I. Russel Sorgi - 1942 WEEKLY DISCUSSION #16

<p>When I was asked to present the photo for this week's discussion, I tried the recall what photographs had made an impact on me over the years. Almost immediately, this one came to mind. I first saw it in a textbook in a 101 photography class. I have never forgotten it. <br /> This photograph raises as many questions to me today as it did when I first viewed it; questions about preparedness/luck/timing, ethics, and the power and impact of photography as a medium and responsibilities of the photographer. It's not a pretty photo, but one that does makes an impression.<br /> What are your thoughts?<br>

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9a/5d/f4/9a5df451cd9e9e4c53c6478f95384604.jpg<br>

<br /> Also, here is a bit more information that I found while looking for it. The photographer's recollections are interesting, I thought.<br>

<br /> http://witwisdom.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/the-1942-genesee-hotel-suicide/comment-page-1/<br>

<br /> Amy</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My thoughts are of men in crumpled suits, hats clamped to the backs of their heads, cigars in mouths, fueled by alcohol and infinite cynicism and with Speed Graphics in their hands, marking their trail with spent flashbulbs thrown to the ground. Anyone who wants to catch the flavor of this era could do worse than view the movie "The Public Eye" starring Joe Pesci and based on the legendary/notorious press photog "Weegee" (real name Arthur Felig, who monitored police radio but when asked how he got to crime scenes so fast, replied "I godda Weegee board!"). This image has become an art statement of personal tragedy played out against a background of indifference - at the time it would have been merely prurient, no news value, just an ability to help sell more copies of the yellow press. Perception changes with time :-) .</p>

<p>Disturbing</p>

<p>This is certainly a perfect example of very quick thinking and previsualization. Sorgi waited with his finger on the shutter release until the falling woman was aligned with the signage, so that it would be the perfect newspaper image -- Woman Jumps to Death at Genessee Hotel.</p>

<p>Disturbing on multiple levels, but definitely a great image.</p>

<p>Refering to the background article I would point out as one who started his professional life using a 5x4 Speed Graphic and a monorail Graphic that the camera is not a SLR and another complication in addition to changing the double-dark slide and pulling the blind/slide out was the need to cock the shutter. Later on came film packs with 10 or 12 films, I never used these, where one only had to pull out the paper tail for a fresh shot and cocking the shutter didn't need the slide to be closed ... thank goodness although working for a press agency at the time I never was faced with such a situation.</p>

<p>My other comment regards the Ronny Noble book, he was an early BBCtv cameraman, and the book was entitled 'Shoot First'. It is up to the editor to make choices. I got roasted by the journalist with me on a story for TV News when I didn't film a woman being told that her husband's body had just been found during a S&R operation ... fortunately my boss, head of news, backed up my stance.</p>

<p>A secret can be deadly, apparently this secret she took to her grave I say because the woman's family is said to have had no idea why she would have killed herself.</p>

<p>Good call JC, I'm glad you're boss backup you up.</p>

<p>When I see pictures of this kind, where a camera has allowed me a ringside view of a tragedy, I feel a little queasy. It has no great historical significance to justify it and part of me wants to turn away from it, erase the image from my mind. I feel it is exploitative of the woman's desperation. If I had been standing there I don't think I would have taken a picture.<br /> <br /> But suicide is a not uncommon occurrence in the world so maybe we sometimes need to face it. In the end I remain ambivalent about the photo. I feel like a gawping intruder on a tragedy but it also leaves me with a sense of sadness for that woman and her predicament. Which is possibly no bad thing.</p>

<p>Setting aside any issues with suicide, and voyeurism in the news for a moment, the image itself is gorgeous. The dark brooding tonality, the crisp white signage, the detail in the shadows of the doorway and inside the hotel. And talk about decisive moments, not only of the women's tragic fall but the cop rushing through the door and the men looking out onto the street from the window. A powerful image on any level.</p>

Interesting that someone would mention "Weegee", Arthur Felig. I have been waiting for some time for one of his quintessential photos to appear on this weekly discussion. This photo by a lesser known news photographer is certainly very powerful. One could analyze the composition, the decisive moment, the shutter speed chosen to freeze the action, etc. Certainly that is valid and worthy of discussion, but to me personally the photo is all about the tragedy of the scene. "Disturbing" is a very apt description.

