Jump to content

photo of a dead child


lauriee

Recommended Posts

I am ashamed to say that when I saw this photo it was late at night

and I was on my way to bed so I didn't report it immediately...It

was in the critiques forum on October fourth.

 

It was a picture of dead child...and the topic was

called "funeral"...I went to the photographers portfolio and it was

in there with some remarks...from what I read it was not posed...I

don't know if anyone can find it now...but I would think that it

isn't apporopriate...? I found it very disturbing.

 

Thanks!

Laurie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

a lot of things are not "wrong" exactly but still are uncomfortable to look at...If it had been an adult maybe it wouldn't have bothered me so much...but it was a child of about seven years old...and there is no explaination about the cause of death..which makes me CSI spider senses activate! ....probabley nothing but I had to mention it to have a clear conscience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are afraid of death because theses days we are not exposed to it. I really do not want to turn this into a finger pointing session about the United States, but there seems to be an epidemic of inability to face reality and nature in America, and completely unfounded idea of what exactly constitutes morality.

 

To name a few:

 

1. On this site it was reported that a couple in Texas were imprisoned for six months after the local drugstore submitted prints of pictures they had taken of their child in the nude breastfeeding from his mother. The children were put in care, and I believe no apologies or compensation were offered.

 

2. We have seen barely any corpses from the Iraq War. This seems to be extremely disrespectful to those who died fighting, are we so ashamed of them?

 

3. American children can watch people being shot and killed hundreds of times a week on televison, but a single breast or a couple making love is censored because of what, exactly? Will a childs mind be seared by these natural images? And will it not be seared by the callous murders, and glorifications of violence depicted nightly on television. Many American films are nothing more than an endless parade of killings, it's really pornographic in its fetishisation of violence.

 

Why is violence made into pornography ok, but a simple breast or a couple enjoying making love, or even an erect penis, is absolutely forbidden? Are Americans becoming such sheep that they simply do not question anything?

 

In Japan huge phalluses fashioned from tree trunks serve as central icons in fertility festivals, and I find that the attitudes of the Japanese toward sex are much more healthy than Americans. America in the bizareness of its attitudes seems to have become completely pathological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a middle-ground view: I see no problem in taking a photograph of a dead friend or relative, but exhibiting it on photo.net seems a bit weird to me - I would have thought of it as being a more private matter, but maybe that's just me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claude, what the hell does any of that dribble have to do with Laurie's concern. She saw a picture of a dead child and she found it disturbing. She chose to question whether or not it was appropriate for this site. Why, every time someone mentions a concern like this, does it have to be twisted into some anti-American sentiment. You don't even know for a fact that she is American. But, whether she is or not, maybe showing a little compasion for her sentiments would make a bit more sense.

 

Admins, please now feel free to delete Claude's and my comments since neither offer anything constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, dribble? Something threatening in my remarks? Why don't you make an intelligent argument instead of trying to shout me down, or are you simply incapable of that? I guess that is another disturbing thing I find in the attitudes that have come to predominate in today's America, no one cares if they are right or wrong as long as they can shout loudest.

 

Maybe the moderators can remove your post as being unnecessarily insulting and aggresive and setting an unpleasant tone for the forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, Jamie, excellent photos by the way (your portfolio).

 

I wasn't trying to attack Laurie by my comments. I found her discomfort interesting, and I thought I would get a general discussion on what is and is not acceptable rolling. I do think that you are being unnecessarily "bossie" in your tone though, and that does not contribute to a free flow of ideas. It must be very tough for Americans to hear criticism, but it is necessary sometimes (I am a Yank by the way).

 

I think that the intolerance and puritanism endemic to American society should be addressed. I have not had a chance to see the photo that Laurie was talking about, but I did see my own father's body after he died, the only time anyone in the family saw it before he was buried, and actually, I kind of wish I had a photo to remember and ponder the event by. Death is at the core of what concerns all human beings in the end, and to be afraid of looking it squarely in the eye is to avoid a true understanding of our own existence. It is the great equalizer, and if more people focused on facing their own mortality instead of seeking to amass wealth they can't take with them, and often gained at the expense of others, the world would be a different place (sermon over).

 

I seem to remember a whole book full of photos of dead convicts, from around 100 years ago, along with the crimes they commited. What indeed does it mean to honor the dead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claude B has some interesting and challenging thought.

 

American media generally self-censor photos of the dead, so that Americans have no real idea, say, of what happens politically and militarily in certain countries in (for instance) Africa, where brutal killings, sometimes even by armies of youths, recently were commonplace, and even to go to market, some people had to walk past those rotting corpses.

 

And where are the photos of the corpses rotting in Iraq. Self-censored? Or forbidden entirey by an anti-press Administration.

 

Paris Match and other European publications have no compunction about showing photos of carnage, but they are literally unpublishable in the United States.

 

But who benefits from censorship, even self-censorship?

