Allen Herbert Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 but the accumulation of photos and articles in the different media forms ,stories of survivors, can help( sometimes !) to form a public opinion and awareness that will force the politicians to take actions and sometime change. Although I agree with those ideas in principle I think an individual photograph will stand out having a lasting effect on public opinion. There are numerous examples, one of the more notable being the Che Guevara image,which has become synonymous with the words "freedom from oppression". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 The perceptions of 19 year olds are far more valuable in these situations than are the perceptions peddled by media (eg photos). I've never heard of anyone who refused the draft or plotted to blow up draft induction centers because of a photo, or went voluntarily to Vietnam because of one. I'm thinking here of soldiers, Weathermen, exiled "South Vietnamese" officers, and various other friends and acquaintances. Military and "imbedded" photographers are often honorable and skilled propagandists: The military photos from Soviet Union and Hanoi (Jane on the anti-aircraft gun) and Cuba, not to mention Berlin and images posted from Gaza rival anything from Saigon or "The Green Zone" or Washington DC...which, as we all know, means photos have no inherent truth (confirmed again in the Abell/Prince thread). An early mentor (and POW in Burma) chased McArthur around the South Pacific as a stringer..he laughed about the General's three personal photographers, personal makeup artist, and other "staff"... And I'm sure that neither "South Vietnamese" nor Vietnamese were motivated to do anything by photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 more proven change agents: http://www.last.fm/music/The+Rolling+Stones/_/Sweet+Neo+Con Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyguinn Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Yes. When the viewer decides to be a champion of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catherinevankempen Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 I am coming in a little late on this discussion but I still wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. Does it really matter how many people you effect with a photo. Whether you convince 1 or 1,000,000 people that war is a terrible thing and must be avoided at all costs. What if every photographer out there would just give up and decide they aren't going to make a difference. What if the writers out there give up telling us what they see because obviously its no use, governments are still waging war, boys and girls are still being sent out to fight. Thinking and believing that photography can not change the world is a very dangerous attitude. I am not naive, I know photos aren't going to bring about world peace. But I do know that if we give up trying we might as well through in the towel and drop the bomb. It's a pretty scary thought if you ask me. Catherine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Catherine, What a very reasonable and reasoned position! Thanks. Nice to hear. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Catherine, your points are well taken. For myself, I believe in the way things work, trying and failing, burning candles at both ends, Alan Watts' "Wisdom of Insecurity," that sort of thing. Glenn, you made several brave and admirable statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 "...boys and girls are still being sent out to fight. " "Being sent"? The age of the conscript army is drawing to a close. Today's armies are made up of volunteers, professionals, mercenaries, and private security forces. You may want to reorient your sentiments. Times change. "Thinking and believing that photography can not change the world is a very dangerous attitude." Why? Why am I dangerous or how is it dangerous to me? You cannot make a political statement or a photograph of any value out of platitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Catherine "Thinking and believing that photography can not change the world is a very dangerous attitude." Please look of what is happening in Darfur ! in the last 4 years a genocide is going on there. 300.000 deaths, more than 2.000000 refugees running to the Sahara, other countries ,and to my country as well. Stories of survivors, photos !! many, strong photojurnalism, and different media articles, which are trasmiting the tragedy. Where is the change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpolaski Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 No. Unless a camera can provide food and water to people who don't have any, and until centuries (or millienia) of hatred subside, simply seeing the horror --- especially today --- won't change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrraz Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Catherine, Photographers that cover any war or disaster do the job because they are photographers. Believe me there is little emotional content for them while they are doing it. They see the picture and record it. Thinking about it gets one killed. Along the way they do produce award winning images that wring emotions from the people who see them. Now it's called PTSD, but I've never met a war photographer that didn't suffer it to a greater or lesser extent resulting in depression, drinking and lack of emotional commitment to anything. All there is that counts is the escape of photography and pride of getting "the shot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 <i>Where is the change?