What makes the Iwo Jima flag raising a great photo?

<i>Abe Rosenthal wasn't some member of a power elite </i><p>

I didn't know they called Joseph "Abe". Is that a typo or some special inside knowledge. I'd like to think of him as Abe.<p>

BTW, I could swear he was the photo editor for Parade magazine for a while. I did a cover and inside story for them (way back then) and worked with a Rosenthal.

I knew an Abe Rosenthal...no association with Iwo or Parade, but with elementary school 8-) If there's a connection between Abe and Joe in my mind it's that they were picked on by their peers, I guess. Mind plays tricks like that, but for a purpose, it seems:

 

I gather there's a movie about all this now. I hope it sets the record straight on all the crap that's been rumored about the flag raising being contrived and staged. I have an opinion about that...

 

It may be envy at Joe's good fortune because his photo became so famous and loved that the rumor started, and it may be the reason why otherwise sane people are willing to believe it. It just adds fuel to their fire that the photograph really is a great shot.

 

There's the prissy art student attitude that because the rabble love the photo it must be trite and unworthy of respect.

 

There's the Art Photography attitude that opportunistic photographs cannot be art and it is merely the photo's emotional or historical content that commends it to anyone's attention.

 

Those attitudes sum up all the negativity that comes out about this photograph and this photographer and this type of photography.

 

I gave my reasons why I think it is a great photograph, Pico. You can critique that if you wish -- to summarize: it captures the essence of military combat since the Spartans; the photograph has a powerful, physical dynamic impact captured in the left to right movement of driving the pole into the ground. It is not The Moment, but an anticipation of the moment suspended in silver.

 

So, besides the fact that petite bourgeois shopkeepers and Joe Sixpack love this photo, besides the fact that it is chock full of historical associations, besides the fact that Joe Rosenthal was an otherwise unreknowned photographer, why is this photograph not worthy of a photographer's respect?

 

--

 

Don E

<<If you people would pay attention, the question specified that we were to erase our knowledge of the photograph and what it represented. Most of you have pretty well ignored that framework and gone all wishy washy emotional.>>

 

If you take the emotional factor out of a photograph you make it nothing more than a pretty picture. Without emotion, any photo may as well be a chamber of commerce publicity shot.

 

Any discussion of "good" that centers on technical merit (and yes, composition, timing, choice of subject, etc are technical concerns) is inherently flawed. What ultimately makes a photo good or bad is the emotional connection that it forges (or fails to forge) with those people who view it.

 

Besides, the OP's question of, "If it popped up here and no one had ever seen it before, what kind of ratings would it get?" is SEPARATE from his other question of, "But what makes it great? Composition? Originality? Aesthetics? Technique? Black and White? Context?".

 

The answer to "But what makes it great?" is "Context.".

As photography enthusiasts, critique and analysis of others work is helpful in

making us better photographers as well as enhancing our enjoyment of other

peoples work. I think that part of the reason I asked the questions is to see

how we, today, at PN would critique an already established great photograph

compared to those that are uploaded daily on this web site. I wonder if we

use different standards to evaluate some photos from those that we crtique

here. Perhaps in looking at this great photograph critically, we might become

better at appreciating what we see here on PN every day.

 

My personal opinion is that this was and is a great photogaph on many levels.

World War II was one of the most photographed events of all time. People

viewed numrous pictures of the war in newspapers and magazines every

day. Few photographs acheived the status of this one and I have to believe

that it is more than just context that sets this photograph apart from others in

similar context.

<<My personal opinion is that this was and is a great photogaph on many levels. World War II was one of the most photographed events of all time. People viewed numrous pictures of the war in newspapers and magazines every day. Few photographs acheived the status of this one and I have to believe that it is more than just context that sets this photograph apart from others in similar context.>>

 

I can definitely respect that view. I don't agree with it, and that's my opinion. But you know what they say about opinions; everyone has one...

 

I think it's a "right place and right time" image that captured its emotional context better than others. As far as why, I don't have the slightest idea. I'll admit to knowing nothing about composition, I just wait until I see something I like in my viewfinder. Very occasionally I get lucky.

<i>I gave my reasons why I think it is a great photograph, Pico. You can critique that if you wish </i><p>

No need to critique it. The work stands on its own. I was just wondering who Abe was.

What makes a great photo is not how well it complies with a simple set of rules. I've seen many photos that completely fail on all the tests of composition etc yet have power to move.

The photo is great now because of its historical context, and the perspective of the hindsight (political, pop culture, memorialization, et al) we now enjoy.

 

The photo was great then from a more purely photojournalistic standpoint. The labor involved in raising the flagpole was a metaphor for the difficulty of that battle on that island - how hard it was to take Mt Surabachi. It also, in its time, was a metaphor for the uphill battle, to that point, of the war in the Pacific theatre. Back then, there was no CNN, no Fox News (those were the good ol' days), and no instant feedback. Most Americans could only read or hear on the radio how the war was going. Newspapers were the most easily viewed outlets for visual information. Rosenthal's image took full advantage of that dynamic; he knew his audience. One frame to tell a larger story.

 

The image is timeless. It resonates today with the same strength it resonated during the war, albeit for different reasons.

