Jump to content

War photography......not propaganda?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Can war photography be seen for what it is and not as propoganda?"

 

When is war photography NOT propaganda?

 

The question might be, why bother with war photography? It doesn't seem to stop people from getting involved in wars, it doesn't seem to influence the events much, and one picture of a dead or maimed soldier, father, mother, or child looks very much the same as the last and the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gustavo, quick off the mark, thanks.

 

I agree with your words, and it seems we live in a world driven by business politics. It's like expecting to see real life photos of the bride and groom, and getting instead photos of photoshopped disney characters. Finally, when there are some real life photos of real people that we can peruse we are so shocked it becomes difficult to reply or respond.

 

I remember seeing a T.V. programme where Hitler's personal photographer was seen using his Leica with a daft grin on his face, and where photography was banned in Poland. I wonder how many Libyans use dslr's on a regular basis?

 

There was a programme on a war photographer called Reza, I found that very interesting. He was (hopefully still is) a family man.

 

Anupam quoted Wittgenstein's warning that "philosophy is what happens when language goes on holiday."

 

Perhaps we can use philosophical language here to discuss the problem of censorship and war photography, considering the past record of banned images.

 

An example might be the photographic evidence pointing to the murder of an innocent Brazillian man shot 7 times in the head by special forces police, with witnesses. None of the officers were charged. What's up with this world? Where can photography speak ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will, typing at the same time as you it seems.

 

Q. "When is war photography NOT propaganda?"

 

A. When the photo is used to stop war.

 

There rest of your words are rather depressing, Will.

 

If you were the father of the kid who had his leg blown off, would you say....yep, that's my boy! just look at him, just like all the rest of his friends, legless!

 

??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>The question might be, why bother with war photography? It doesn't seem to stop people from getting involved in wars</i><p>

 

True, but the absence of photographs where they ordinarily would be available is telling, is it not? Has any ordinary citizen seen photographs of the unbelievable massacres of Rwanda? Anywhere? (And by the way, be hugely skeptical of photographs of a recent masacre that includes stacks of clean skeletons. That's bogus media fantasy stuff!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I hope you fixed your brakes.

 

Seems there are many photos we never get to see because the news (in Ireland) focuses on sport so much. I don't see any sense in buying a magazine full of glossy photos of an anorexic/bullimic model (yep I dated one) when there are wars going on. I'd rather see the photos of war and the displced families. 400 people in Lebanon have been killed and 500,000 people displaced with nowhere to hide. All the roads have been shelled.

 

Those are the photos I'm talking about, not the ones of Angie/Masha, etc. wearing rubber boots.

 

I hope the internet is never controlled the way the media is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for other countries, but in the U.S. the media are solidly (with a few exceptions)in the liberal camp and reportage has a pronounced anti-establishment bias at the moment. Major news organizations such as CBS and the New York Times have disgraced themselves with fabrications intended to forward their thinly-veiled agendas.

 

Instead of showing the however slow progress we're making in the Middle East, they focus relentlessly on the casualties and horrors typical of any armed conflict, as though they were in some way unique. The sad result is that most folks have lost their confidence in and respect for the news media and have a distorted idea of what's really happening in the world.

 

Sure, Ben, war photography is propaganda and will probably remain so as long as we have media more concerned with selling papers and attracting eyeballs on TV than presenting a balanced view of the situation. It's a telling commentary on society that it's far more interested in bad news than good news. I'm not suggesting the PJs and war correspondents themselves are consciously lying, but they know what their editors want and they like their jobs.

 

In a practical sense, do you think it's possible to report or photograph an event so filled with emotion without an overlay of personal feelings and the resulting bias? I doubt if I could!

 

Today's coverage is a far cry from what it was when I was a kid during WWII: grainy B&W shots several days old in the newspapers, week-old newsreels at the movies on Saturday night and the monthly Life magazine full-color pictures. It was a time when the public was solidly behind the war effort and many more casualties were being reported each day than in our current conflict. The media portrayed the troops as brave, courageous and true and nationalism ran high. Today, the media seem more intent on undermining the war effort and revel in some misdeed that gets front-page coverage. But, I digress . . . .

 

While technology has given us the opportunity to follow the action in real time and living color, the propaganda that ovepowers unbiased reportage has put us further behind than we were in the forties, I fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think to see war photography for what it is, you have to be disinterested in the war.

 

"War is hell". Any armed conflict, no matter how minor, can furnish a wealth of bloody images. It is very hard to be completely neutral about a conflict that is ongoing. Either one side is murdering innocents, or the other side is blowing things out of proportion, and any photo on the concept tends to get placed into one group or the other by the viewer.

 

"I think all non-objective media is propaganda."- While I would agree somewhat with the statement, I think the key is that we all disagree on who and what is "objective media", and your objective media is my propaganda, and vice versa.

 

"Q. "When is war photography NOT propaganda?" A. When the photo is used to stop war."- I think not- it simply becomes propaganda from the other camp. IE, it is then "Anti-war propaganda" intstead of war propaganda.

