extent, all nations (subtle
means of censorship) the commission of atrocities against mankind or
the natural world may go even more unnoticed than before through
suppression of information. Not that it matters though. I still do
think that people need to see the condition that others live in but as
long as a populace is not directly affected by a condition, they are
going to say "that's sad" then turn the channel. Consumers of media
these days have to actively seek out the images of war or realistic
depictions of the human condition (famine, disease, genocide, poverty)
since there are so many outlets that simply don't carry any such
images. Before cable, just the airwaves carried all the news and there
were few networks. The images of war were in the news constantly and on
the newspapers the same. Now we all have to make money so money wins
over suffering of others when the media is concerned.
It's sad that people so willingly turn their backs on the suffering of
others in favor of a lighthearted distraction of life but it's the way
the market works. 

Phil Forrest



On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:08:33 -0500
EPL <manolito at videotron.ca> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information