<p>This photo has a kind of beauty very different from what we see in sunsets at the beach . . . but may require a shift in sensibility to appreciate.</p>

<p>This is one of the most alive photos I've seen, despite the subject matter. The life is in the layering and texturing of all that's happening at the moment and all the narrative that's there for us to read into and project onto.</p>

<p>I don't find it exploitive in the least. Well, at least no more than any photo of any human being is exploitive. It is objective without, IMO, being objectifying (a significant distinction, I think). And it shows us something most of us have never seen and will never see.</p>

<p>Maybe it is objectifying in that I am certainly aware of the body as a body. But that may just be an important truth here. The falling body just looks so body-like to me. Again, a view I'm not often privy too, this limpness weightiness. The anti-dance.</p>

<p>It's such a powerful emotional and sensual photo that questions of ethics, preparedness, luck, and accident only occur to me as afterthoughts to the main experience. Here's a case where, I think, the photo and the scene are doing the talking and the photographer is mostly irrelevant to me. Yes, he was there and pushed the shutter but he's kept out of it as much as possible and he's not an issue for me. What I see, here, is the issue.</p>

<p>In total contradiction to what some folks think makes a good picture, this is a good one and I WOULDN'T necessarily want it hanging on my wall. Go figure! I appreciate photos that challenge and even ones that make me queasy but I don't always want to wake up looking at them.</p>

<p>Amy:</p>

<p>Thanks for a provocative image to discuss.</p>

<p>You have it right by saying that it's not a pretty photo. it's everything but pretty. It displays a cross-section of life that most people don't want to see - an old, perhaps somewhat seedy hotel located on the wrong side of the tracks, that's definitely seen its better days. The photographer interestingly presents the suicide in the same matter-of-fact way as he presents the woman walking out of the hotel's front door. </p>

<p>The image hits the viewer like the proverbial ton of bricks, especially with its dark tonality. There's no subtlety to it; to me, it's a paradigm case of street work.</p>

<p>I see a policeman going in through the hotel front door. I do not see any "woman walking out of the hotel's front door." ?</p>

<p>The only woman I see is not using the door.</p>

<p>The version of this image located at <a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjqwcO2Nk1qbj7qro1_1280.jpg">this site</a> is not a good b/w photo, but it does reveal a lot more detail.</p>

<p>It does appear to be a policeman going in the hotel door, and you can more clearly see the falling woman and the figures in the window to camera right. I agree that this is a very effective photograph--sensational without being sensationalistic. The connection to Breughel is not something I would have immediately noticed, but once it is pointed out, I see it very clearly.</p>

<p>Gordon, Les: I took another look as carefully as possible. I didn't see the figure at the door as being a policeman until I enlarged the image considerably. But both of you are correct. </p>

<p>I don't think anyone who has ever seen this has really forgot it.<br>

I'm sure I must have seen the name of the photographer somewhere; but his name doesn't seem to be very well known, despite this picture.</p>

<p>Thanks, all, for joining in this discussion. This image is, indeed, disturbing. Disturbing, but certainly not forgettable.<br>

The questions it raised(es) for me are mostly regarding issues of ethics: when is it, and is it not appropriate to document an event. There are certainly other photos that have been disturbing, yet effective, in making social change. Though hard to look at, the world might be a lesser place without them. Images of war, animal cruelty, and the old FSA photos come to mind.<br>

Of course, there is the matter of technical skill and timing. In the background quote from Sorgi, it is evident that he, while nervous/rushed, did still keep his head long enough to get the shot. It seems he was not plagued by matters of ethics but rather matters of practicality at the time. As an younger photographer and still today, I have a certain admiration for those that are practiced and proficient enough to work quickly and effectively. Does a sense of ethics then "get in the way" of effectiveness? Where do I fall on that continuum? Where do I as a photographer <em>want </em>to fall?<br>

