Landrum Kelly Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 <p>I will deliberately leave the simplistic and dichotomous formulation of the question for others to restate as it suits their purposes for elucidating their own positions.</p> <p>What provoked my thought in all this is that I have spent a good bit of my life attempting to rebut the arguments of the so-called "just war" theorists--with words, of course.</p> <p>Then minutes ago I watched this:</p> <p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtZJC_4YmE</p> <p>(I think that the shot of the mother bending down over her son, bleeding but looking up at her, touched me the most. I wonder if he lived.)</p> <p>Awareness of the horror of war has not stopped human beings from fighting, of course. I simply wonder to what extent photography might yet help to accomplish what words have so far failed to do.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> <p>P.S.: This post is dedicated to my dear friend John Crosley, who combines words with pictures so very well:</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=888636</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobcossar Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 <p>Nothing has <em><strong>ever</strong></em> stopped the horrors of war.....nothing! Not sanity...not religion, not anything. So the conclusion that I am forced to come to is that we do it because we <strong>like</strong> doing it. Otherwise we would have stopped it thousands of years ago....but we haven't....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 <p>Their are words and words. John C.'s written words are indeed more powerful than so many others. What formally stops most war in modern time are surely written and signed words. I have up till now never seen a peace agreement made in photos. <br> More seriously war mongering can only be stopped by democracy taken over from special interests of powerful lobbies and here I agree that images of the horrors of war do play a great role. This role is surely understood by our governments.<br> Reference to the decision of not showing images of the dead Ben Laden in order not to provoke strong reactions from radical muslims throughout the world, just like decisions of not releasing images of dead soldiers "coming home" tells a story of the understanding of the power of photos in modern time. What presently happens concerning unbearable shots of Kadhafi lying dead on the floor of a butcher shop continue that same story line.<br> We are all maybe more manipulated by photos and the lack or availability of it, than liberated. It is therefore not photos (or words) that will stop or provoke wars but their use, in the hands of people in power. The 99% and the use of internet (Youtube, twitter) could threaten that power of governments and special interest groups in the coming years - if it is not already happening. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsperry Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I think if you stack a bunch of photos and flip through them at about 30 photos per second the result is something that is more powerful than both words or single photo. Examples would be the recent macing by New York Police officer Anthony Bologna of a non violent peaceful netted girl. And the video of the Chinese toddler run over by two vans and ignored dying in the street by 18 passersby. The first one has helped ignite a worldwide movement of dissent. The second has caused a national, worldwide, soul searching of what makes us human, and inhuman. No words or a single photo could have described either effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_daniel1 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 When I was the editor of a weekly newspaper, I told my photojournalist that the best front-page, stand-alone photo is one that needs no words to go with it, but he must write the words anyway. That is a tough assignment, but he gave it to me on average about five times a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_zinn Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 <p> This might seem a crass response to the way you have framed the question but it could have some value. There are clinical studies that deal with comparing text and visual information. The mind requires very little data to fully recall a picture. But I suspect you are seeking more aesthetic or comprehensive emotional responses. My gut feeling is they are about the same but I could be talked out of that. Intuitively it seems reasonable that photos would stick in the mind more often than text. Their message is swiftly delivered, if not concise. Whereas text has the advantage of less ambiguity. Reading "Another 125 people were killed today." and seeing pictures of mothers and their dead sons every few days as we do will have a cumulative effect with the photos winning out in message.<br> Poetry (as does the music you referenced), of course, aims for the imagination and emotions in a similar way as photographs. The most satisfying expression of that I often repeat is that like poetry, pictures get <em>between </em>the words.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wclark5179 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 <p>What I try to accomplish is to make photographs of people that are happy. I had a family photo session this morning with a lovely couple and their two children. I was fortunate enough to be their photographer in 2005 for their wedding. I have many clients who like what photos I create of them. They have become my friends. <br /> Last weekend I was fortunate to make business portraits of about 40 Mary Kay ladies. What a wonderful experience!</p> <p>War is terrible. As a combat action veteran I know it first hand. Many who have no experience, talk about it, watch movies, look at photos and hear stories. For those of us who had active involvement we'd just as soon forget. There are better things to focus on with human existence. Let's work on those. That's what I do. And my clients seem to like that philosophy. Smiles!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 <p>Images can be used to support war as well as support anti-war. How many Americans watched videos of the WTC towers collapse and wanted to get "even"? Words too can have the same effect. I remember when Bush went to ground zero afterward and said "we heard form them, now they'll hear from us". Very simple words spoken very quietly that got a huge cheer from everyone present at the site. I felt at the time I heard them were words that united and galvanized Americans to war.</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 <p>One single photo can mean allot of things. While it takes allot of words to mean allot of things...