Personally I think it's really hard to be a good war photographer, but I admit, it's pretty disheartening. It's hard to say what I would have done in such situation, but for sure I would try to help this poor girl. I've seen similar photos few months ago, when a boy was eaten alive by a snake. And no one helped him. They were just taking photos... This is sad story, one of many others, but we shouldn't admire such photographers, give them prizes and so on if they haven't done anything to help such kids. Of course this is my point of view, feel free to disagree.
As for the opinion on the morality of war photographers, it's hard to say anything at me, I am not the subject at hand. As for the second question, it depends on the interpretation. A good image or a good book can affect the sensitive man, if Feel at what he sees or reads, certainly arouses pity in him that chases him to help. No one inadvertently be harmed, and no one inadvertently hurt someone others. You wrote that a volunteer after seeing the photos, he wanted to help such people.
This is very hard topic to discuss on, because we do not now all the background stories and motives of each and every photographer. Of course, if they’re going to such places with camera, their first idea is not to help local people (it could of course, but it’s hard for me to believe in a such pure compassion). Many times, when they come across that kind of situation, they have a dilemma – help one or postpone the purpose of their visit, or wait and maybe help many others with a photo. In 2011 I worked as a volunteer during Plus Camerimage Festival and I had a pleasure to be a guide/carer for some people connected with documentary film. One of those was Peter Brugman, director of photography, who worked on a Dutch movie called „Painful Painting”. This is a movie about a painter, Ronald Ophuis, who after visits in Sierra Leone and seeing all the horrible things, which took place there (especially violent games that child soldiers played with female prisoners during the recent civil war), he uses actors to re-stage a number of these extreme scenes in his studio to then paint them on a large canvas. One of their awful tales is about a bet. Men are guessing the genre of a child and then they cut open a captured pregnant woman open to see if the baby is a boy or a girl. This exact situation is shown on this trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVvwnesXNvg. The painter explains why he believes the styling of violence in the form of art can make a better contribution to audience insight and awareness than a photo in the media.
It’s impossible to help each and every person, one by one, so finding a global solution to help many at once is a better idea for me.
I've always thought that pictures from war are taken by soldiers not by photographers - in the meaning of profession. Few weeks ago came up new movie about something similar: "Nightcrawler"
I think it is extremely important to have images that are more or less "objective" (it's discussible if objectivity is a real thing at all) reporting events such as wars, disasters, because - this also answers the second question - it might raise awareness. It is unfortunately obvious, that very often it is only the most tragic of images that can bring important issues to our attention. A question of morality is one that arises in this case: how to judge photographers that do their job, sometimes at the price of other people loosing their lives or health... where is the border that sets what is right and what is wrong? This unfortunately is a very broad and hard question to answer.
My opinion couldn’t be opponent to previously. I saw a lot of dramatically photos in the internet for instance Mallasian Airlines Boeing crash in Ukraine this year. The Internet is overload of violence content. On the one side I`m trying to believe that after publishing of those photos, World and people will be a little more sensitive for very hard situation in some regions.. On the other side I don’t want to see any more something like this but right steps should be done from all World`s organizations and governments side to solve many problems and to answer for many questions... look up only for main picture of this presentation....
A short article, but it was enough to plant the seed of curiosity in my head. I guess you have to sacrifice something (yourself or other person/thing) to get a magnificent and/or meaningful shot, to shed a light on world's problems. I've never given much thought about war photographers' work, but for sure I will check this story out.
I hate people like that. I understand that the "better part of the world" should see what is happening in places like that BUT photojournalists should think better. They always think about the photo, I know that this is their job but come on, waitin 20 minutes for spreading wings by vulture ? This guy has something really messed up with his head. I really think that most of the photojournalists should not do their job, cause they only think about money not about the true crime they are getting on the photo. And this is wrong
This is hard topic. I have some experience in work with journalist and have to tell you a lot of them lost it. How many people will see their's work or read their's articles is too often more importatn than things like morality or even acoountability of presented information. Maybe I have bad experience but I don't like journalists in general.
Photo with vulture reminded me about other shot I've seen that also caused dispute about moralty of journalists, story and picutre is on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omayra_S%C3%A1nchez). In my opinion, not interrupting is part of the journalist work. Their job is to deliver true picture, something that happens without the influence of photographer. It may seem cruel, but that's just the way world is. Perceiving journalists like vultures preying on human tragedy, is caused by lack of perspective. Maybe in those dangerous regions of the world dying and suffering people are so common sight, that helping everyone is simply not possible. In that case, maybe better option is to show others what is the situation than waste this possibility just to help one out of thousands.
World is full of misery and suffering already, so those photographers are merely documenting it. Maybe they are not helping directly but photos they take may save many lives later on by moving people around the world and showing the true face of war - that no matter who wins, both sides already lost because they had to fight and take lives.
Last week I went to the cinema and watched the movie "Nightcrawler" with Jake Gylllleeeenhaaaaaaaaaaaal (i don't know how many letters there are)... Anyway the movie was about something close. Not really about war photographer but a news photographer/journalist. At the and you have to remember that any job is about earning money, so you want to push it to the limit to make more money on the other hand journalists and photographer are doing a favor to the public, taking photos and making them available to the world to see. So it's more of a question to self for any journalist if his job is about to serve people or to make money. I guess it's always something in between :-) I respect journalists. I have a friend who wants to be a journalist for National Geographic and clearly I can tell that at this stage of his career it's more of a inspiration than money. And definitely yest - journalists DOES change the world with these photos. They are the eyes of the society.
Personally I think it's really hard to be a good war photographer, but I admit, it's pretty disheartening.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say what I would have done in such situation, but for sure I would try to help this poor girl.