 

Back to my original statement, that the viewer has to be disinterested- a good example of this is the famous shot of the soldier being killed in the Spanish Civil War. I'm not from Spain, and don't know anyone that is. It happened before I was born. I know nothing about the issues involved. This puts me into the "disinterested" category, and when I see the photo, I can appreciate the shot for what it is photographically, rather than pondering the issues involved at the time. An elderly person from Spain might feel very very differently about that shot. Very few people currently could look at a shot like that from the Iraq conflict and feel the same way.

 

I think another example of this would Matthew Brady's shots from Civil War battlefields- the disinterest there coming from the many years that separate us from those events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ben, All pictures of war will promote war. Its kind of like the show business addage... I don't care what you say, as long as you spell my name right. The only effective anti-war photo would be a super sized , wide angle shot of millions in an anti-war rally. Photos showing dissent can end war. We don't really see too many of those these days do we? The reason is that the U.S. voluntary army has in effect killed dissent. The government doesn.t need to listen to the protesters anymore, they have enough white southern boys who want to do the job. In the 60.s we all hated the draft. Little did we know it was our source of power. No longer do photos of 18 year olds burning draft cards or saying hell no I won't go! have any meaning. Those were the great shots in the 60's. To end a war with photos, dissent must be feared. Thats not the case today, so what does a photographer do today to get that message across? It's a good question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Hips, interesting to hear your wide angle view. I like all your photos, especially 'NIN', 'escalator shots' (don't ask why!) and the 'first love' series.

 

I need to get a super wide lens sometime for 4x5, and print very big. My Dad dodged the draught and went up to Canada to become a violinmaker, I came next. Anyhow, I agree that photgraphy needs to find an effective way to stop these wars happening. Seems like photography itself has helped by making everything more accessible, yet there is always such a long way to go.

 

The other day I was coming home and heard a young woman talking to my Mom about the protest rally here, she didn't own a camera. I thought about giving her one and a camera for free.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion War Photography is as dull as ditch-water and serves no purpose. It has had its

moments but now is on a par with fashion photography in terms of impact. No doubt things

will change when we start zapping aliens but until then zzzzzzz.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, that's a cool self portrait you have. True that there are many mixed faces and races in the army, maybe it's just the attitude that takes time to change.

 

Still not sure if "all war photos promote war". When I was very young (10) I was so horrified to see the photos of mushroom clouds etc that war became an enemy I never lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart man, how can you say that?

 

Sure, fashion photography sucks big time, predictable and shallow in the extreme.

 

Don't humans have some kind of ETHICAL duty when it comes to showing the attrocities and injustices perpetrated by suits and bombs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, Yes there are kids from other parts of the country. But compared to Vietnam, this is a decidedly white army. Bush's army has a real Crusades feel to it. It's not really a war, anyway. Its a political mission. Maybe that is where the photo's are. Capture the corruption, arrogance and stupidity of our leaders as they go out to change the world in their image. Great stuff for anyone brave enough to go out and expose it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it , those pictures of our abuse on Iraqi prisoners are a far greater memory and source of war disgust than bombs blowing up unseen victims. Also the butchering of dead Americans by Iraqi"s or heads cut off by insurgent rebels , all are equal in projecting the horrors of war to bed room communities around the world routing for the next winner on the latest reality show.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although not strictly photography, I have to admit I found the videos of hostages being

beheaded slightly harrowing. I assumed 'beheaded' meant having ones head chopped off (a la

guillotine) but it turned out the perps actually sawed the poor buggers' head off. Even more

spooky was the sound the body made <i>sans</i> head - a very doleful whistle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that Americans consider the media liberal ... comparing the US mainstream media to e.g. European media, the US media seem to be very war-hungry, very anti-Arab, and pro-Israeli. I was shocked when I first saw some news on US television on the second Intifada. Not that I've been following it recently, I don't really have much faith in it.

 

I also think war coverage are overrepresented in TV news, not as much in newspapers. This is universal, it was the same in Finland. I think if you don't like it, the solution is simply to watch other media. There are plenty of options for finding about what is happening outside of the war circles. Especially with the Internet.

 

I suppose war photos could be less gross and sensationalistic, but I suppose then it would be less eye-catching and harder to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we are going to rush into violence and war as the モsolutionヤ to our disagreements, I think itメs healthy for people to see the result of their decisions. I don't want people to be able to choose violence or sit back and do nothing while violence is advocated and not see the results. Propaganda is the lie that you are justified or that the other guy is wrong and you are right. I think there have been times when war was nearly unavoidable but I donメt think that makes it right. To me, violence is the failure to find a humane way to deal with differences. <BR><BR>

To be honest and in apparent contradiction with myself, I advocted America getting involved in the Balkans as soon as I heard the stories of young Muslim boys having their throats cut and the women being raped and entire villages being displaced. I also think the world stood idle while Rwanda went insane and it was insane on our part to do nothing. And I think we are criminal in allowing the slaughter and ethnic cleansing to continue in Darfur.<BR><BR>

Some may think the pictures are as boring as gutter water but I say show the pictures. Put them on TV and on billboards.

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...