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_richardson1 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 <p>You argue your position using the tools at hand. Whether through words or images, or the combination of both as in a movie, your goal is to touch another person's mind in an agreeable way for your point of view. As for which tool is the best tool - it all depends on the circumstances and how many blows you must strike to build your case and fend off the opposition. The ultimate outcome will help you figure out how well it went for you in hindsight.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 <p><img id="fullSizedImage" src="http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m152/bigskygal/War/fire5d.jpg" alt="" /><br> In my opinion, whether a photograph such as the example above heightens awareness of the horrors of war presupposes a certain degree on the part of its viewers. During the time of the VietNam war, photographs such as this made an impact on American society because there already was considerable effort to end it. Such photographs had catalytic effect.</p> <p>I would like to think that contemporary photographs, such as the youtube piece Lannie provided, can play a similar role. The sad reality, though, is that present society is numb to violence, including violence accompanying a war. Even worse is the fact that effecting any significant change has been drowned out by the incessant noise created by apathy. </p> <p>OK, I guess it's time for me to disappear down the rabbit hole again.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 <p>Oops . . ., left out a phrase in my last post. Following "degree", I forgot to include "of sensitivity."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 <blockquote> <p>In my opinion, whether a photograph such as the example above heightens awareness of the horrors of war presupposes a certain degree of sensitivity on the part of its viewers.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you, Michael. I have restated your sentence with the missing phrase inserted. Yes, the impact does vary depending on the degree of sensitivity, and over time we seem to have become somewhat desensitized--or at least that is what others above have said.</p> <p>There are yet efforts by the authorities to prevent the taking and dissemination of images--and to prevent correspondents from getting into certain areas of action. I think that John Crosley addressed this in a recent forum, but perhaps it was someone else who was also a correspondent during the Vietnam War. It certainly is more nearly the case today in the wars fought in the Middle East--except when the same authorities want to be sure that the corpses of deposed dictators are seen and analyzed.</p> <p>Clinton's call for an investigation into the circumstances of the death of Ghaddafy indicates that the public relations engines are working overtime--we will no doubt get more images as a result of any such investigation, in case there is anyone who has not seen the photos already. It is interesting that no shots of Bin Laden were revealed by comparison. I understand that such images would have created even more followers, but again we see the role of the government in deciding what will and will not be shown--to the extent possible. Thanks to the internet, however, it is will be increasingly hard to prevent information flow--including both words and pictures. Authorities can always be counted on to try to show or prevent the showing of this or that, depending on how it suits their own political interests (probably of greater concern to them than national security in many instances).</p> <p>In any case, we can also become desensitized to words. The "pacifism-just war" dispute has been going on for centuries, and neither side seems to be able to be able to make many converts of the other. I wonder if it will always be so.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 <p>Double post.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 <p> <p>They are both forms of communication the photograph has instant visual communication and is easier to recall. However, words can go deeper in their way.. communicate a deeper meaning than just visual expression.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 <p>Allen - Whether words "go deeper" than photographs is a matter for another thread. (For the record, I disagree.) In my opinion, a person whose sensitivities have become so deadened that graphic photographs of the atrocities that accompany war won't spur that person to action probably will not be affected by verbal descriptions of such atrocities. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 <p>I think that we're also more desensitized to pictures today then in the past. The constant display of images on YouTube the web and elsewhere, the realism of Hollywood movies,the immediate cell phone images displayed from the place of action, real-time, has lessened the impact. Most people see them and think that well, it's just another picture, I've seen "worse". It'll take a more dramatic picture today to have the effect of many in the past.</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 <p>Part of the problem, for me at least, is that 'old' technology gave us the images, and the words of the photographer, the editor or even the viewer, but rarely the words of the subject. That fact often removed a lot from the story being told. We had to rely on the truth of the words used as caption or accompanying the images as editorial content.</p> <p>Today we have convergent devices which enable first-hand accounts to be easily distributed, and the immediacy and involvement this enables is a powerful combination, subjects own voices can be heard, in real time. But authenticity and accuracy (truth) can suffer because 'stuff' gets out so fast.</p> <p>Of course lies have always been told (as propaganda), but the difference with modern digital devices is that the incredible speed of sharing means that stories, even if wildliy inaccurate, are often actually shaping news as it happens, and once the genie is out of the bottle it's really hard to get it back in.</p> <p>I dont personally think images are more or less powerful than words. There are good images and bad, and wonderful words and words I'd rather not hear. Poetry, as mentioned before, is a wonderful art, which can summon mental images and feelings that photographs could never hope to approach.</p> <p>Which is a good moment to recount one of my favourite poems, by Tomas Transtromer, who recently was awarded a well-deserved Nobel Prize for Literature.....