 

I remember my late uncle telling me about what now has become a famous hanging in a central park in downtown San Jose, of a man (or was it two?) taken from jail and strung up in a very old and strong tree by an angry crowd after it was quite clear they had kidnapped the child of a department store owner and been caught red-handed. My uncle was from another generation, and that (otherwise) gentle and well-educated man was happy to have been there to have witnessed such an event.

 

I don't excuse him or even explain him, but his satisfaction at seeing what he regarded as 'swift justice' in a case in which there had been a confession, was something he did not struggle with (and the person(s) hanged were white.)

 

Well, I don't truck with hanging for any reason, but suggest that if we had to confront the brutal photos of the killing that goes on every day in the name of our country and the name of justice in this country, we might have somewhat different views of the slaughter that we propagate.

 

I once chronicled the Viet Nam war for a brief time as a photographer, and there was death in surprising places and ways. Little of that got shown in the United States, but it did get shown.

 

That influenced the outcome of that war; in fact it helped hasten its end. Americans had no stomach for images of the death of their soldiers and/or of the Vietnamese, nor of the maimings in the name of war (see the burned child running from her napalmed village).

 

Now, with the Iraq war, none of it gets shown.

 

Public outcry stopped the Viet Nam war.

 

The current Administration has learned that lesson and even has gone so far as to prohibit photos of the caskets of the returning dead from being shown being unloaded from cargo planes (supposedly out of 'respect for the dead', but we all know that they don't want images which may turn the tide of this war, don't we?)

 

And just try sneaking into a Veterans Adminstration Hospital or other military hospital where the tens of thousands of American soldiers with maiming injuries, such as amputated limbs were being stacked in overcrowded hallways not so very long ago, and see what the reponse would have been to any attempt to chronicle by photography how the hospital system was overloaded from such a mass of unexpected injuries.

 

I didn't see the photo of the dead child, and might not have liked seeing it. But it's hardly pornographic to see the dead, even if it currently disturbs some of THIS GENERATION of Americans with their sterile view of life/death and the relationship of the two.

 

It long was an Irish tradition to bring the casket open in the living room and have a 'roast' of the recently departed while looking at him/her -- an old-fashioned Irish wake.

 

Perhaps with improved medical care and our greatly increased longevity, we can put images of death outside our minds. Death no longer is something which Americans or residents of many 'civilized' countries with long life expectancies expect to visualize -- contrary to 50 to 100 years ago when it was a daily or weekly experience for many.

 

Mores have changed, and there is the additional incongruity of seeing too many killings/murders on television (if one watches it) but seldom seeing a body (other than a lifeless form, but actually one with gore and evidence of the true carnality of death.

 

The suppression of images of death suggests that violence portrayed on television or propagated in some far off country by our military somehow doesn't have any more than an intellectual and legal consequence, but leaves no unpleasant realities to be dealt with, such as dead bodies and the need to contemplate death as more than just a 'construct' but as a reality and a finality.

 

I'm squeamish also about death; I'm a product of my culture and my times. But I'm willing to be challenged by the subject and to face it in a photograph.

 

Someday I'll have to face it personally, and no amount of excuse-making will make it go away.

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only Americans?, it seem very easy to attack them (I am not american at all) but there are countries there that are democracies and even more puritans than America.

So you have to be fair here.

Some southamericans countries can be putted here as examples (very catholic countries some of them) that even will close down an art exposition if you use some religious icons to do some critics.

Even Europeans too....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laurie's shocked and upset by viewing a corpse...I am baffled as to how this is relative to Americans' "inability to face reality." Claude, here in the States, before it's a questionably-used media tool to manipulate the population, it's often just considered distasteful.

 

Yes, we often bury our dead after open-casket viewings during a mourning period, and yes, we watch shoot-'em-up movies and TV. . .we're not alien to death by any means. Further, while publishing such images helped close the Vietnam War, it's all in how you spin it. Showing photographs of two downed US pilots' bloated and beaten bodies dragged through the streets of Somalia by warlords' gangs of marauders has the opposite effect, too - it raises anger and feelings of hatred. ALSO not necessarily a good idea.

 

Consider the parents, spouses, and children of the killed US soldiers in Iraq. Do they need to see their loved ones pasted across a newspaper cover? Do they deserve to? I mean, if it were there, it would be an editorial decision by the newspaper - one designed to sell papers, and profit monetarily, from their deaths as much as it would be to "tell the truth." Think about it. . . does the more loosely published and widespread images of death and sex in Europe speak of an open mind, or desensitization and monetary gain by publishers and editors who found a demand and a way to profit from it?

 

Further per your statement, photos of breast feeding, love making, and death are not "Forbidden" by any means - hell, you can go by videotapes of dwarfs galavanting naked during orgies, I'm sure - you'll just find that where and when it's printed or broadcast is restricted, usually for those over the age of 18, when the US considers a person an adult and wholly responsible for their own decisions.