 

Michael J Hoffman

All the above about this image is true...but from a photojournalistic point of view, it was contrived....so it is a lie....it had to be "redone", as the photog missed the actual happenstance. Still, the folks back home didn't know this so the desired effect was not lost. But it was staged! The populuce was manipulated!

<I>All the above about this image is true...but from a photojournalistic point of view, it

was contrived....so it is a lie....it had to be "redone", as the photog missed the actual

happenstance.</I><P>

None of the above is accurate.<P>

1.) Yes, the Rosenthal photo is of the second flag raising. The first flag was ordered

replaced by

the USN Admiral in charge of the landing. The story is he wanted the first flag as a

souvenier and also

wanted a flag up there that was "big enough that everyone on the island can see it."<P>

2.) The Associated Press photographer (Rosenthal) didn't miss the first flag being rasied-

except in the sense that he wasn't there. He accompanioed the squad sent up withthe

second flag. As it was Rosenthal barely got the shot . The flag started fgoign up as he was

getting in postion and getting prepared. As the flasg started to go up, he quickly turned

around and shot one frame (this is the one that became famous) and then for insurance

shot a second sheet of ilm. He was using a 4x5 Speed Graphic which was the standard

issue press camera in 1944. <P>see:<P>

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0203/howe.htm<P>

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0607/uncommon-valor-common-virtue.html

Ellis, there is only ONE flag raising....subsequent raising are just that! It's like getting pregnant...just takes one sperm....the first raising was the raising of the flag...the 2nd was NOT, eventhough it took place. It is irrelevent that the higher ranking official wanted the original flag and wanted a bigger flag....the photog missed THE raising of the flag...2nd one does not count in my book.

 

You say the photog didn't miss the raising, then you say he did miss the first one....double talk...go back and re-read your response....double talk.

 

At the end of the day it was contrived. This is all acedemic....and moot only because the effect on the population back home was no less the same.

Pavel, "At the end of the day it was contrived." Was only the second flag raising contrived? Why wasn't the first flag raising contrived? Any flag raising while a battle rages is contrived. I think it was actually a Marine Lt. Colonel that wanted the first flag for a souvenier and he was killed a few days later in subsequant action.

How many here would like to have your name being credited for this photograph? Think about it and respond.

The photograph was not posed. Given that fact, I don't believe Rosenthal could have taken a better photograph. Form and Content is what a documentary photograph is all about. This photgraph has both in spades. As to what "score" the photo might get in photonet, who cares. I don't believe there are that many visualy literate people "grading" photographs on the net.

An historical moment, unique in human kind, as many other images.

It is not just a photo. If ever there was an icon this is it. It has become part of American myth and I don't mean fantasy but stories about divine or heroic beings which embody some important truth and which are passed down through the generations. It comes from a time of such critical conflict that we can only imagine. The fear and anger and uncertain future loose in the world then was overwhelming. It was about the only thing everyone was deeply interested in and the reality of the War must have pervaded everything. On Iwo Jima, allied casualties were 26,000 with 7000 deaths. Japanese had 22,000 men on that island and 99% of them were killed with 1% captured. Over a quarter of all the Congressional Medal of Honors awarded to Marines during the entire War are given to the guys at Iwo Jima. It's one of the most brutal, hand-to-hand battles in the most destructive war of all time. Imagine the context of that photo which is larger than any other I can think of. It's context is the whole world and that entire period and everyone alive. That context together with such an iconic, heroic and meaningful gesture spoke in the most eloquent way to Americans.<BR><BR>

 

It's a tiny elongated island, 8 square miles, with Mount Surabachi at one end and when Americans captured the mountain and raised the flag, fighting was still thick over two thirds of the island. Everyone, the GI's and the Japanese, could see that big flag on the mountain and must have known that it meant American victory and not just on Iwo Jima but for the whole Pacific war. The photograph shows that victory. People could begin to see the end. It is the decisive moment of the battle; the battle itself is a decisive moment in the WW II; and the WW II is a decisive moment in modern history.

John,

 

I think you can throw that all out. What made it great was it's timing, not on the mountain but to the audience. It filled a very big void and therefore had an impact far greater than the image itself. The image was heavily promoted in a campaign that could have gotten someone elected to high office, even now.

Like most photographs we consider to be "great", it isn't about the composition of the photo itself that makes it that way, but instead, it's the story that the photo tells. That's also why photojournalism is so different from artistic photography.

 

Think about it. What sort of score in aesthetics and originality do you think that flag raising photo would score on here? Or the famous kiss in Times Square from Life Magazine? Just to look at them, solely on their own artistic merit, well frankly, they're sort of boring. But what they document is what makes those photos so great. They don't just document any moment in time, but an extremely significant moment in time.

I have a good friend that just turned 90 a few weeks ago. He's a good natured man who ran a shoe store in a small town in Connecticut for decades. He's very active in his church and community. He's a man who loves to talk to people about anything with one exception. He was on the second wave of Iwo Jima on the afternoon of the first day. When you ask him about that photograph, his face lights up as he exclaims "I saw that picture being taken!". But then his face turns and his eyes well up and he says "That was no fun". He says no more.

 

That's what that photograph means.

Ever dodged incoming fire while trying to capture imagery? I have. What the shooter captured is the emotional definition of that moment in time. The image never would have happened if not for the war, so you can't separate the conflict from the image. They go hand in hand.