The power of photography

An interesting read:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3710617.stm

Sad, but true.

<i>"Moving images can never be this potent."</i><br/>

<br/>

I think there's something to the proposition that we retain still imagery rather than motion, but I don't think that leads directly to a question of potency. It's prose v. poetry.<br/>

<br/>

<i>"By looking at the images we become complicit in the abuse itself."</i><br/>

<br/>

The author's explanation of what makes the prisoner photos especially hard to take (triangle/abuser) is right on. What�s so sad is that we're damned if we do [look], and damned if we don't.<br/>

<br/>

Also, <a href="http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1891360">NPR�s broadcast piece</a> on the power of photography.

The author of that article states:

 

"The photographs were taken to abuse, by exposing the victim at their most vulnerable....By looking at the images we become complicit in the abuse itself."

 

I would disagree with that assertion. I don't think that anyone would assert that viewing a similar type of an image, such as

<a href="http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery2/64407.htm">Execution of a Ukrainian Jew</a>

 

would make one "complicit in the abuse" that is depicted.

I haven't yet had a chance to see the now infamous Daily Mirror "Fake" pictures as of yet, but they have shown how the POWER can also backfire. Thus making many, at least subconsciously, wonder about a pictures validity.

The article itself is propaganda. A cheap trick to invalid or doubt the crime.

Next step will be to mix the real with the unreal and say: look these pictures are fake! by then people will get the unavoidable impression that they are all fake.

But looking at the number of suicides between the American soldiers in Iraq one can easily imagine what problems they are confronted with.

 

I wonder why this thread. To me, posting it here under this title is really dubious.

"Moving images can never be this potent."

 

I have to disagree with that statement. I saw the images of the prisoners and I was appalled. However, I could not force myself to watch the video of a prisoner having his head cut off. THAT was too potent for me. I'm not trying to make a political statement here - just addressing the potency of moving images vs. still.

Hi, I am a beginner in photography.

 

I want to see the truth in photography when I read the papers or a magazine, I don't want digital manipulations. We deserve to know the truth of what is actually happening in the world. When shooting a war zone, then that is the photographers job in my opinion.

 

A simple B/W film photo of that same scene would in my opinion be an

even stronger statement, because it is a medium we have seen for years, and trusted for years. Whatever the truth is at the time, it desreves to be told.

 

Sometimes even the simple truth is hard to take for some, but not me, I need to know as much as possible, not bury my head in the sand.

 

I think the idea that the photographer involved in the photo link was

part of the problem is obvious, it shows how short sighted and stupid the people involved really were, I'd say they are anyway. What happens to the photo after it hits the press is another story entirely. I think that there are many photos people are too scared to see, because for some people the truth is not what they want.

 

Like I said initially all I want is the truth, Thanks for the post Ellis.