Can a single Photo impact your Philosophy of Photography

<a href="http://www.vietnamwar.com/PhanThiKimPhuc.htm"> the photo

is</a>

 

<p>can seeing a photograph effect you philosophically and ethically?

depends on what you call an "effect"

Bernd, I think that Quiche meant to write 'affect', ie. <i>"can seeing a photograph </i><b>affect</b><i> you philosophically and ethically?"</i>

I think a photograph can have an high impact even in today's

image saturated society but not sure in a philosophical or ethical

sense. Personal ethic and philosophy are acummulated over

one's lifetime based upon many different variables from the very

trivial to leap of faith. It also depends on the the viewer

themselves as much as the photograph in question.

I had my photographic philosophy changed after seeing a single print.

To me the modern successor of the 1972 Vietnam picture above are the amateur shoots taken in Abu Ghraib.

 

It's no accident that some blurred amateurish pictures took over the role of once reputed war photography. Today it is almost impossible to be directly affected by any picture circulated by the mass media. Instead everyone asks to what degree pictures might be staged or pre selected and for whom the underlying message might be advantageous.

If anyone's interested, there's a book called "The Girl in the Picture" by Denise Chong that is all about Kim's life. Very interesting, and moving.

I imagine it depends greatly on the moral ethical outlook of the viewer. There is no absolute, though some would have us think so, when it comes to morals or ethics. If we agree strongly with the e/m viewpoint being presented by the artist, then it reenforces the position. If we disagree just as strongly, it's just as likeley to polarize us against that point of view.

 

Very open ended question.

I have doubts that any image, by itself, could change my philosophical outlook on anything. At most, it would increase awareness, possibly causing me to reason through the issue.<p>

 

Martin Patek-Strutsky wrote:<br>

<i>Today it is almost impossible to be directly affected by any picture circulated by the mass media. Instead everyone asks to what degree pictures might be staged or pre selected and for whom the underlying message might be advantageous.</i><p>

 

Exactly. In this day and age of being blitzed by images of all sorts, from marketing to propoganda to politics, many times without me knowing the agenda behind it, I find it impossible to take most images at face value.<p>

 

That's not to say the image above doesn't have some emotional impact. But I would be remiss to let an emotional response (alone) change my philosophy.

Ya know what was weird... when I read your question. Before I even clicked on the link

I thought of that particular image first. Call me psychic.

<p>

I just saw one a couple days ago that had a BIG IMPACT on me. It was a photo from

Iraq that one of the photographers from The Guardian took. I saw it in a

photojournalist mag and it was of a young Iraqi man sitting on the sidewalk. He had

what looked like a white traditional wardrobe on and he was covered in blood. It was

soaked into his hair, all over his face, his hands, and 80% of his suit was red and he

was smoking a cigarette. The cigarette was in his hand and he was holding it casually

and exhaling a little smoke. It was like he had stopped to sit down and take a break

from the chaos or something. The cigarette was his catharsis he looked very calm and

almost complacent. It was so surreal. I've been randomly seeing that image in my

mind for the last two days. What a mess over there ya know.

<p>

I'd say yes. That was a very moving photograph and as crazy as this sounds it made

me think how many more meaningful timeless images there are in the world of

photojournalism. Maybe I'll try and shoot for a publication someday?

Check out the obituaries for Eddie Adams' passing. His work during the war in Viet Nam was very good, but one single image affected millions of people and still is etched in my mind. Yes, one photo can "say it all" and yet there are millions of photos that say very little - some of them are in my trash! "I strive for the ONE".

I guess I'm a geek. I got shivers when I was 10 years old and my mom brought home those first Hassie prints taken by Collins and Armstrong on the surface of the moon. Think about it... They were walking around on the f***in' MOON! ;-)

By looking at the majority of posts on this forum, or even the majority of posts from myself, you might conclude that photography is mostly about being a gear-head. And when I'm seen with a camera, that is exactly the reaction that I most often receive -- what camera is that? Is it the latest & greatest? Is it a professional camera? Is it very expensive?... And I'll sometimes receive at most pitying head shakes if I'm seen photographing anything abstract or unbeautiful.

 

But photography is in essence communication of thought and emotions and facts. The most banal baby / child / family / friend pictures can also be that -- communication of the fact and the emotion and regard of the subject at the time. Photographs can of course also be thought-provoking, and they don't have to be emotionally shocking to do so. Some thoughts are quiet. Even commercial photography is communication of an idea -- beautiful people like this thing / you'll be happy if you have this thing / etc.

 

I could go on, but if you don't get this, then see my posts on equipment instead :)

 

So can the communication of a fact or thought or emotion affect you philosophicaly and ethically? Well I hope so. There's no substitute for direct experience, but we can empathise by seeing, and by empathy change our position.

 

Does the subset of communciation of thought and emotion and fact that is possible photographically intersect with the subset of thought etc., that can affect you philosophically and ethically? I assert that this depends in good part on the observer. Denial comes easily to those who don't wish to believe what's being shown. Lack of empathy comes easily to some. Empathy comes with difficulty to many, often.

 

Now, if this depends in part on the observer, then obviously the photograph in itself is not sufficient. The photograph is actually nothing more than a piece of paper / image on a sceen. The meaning that it carries, and the associated information, etc., is necessary for a photograph to have any real value. And that message typically requires additional context in one way or another.

 

So yes, a single photograph can have a significant impact. But no, not by itself.

I saw the Ray Matzker "Landscapes" exhibit at the Philadelphia Art Museum. Never saw photographs like those before. It wasn't a single photograph, but a collection with a unifying style. It opened my mind (and dropped my jaw), if that counts as "Philosophy".

As I understand it, Ansel Adams decided on photography instead of music as his career upon seeing Paul Strand's negatives.

For me it was W. Eugene Smith's 'Tomoko and Mother' from his Minamata series.

When a questions goes "Can...?".<br>

Answer is always yes.<br>

How often? that's the question.

The answer of course is yes. If seeing a photograph like the one you linked did not effect you philosophically and ethically, then I guess you really need professional help.

 

The photo you linked is very powerful. It is also a part of the world we try to hide. The truth will always be something worth

photographing, if we are allowed. I can think of photographs that shaped my mind, images that will remain. The image you posted is one of them.

 

Thanks.