I've seen similar photos few months ago, when a boy was eaten alive by a snake. And no one helped him. They were just taking photos...
This is sad story, one of many others, but we shouldn't admire such photographers, give them prizes and so on if they haven't done anything to help such kids.
Of course this is my point of view, feel free to disagree.
ReplyDeleteAs for the opinion on the morality of war photographers, it's hard to say anything at me, I am not the subject at hand. As for the second question, it depends on the interpretation. A good image or a good book can affect the sensitive man, if Feel at what he sees or reads, certainly arouses pity in him that chases him to help. No one inadvertently be harmed, and no one inadvertently hurt someone others. You wrote that a volunteer after seeing the photos, he wanted to help such people.
This is very hard topic to discuss on, because we do not now all the background stories and motives of each and every photographer. Of course, if they’re going to such places with camera, their first idea is not to help local people (it could of course, but it’s hard for me to believe in a such pure compassion). Many times, when they come across that kind of situation, they have a dilemma – help one or postpone the purpose of their visit, or wait and maybe help many others with a photo. In 2011 I worked as a volunteer during Plus Camerimage Festival and I had a pleasure to be a guide/carer for some people connected with documentary film. One of those was Peter Brugman, director of photography, who worked on a Dutch movie called „Painful Painting”. This is a movie about a painter, Ronald Ophuis, who after visits in Sierra Leone and seeing all the horrible things, which took place there (especially violent games that child soldiers played with female prisoners during the recent civil war), he uses actors to re-stage a number of these extreme scenes in his studio to then paint them on a large canvas. One of their awful tales is about a bet. Men are guessing the genre of a child and then they cut open a captured pregnant woman open to see if the baby is a boy or a girl. This exact situation is shown on this trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVvwnesXNvg. The painter explains why he believes the styling of violence in the form of art can make a better contribution to audience insight and awareness than a photo in the media.
ReplyDeleteIt’s impossible to help each and every person, one by one, so finding a global solution to help many at once is a better idea for me.
I've always thought that pictures from war are taken by soldiers not by photographers - in the meaning of profession. Few weeks ago came up new movie about something similar: "Nightcrawler"
ReplyDeleteI think it is extremely important to have images that are more or less "objective" (it's discussible if objectivity is a real thing at all) reporting events such as wars, disasters, because - this also answers the second question - it might raise awareness. It is unfortunately obvious, that very often it is only the most tragic of images that can bring important issues to our attention. A question of morality is one that arises in this case: how to judge photographers that do their job, sometimes at the price of other people loosing their lives or health... where is the border that sets what is right and what is wrong? This unfortunately is a very broad and hard question to answer.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion couldn’t be opponent to previously. I saw a lot of dramatically photos in the internet for instance Mallasian Airlines Boeing crash in Ukraine this year. The Internet is overload of violence content. On the one side I`m trying to believe that after publishing of those photos, World and people will be a little more sensitive for very hard situation in some regions.. On the other side I don’t want to see any more something like this but right steps should be done from all World`s organizations and governments side to solve many problems and to answer for many questions... look up only for main picture of this presentation....
ReplyDeleteA short article, but it was enough to plant the seed of curiosity in my head. I guess you have to sacrifice something (yourself or other person/thing) to get a magnificent and/or meaningful shot, to shed a light on world's problems. I've never given much thought about war photographers' work, but for sure I will check this story out.
ReplyDeleteI hate people like that. I understand that the "better part of the world" should see what is happening in places like that BUT photojournalists should think better. They always think about the photo, I know that this is their job but come on, waitin 20 minutes for spreading wings by vulture ? This guy has something really messed up with his head.
ReplyDeleteI really think that most of the photojournalists should not do their job, cause they only think about money not about the true crime they are getting on the photo. And this is wrong
This is hard topic. I have some experience in work with journalist and have to tell you a lot of them lost it. How many people will see their's work or read their's articles is too often more importatn than things like morality or even acoountability of presented information. Maybe I have bad experience but I don't like journalists in general.
ReplyDeletePhoto with vulture reminded me about other shot I've seen that also caused dispute about moralty of journalists, story and picutre is on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omayra_S%C3%A1nchez). In my opinion, not interrupting is part of the journalist work. Their job is to deliver true picture, something that happens without the influence of photographer. It may seem cruel, but that's just the way world is. Perceiving journalists like vultures preying on human tragedy, is caused by lack of perspective. Maybe in those dangerous regions of the world dying and suffering people are so common sight, that helping everyone is simply not possible. In that case, maybe better option is to show others what is the situation than waste this possibility just to help one out of thousands.
ReplyDeleteWorld is full of misery and suffering already, so those photographers are merely documenting it. Maybe they are not helping directly but photos they take may save many lives later on by moving people around the world and showing the true face of war - that no matter who wins, both sides already lost because they had to fight and take lives.
ReplyDeleteLast week I went to the cinema and watched the movie "Nightcrawler" with Jake Gylllleeeenhaaaaaaaaaaaal (i don't know how many letters there are)... Anyway the movie was about something close. Not really about war photographer but a news photographer/journalist. At the and you have to remember that any job is about earning money, so you want to push it to the limit to make more money on the other hand journalists and photographer are doing a favor to the public, taking photos and making them available to the world to see. So it's more of a question to self for any journalist if his job is about to serve people or to make money. I guess it's always something in between :-) I respect journalists. I have a friend who wants to be a journalist for National Geographic and clearly I can tell that at this stage of his career it's more of a inspiration than money. And definitely yest - journalists DOES change the world with these photos. They are the eyes of the society.
ReplyDelete