</p> <p><em><strong>From March '79</strong></em></p> <p><em>Tired of all who came with words, words with no language</em><br> <em>I went to the snow-covered island.</em><br> <em>The wild does not have words.</em><br> <em>The unwritten pages spread themselves out in all directions!</em><br> <em>I come across the marks of roe-deer's hooves in the snow.</em><br> <em>Language but no words.</em></p> <p>©Tomas Transtromer (translated by John F Deane)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 <p>Lannie: I suspect that, during the VietNam era, there was plenty of effort - organized and otherwise - to censor photographs taken in war zones or to restrict photographers from being in those areas. My gut feeling is that a dedicated "war photographer" will find a way in, and also a way to display his/her work. I am sad to say that my jaded perspective now makes it difficult for me to think that photographs of that <em>genre </em>will make much of a difference, inasmuch as people in general are not overly bothered by government interference with photography.</p> <p>Alan: It's not just a matter of desensitization. It's also a matter of apathy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_zinn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 <p><br /><br />This OP inspired me to think of the indelible images among the zillions I have seriously and repeatedly looked over. They came to mind like a slow slide show. There is only a comparatively small amount of text I recall and then only vague impressions, not literally. There was a time, of course, when the exact opposite was true for everyone. Memorized verses and epigrams were familiar discourse rather than images. Images then were only symbolic references with no new content. <br /> Looking at photographs as we do here makes us atypical. As a visual rather than verbal culture do we loose a great depth of understanding?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>As a visual rather than verbal culture do we loose a great depth of understanding?</p> </blockquote> <p>Alan, I'm sure you are right in that observation on our contemporary culture, if you by the word "verbal"refer to <strong>reading</strong> and <strong>writing</strong> and not only <strong>spoken</strong> culture, as the word actually means. Images and films are increasing in importance for us all, also for understanding the world. But more for some than for others.</p> <p>Also in this field we are experiencing an ever deeper segregation in society with a great majority that, as you describe it yourself, have little writing, reading and maybe even speaking culture left, but more and more, a visually based perception of the world. And, a much smaller group that add to the visual culture, the writing, reading and speaking culture that especially higher non vocational education, whether formal or informal, still provides. It is not the 99% against the 1% - but maybe in most countries the 80% against the 20%.<br> To answer your question : "do we loose a great depth of understanding", I'm convinced that we do, with great consequences for democracy. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_zinn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 <p><br />Anders,<br> I meant memorization and recitation - passages from holy texts, poetry and the like. The question then becomes whether, measured against memorized words, pictures are less affecting. <br> Language appears to have devolved into a form of imprecise pidgin supplemented by images that are no more than gestural attempts at conveying information. Some sort of synergy is hoped for, I suppose, but how their vast numbers must muddy our recollection!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 <p>Sorry Alan, I misread you then. However, memorization of images and that of textes, cannot, as far as I see it, be taken as identical to understanding. They are of different order. What I think one could do is to consider the importance the images and words. Our whole understanding of the world we live in is based on our capabilities of designation words to what we see or hear or feel by our senses, in the real world or for that sake in images.Images and whatever they provoke of emotions, can never do it alone without words. <br /> Therefor when you ask a question like : <em>"As a visual rather than verbal culture do we loose a great depth of understanding?</em>" it becomes non-sensical, because the visual and the verbal (as you use the term) cannot be split. To say it simply: those with many words (great vocabulary) are better equipped to memories more easily images. Whether it brings understanding, is an another and even more complicated question to answer. To take an example. The hundreds of words for "snow" that the European Sami people uses and memorizes (words and images) does not in any way bring higher understanding of how and why such different "snows" exist or are produced.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 <p>Suppose fear is more fundamental than reason. Suppose arguments/claims about the presence or absence of logic and justice for/against war are glosses, pretty wrappings made to promote or explain what is at core irrational, chaotic and primal. Suppose theories about "stopping" war are a view from the outside, dealing with manifestations (violence, pain), not the root cause or lack of cause, lack of reason, a lack of logic; fear.</p> <p>When Georges Bataille says: "<em>The search for truth is not my strong suit (above all, I mean the phraseology that represents it). And I should now put this forward: more than truth, it is fear that I want and that I am seeking: that which opens a dizzyiing fall, that which attains the unlimited possibility of thought</em>." ... do you have any sense of what he's talking about? The attraction of the "dizzying fall"?</p> <p>If pictures of war are seen not as logical claims/arguments of wrongness, but as fear-generators, fear-stimulants, don't they have an entirely different effect on the viewer than what is being suggested in this thread? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 <blockquote> <p>If pictures of war are seen not as logical claims/arguments of wrongness, but as fear-generators, fear-stimulants, don't they have an entirely different effect on the viewer than what is being suggested in this thread?</p> </blockquote> <p>If the "power" that this thread talks about is the power of generating fear, Georges Bataille would still be demanded if he finds that in photos more than in words. I would expect him to answer : the "cruel practice of arts". <br> To what degree the "dizzying fall" in terms of <em>understanding </em>goes beyond the phraseology that represents "truth", is still to be answered.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now