Another point that this particular photo brings to my mind, is the impact that ONE photo can have on so many. The sheer power of the medium. Here we are, 70 years later, with all sorts of visceral reactions and lessons because of a few seconds of perfect timing on the part of a single photographer. What of the effect on the people at the time? The waiter, the customer, the family of Ms. Miller, the policeman? It is mind-boggling.<br>

I remain ambivalent, and changed, by having viewed this work.<br>

Amy</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Long ago when I first got into the news business (and I was pretty much just a kid) I decided that whatever the event, I'd at least photograph it if there was nothing else I could do. It may not have been used anywhere but it would be recorded. I think Sorgi did the right thing and I'm glad he did. It's no less a tragedy but is an image that has stuck with me.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Amy, you mention ethics and social change, both of which can be very important aspects and effects of photos. And yet, with this one, neither the ethics of it nor the idea of social change plays a big part for me. I see it quite personally, not because I've ever considered suicide myself, but just because of a side of human life that is so extreme, mysterious, and filled with a kind of awe. Things that take me to the dark side often have significant effects on me personally, whether as an emotional catharsis or a means to understanding something in a different light or some other way. Awe, for me, is an opening to life at its fullest, and I find this not only an awful scene to behold but an awesome one as well. I don't think this photo caused much social change nor will it, other than to say that if individuals are personally moved and affected by something, inch by inch that can change the world. I think there are war (and peace) images, for instance, images of men on the moon, of Tiananmen Square, of Abu Ghraib that have had and will have more social and political effects than this photo. Nevertheless, I find this photo searing and, for me, internally moving, provocative, and going straight to my gut.</p>

<p>Thanks Amy. It is one of those sorts of images that makes it difficult for me to discuss "photography". The brutal reality of violent death takes over and any reference to the art of shooting photos becomes almost unethical. Looking at it makes me reflect on our shared recent experiences of pictures of 9/11. </p>

<p>Thanks for the great post and incisive comments, Amy. When I first glimpsed the picture, I did not notice the falling body. The way that it was framed suggested some sort of bizarre logo on the hotel front. I did not even look at it carefully enough to see what it was until I started reading your original post.</p>

<p>I cannot see anything remotely unethical about taking a photo such as this, unless one really had some opportunity to intervene during the same time frame (which was quite obviously not the case here).</p>

<p>What one does with a photo that has been taken raises more ethical questions than the mere taking of a photo, at least in most cases. In this case, I am glad that the photo was published and that it survives.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><em>I cannot see anything remotely unethical about taking a photo such as this ... </em><br /> This is beside the point - the fact is that in past decades (broadly, before WWII) pictures like this were very likely to be published, whereas now they will not be. The most egregious example of this was the pictures of Ruth Snyder:<br /> http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Ruth+Snyder+Dead+Photo&FORM=RESTAB<br /> from 1928 - those not familiar with this event are recommended to read it up:<br>

<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ruthless-ruth-article-1.344029">http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ruthless-ruth-article-1.344029</a><br /> It follows from this that press photogs in those days were under strong editorial pressure to produce material of this kind, for example "rubbed-out" hoodlums in pools of blood (which ortho film made to look like tar), motorists impaled on telephone poles, etc.<br /> A little personal anecdote - in the mid-1970s I was one of the Ilford team working on the award presentations for the "£1000 Print Competition". A winner one year was a picture of a police officer with a tear in his eye attending the funeral of a colleague gunned down on duty. Among my many duties (it was a very small team) was to photograph the winners. The author of the above-mentioned picture (who is very well-known and still working today) was grinning and clowning in front of his picture and waving his check around. I pointedly stood close by and packed away my camera but was asked by senior Ilford management to take it out again and photograph this guy, which I could hardly refuse.<br /> I loaded a fresh roll of film and, as I had no interest in the pictures whatsoever, gave the film to a member of the Daily Mirror staff who was present, saying they should print what they wanted (for their house magazine) and I would pick the film up a couple of days later. When I did, the darkroom chief said to me "I was surprised you didn't invite the policeman to the awards ceremony!" Suppressing a strong urge to beat his brains out, I gently explained that I thought this would be in poor taste. Point of this story - if you publish pictures which intrude on private grief, you'll have squads of press photogs breaking down every door to get them!</p>