 

If you'd like more discussion, shoot me an email - I'm sure I'd be intrigued. But for now, I'd politely ask you reconsider your opinion and statement about Laurie, who, after viewing the 99.999% norm of flowers, birds, landscapes, and still lifes on Photo.net, found a dead child on her screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death in tv and movies is aseptic, quick and painless. A little spurt of blood in the chest, a slumping down, and that's it. No more painful/disgusting/degrading than a tetanus shot.

 

Now, look at the photos some service members bring back from Iraq, to get a glimpse of what death really looks like.

 

Back in the day, people went to WWI with visions of gallant redcoats marching down Westminster, flanked by spotless cavalry in white horses. Home by Christmas.

 

They went on to be mowed down by the machine guns of the Somme. or gassed to death at Passchendaele, like cows at an abattoir and vermin in their holes, their rotten corpses still being dug up by shells months after.

 

Tv and movies have replaced scarlet and gold marches, but people remain the same. And they'll rot just as fine as they'll always done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest to Laurie that she sticks to viewing only those flowers, etc (they also die BTW).

 

Open the *appropriate* categories and look at them. It is sort of like getting to know how to use the remote control of a TV.

 

Life and death are facts. Documenting and displaying them is perfectly alright as long as it is done in a dignified way.

 

Take it from a guy who was forced take care of the delivery of his first and only child as the stupid midwife did not show up on time and was late by half hour or so. Everything went well and I only collapsed several hours later.

 

A female relative of my wife stood by frozen by the whole sight all the while and did not do a damned thing. As always, being a gracious host that I am, made some nice coffee for her as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laurie, it is probably <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3778813"> this photo </a>you are talking about Laurie. You probably didn't read well the comments. It's posed. I admit this quite bad taste thou, and I wouldnt post that myself.<p> Interesting thread thou thanks to Claude, John, Vivek... <br> in Japan, where I live, they used to burn dead bodies and then, two-by-two, relatives themselves pick, using long sticks, bones and remains placing them in an funeral box... is Asia, life and death are closely 'mixed' together. Which is different in the western countries, probably religion and taste for hidden things, which can led to hypocrisie and puritanism, and finaly a lot of frustration. Strange world!<p> Well, like Vivek, I would advise those who cannot handle vision of death, vision of sickness, vision of war, to keep on flower side and buy special glasses and keep 'happy'. I won't blame them, that their choice... but they will miss a part of life on earth too...<br>> vision of nude could also be treated the same way.<p> There is art, documentary and reportage, there is also bad taste, mind manipulation and pornography... appreciation of it being quite volatile and subjective from a person to another. But this appreciation could be helped by knowing and viewing the entire photographer works.<p> I would suggest to read some comments <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2254177"> on this photo of mine posted months ago </a>...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an amazing photo book a few years ago about 19th century death photos, I think it was called "Wisconsin Death Trip", or some other state. It was common back then to take photographs of the dead, which would then be displayed on the mantlepiece along with photos of the living. This was in an age when 70% of children died before age 11, and the major cause of death among women was childbirth.

 

Death has become something Americans have little experience with, and when we do encounter it, it is in a sanitized form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't the dead have rights? I mean, I'm not going to be around to care much when I'm dead, but I really don't fancy my corpse being photographed and put up for public view!<p>

 

I am actually more concerned about respecting the dead person, more than the feelings of innocent viewers.<p>

 

No disrespect for your point of view Laurie, just that I find it more unsettling that we could be photographed <i>dead</i>, when we most definitely would not look our best! I personally would rather be remembered as looking lively and happy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing a documentary about 10 or 15 years ago that was following gang

violence at schools in Los Angeles, Houston and I think it was Atlanta. One segment

followed a pre-

teen gang member who was going to "wax" a member of a rival gang at his school. But

before he was able to, he was shot himself by the kid he was planning to shoot.

 

The one thing that sticks in my mind to this day about this whole episode was when they

were interviewing the boy who was shot from his hospital bed (he survived). The boy was

genuinely surprised that bullet actually hurt. He thought that shooting someone was just

a simple and painless way to make them go away, just like on TV and in video games; no

more consequence than erasing something from a page. Claude and others have a point,

in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

photos of the dead aren't an issue (IMO). if, however, it is a picture of a fresh mutilated corpse, victim of say a traffic accident or some other violent death then the story is different. the police take pictures purely for a informational need. a random person taking pictures for gain would be in the wrong. otherwise it just isn't a big deal. that is to say it probably wouldn't be nice to get up in your grandmothers wake and snap a few shots of her laying in the coffin... maybe somebody posing with it. that would be inappropriate but not morally wrong.

 

Also the fact that the subject was a child doesn't make a difference to me either. a dead child is not any more or less sad than a dead grandmother or a dead person of any age, it is all sad in it's own form. you just gotta remember that everybody does it (dies that is).<div>00DmiS-25963684.jpg.64e7cfcc827fde7f605c1f947c468cac.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...