<p><em>""I cannot see anything remotely unethical about taking a photo</em> ""<br /> <br /> Landrum, if you are referring to my use of the term "unethical", it was not concerned with the shooting of the scene (instead of intervening, which is another often repeated observation), but with discussing technicalities about photography when in fact we are contemplating the death of a young woman, with or without men walking into the building and persons in the window. The use of images have unwritten ethical limits, Not everything real and happening, should be up for grabs by photographers and publishers, IMO. <br /> I don't think we would agree on a "Weekly Discussion" of shots of people falling from the WTC towers. This photo is of the same category.</p>

<p>David and Anders:</p>

<p>What I actually said was this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot see anything remotely unethical about taking a photo such as this, unless one really had some opportunity to intervene during the same time frame (which was quite obviously not the case here).<br /> <strong>What one does with a photo that has been taken raises more ethical questions than the mere taking of a photo, at least in most cases</strong>. In this case, I am glad that the photo was published and that it survives. (My emphasis)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In other words, the ethical dilemma<strong> <em>in most cases</em> </strong>begins with what to do with the photo once taken. Unless the photo is patently invasive, I see no particular problem with shooting it--in most cases. I don't want to try to offer a categorical answer, since there surely are exceptions.</p>

<p>I was not responding to any poster in particular.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3770455">Gordon B</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 09, 2014; 09:38 a.m.<br /> Setting aside any issues with suicide, and voyeurism in the news for a moment, the image itself is gorgeous. The dark brooding tonality, the crisp white signage, the detail in the shadows of the doorway and inside the hotel. And talk about decisive moments, not only of the women's tragic fall but the cop rushing through the door and the men looking out onto the street from the window. A powerful image on any level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought this was a great post by Gordon and not in the least unethical even though it discusses this photo from mostly a photographic standpoint. It is, after all, a photo. In being a photo, it is different from the event which it depicts. It can, and in my opinion, deserves to be discussed for its aesthetics and photographic accomplishment in addition to anything else anyone wants to discuss about it, from ethics to suicide to seedy hotels to barbershops to death.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p>I also find there to be (for myself) many ethical questions about taking a variety of photos. I don't shoot photos of homeless people out of respect for their privacy when on the street since they have no closed-door home to go to. I don't shoot photos of people who tell me they don't want their picture taken, generally speaking. (If a robber in the act told me not to and I felt safe enough, I might disregard his or her wishes.) I photograph people regularly at a special needs community and there are lots of private pictures I don't take out of respect for what I don't want to intrude on, even if they wouldn't be aware I ever took the photo and even if I were never to publish it. For me, the act of taking a picture is a significant one, and so even if I won't ever publish it, I do often not take it to begin with. I'm also not a journalist, so I have that luxury. And I'm fine with missing a brilliant shot every now and then. I probably do it more often than not . . . miss brilliant shots, that is.</p>

<p>Fred, "intrusive" is a better word perhaps than my choice of "ethics". Surely Sorgi's photo is intrusive, though?<br>

The "shoot first" and then decide what is done with the photo is one way to go, but that still is an intrusion to my mind. So back to the original thought: shoot first (and intrude) and then decide on how to use the photo vs. consider the ethics and miss the shot? I guess it depends on the situation. In instances like this one, it had to be "shoot first" or not at all. In portraiture, there's more available time for consideration.<br>

Again, my hat's off to journalists who have the skills to pull this off and are faced with these decisions on a more frequent basis.</p>