</i> <p> The question was "<i>Can</i> photography change the world?", not "<i>will</i> photography <i>always</i> make desired changes in the world?". To prove "yes" to be the answer to the first question, it is sufficient to find one instance in world history, where a photograph helped cause a change in the way people think and act. To answer the 2nd question, it is sufficient to find one counterexample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Ilkka-- Right. Don-- The "boys and girls" who volunteer for service are still being SENT by the president, acting with congressional approval, to war. For that matter, they are being SENT to do three and four tours. Volunteer or not, somebody -- would that it were someone with a conscience -- is sending these kids to war. Also, note the race and income levels of the all-volunteer army. It may not be as "voluntary" as a quick reading of that word would imply. Are there social and economic circumstances which makes it less voluntary among certain groups of people than others? What role does necessity play? How honest and forthright are the recruiters who get those volunteers to volunteer? We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Volunteering is volunteering to be sent. Conscripts understood the concept of "never volunteer". "...sending these kids to war." I forgot, we're still living in The Kids Age. I'd ask the "kids" about it before speaking for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Ilkka "The question was "Can photography change the world?", My answer is, a photo alone no. As an item in a process, it may add.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 "I forgot, we're still living in The Kids Age." Don, Sarcasm noted. Cool. I used "kids" because others before me, including you, used "boys and girls," which you may have noticed I put in quotes in the post you just responded to. While 18-year-olds are adults on many levels and I know I certainly felt myself to be one at that age -- certainly feeling I deserved the right to vote at 18, which I got -- when I look at the faces of the people serving and often dying or being permanently handicapped, as a 54-year-old I can't help but see them as kids. It's not a black and white matter, except legally, when a kid becomes an adult. (Even that legality gets blurred when public rants call for trying minors as adults because the law doesn't suit their personal emotional responses to things.) 18 is an arbitrary numbers. At that age, some are clearly kids. When I was 18, I made stupid decisions. I assumed those decisions to be voluntary. I know better now. I often didn't attribute them to being persuaded by peer group pressure, not analyzing dangerous situations carefully, not thinking much about the consequences of my actions. Hopefully, many contemporary 18-year-olds are wiser than I was. My gut tells me many of them aren't. I would and do ask 18-year-olds questions. That has merit. I also don't base my morality on the answers they give. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 "Thinking and believing that photography can not change the world is a very dangerous attitude." Please look of what is happening in Darfur ! in the last 4 years a genocide is going on there. 300.000 deaths, more than 2.000000 refugees running to the Sahara No. Unless a camera can provide food and water to people who don't have any, and until centuries (or millennia) of hatred subside, simply seeing the horror --- especially today --- won't change it. Photography does change the world, and always has. How, and why? by challenging our humanity and making us aware. However, it is not a magic silver bullet to cure all ills. If you are struggling with that idea think how quickly a regime will move to ban photography...they understand, if you don't, the power of an image. Darfur, as most are aware is a particularly ugly example of humanities inhumanity which we are aware of due to the power of photography. The question to ask is whether the horror hidden would be a even greater horror than the revealed. A camera cannot provide food or water; however, it can challenge the humanity of those who can. It really is a case of looking at the bigger picture rather than being lost in the detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 "Don, Sarcasm noted. Cool. I used "kids" because others before me, including you, used "boys and girls," which you may have noticed I put in quotes in the post you just responded to. " The "boys and girls" in my post was a quotation to the message I was responding to. I was responding with some contempt for your loaded language. This is no longer about photography and I don't like point/counterpoint yammering, so I'm outta here -- although I am curious as to when someone is no longer a kid in your eyes. I assume it is when they are mature enough to agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Allan, making us aware, yes, very much so, but it always will be connected with many more items like interview with survivers, public( like pressure of parents of dead soldiers, pacifists, anti war demonstration), politician( like opposition) to really make the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 but it always will be connected with many more items Of course but awareness of a given situation is always the starting point.....the photograph gives us that awareness and starting point. Slow as humanity is to act eventually it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 "I assume it is when they are mature enough to agree with you." Glad you're outta here, 'cause it ain't worth responding to. Bye now. (And we'd been getting along so well.) We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Don,Fred,i don't know. The flicker of cold steel at dawn???The splash of red on a carpet of hoar frost???...or,perhaps the honour scar of combat won or lost. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catherinevankempen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Don - I'm pretty sure that despite your decision to leave this discussion you will be back to check on the responses so ... If you prefer the words "men & women" that'll work for me too. "Today's armies are made up of volunteers, professionals, mercenaries, and private security forces." How can the average 18 year old be expected to make an informed decision about something as life changing as joining the armed forces and fighting a war, most of them can barely decide on a college major. How many US citizens were lured into the war with promises of great pay, protection, and wonderful benefits only to discover they had been lied to. As to the private security forces, from what I have read we may be better of without them. I think Fred is right on the money with his answer. "Why am I dangerous or how is it dangerous to me? You cannot make a political statement or a photograph of any value out of platitudes." I think the most dangerous thing is ignorance coupled with stubbornness. Pnina - "Where's the change?" I think Allen said it very well. Would it be better for the journalists to just stop reporting these atrocities? At least now we know and how much worse could it have been if the rest of the world had been kept in the dark about this? I think you agree that photography is an important tool of change. I am sorry this has turned into a political battle, the question was originally about photography, not about who is right or wrong. Peace Out :), Catherine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Allan and Catherine, I did not say that photography has not an important role of awarness, it has! but as the question was, "Can photography change the world",?, well, I repeat what I said, that it will not do it alone, it is a part of ! and processes can take years and many human will be sacrified (soldiers and civilians) to bring a change. History is proving it time and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran__ois_p._weill Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Well, All considered I side with Allen's opinion (he won't be surprised I think) ... But as I had been a PJ I find some absent considerations in this interesting debate... they might be less philosophical and more pragmatic : To (eventually) change the world (and I repeat I side with Allen it CAN contribute to this change but hardly accomplish it by itself) there are a certain number of pre-requisites : First a P.J. should be sent to cover the event Second he or she should be allowed to do the job freely Next, assuming the image is ready for publication, it must be published... My personal reflection and personal experience make me think these conditions are nowadays seldom met. I don't want to emphasize on the embedlement procedure of the present war in Iraq... it has been already expressed here. So I won't develop the secodn condition further. And this is largely a question regarding U.S. goverment policy. But examples of disguised censorship are far more numerous... In the aftermath of the 1929 crisis, if I remember correctly, photographers were appointed by the newly elected Roosevelt administration to cover the consequences for people form rural areas. Margareth Bourke-White was one of them. If my memory doesn't betray me, their work was showed to the public in a gigantic exhibition called "Have You Seen Their Eyes" ... It probably didn't change the world as a whole, but I'm sure it made many people in America think about the necessity to help these poor people with government money... In France, many a talented photographer emerged from the practice of what used to be called humanist photography... Showing ordinary people in their ordinary but so blue and difficult life... including the way immigrants from North Africa and (then) fascist Portugal were treated and "housed" , packed like cattle in old buildings without the minimum of comfort or in self built cabins grouped in the mud of some remote and forgotten place of large city suburbs, looking like some Brazilian "Favella" without the sun. There work helped to make the things change ! At that time, we had papers who had the guts and will to inform and so they sent PJ's to picture that and published them... Though such photographers never owned the highest pays, they could live with what they did... Nowadays, if you don't picture the Jet Set or our present Presidential couple (Grumpy and Snow White) and all that sort of highly important things which will - of course - change the face of the world, earn your living photographing sport events or rock stars or simply be a "paparazzo". Just quit the job ! You won't be hired anymore and you won't be published as to make a decent living and even afford your gear. Yes, some "happy few" can be assigned to a war (only to be embedded) or will be authorized to cover human misery, but for the latter only if it is in a remote place of the planet. Misery is tolerable and should only be shown if it is not in front of your door... Sleep well citizens all is quiet and peaceful here. It is just why Slagado (probably the best PJ photographer in our time) is still published and tolerated here. But just try to do a work here on what is happening everyday to a large number of people, unemployed, working people sleeping in the streets because they cannot find a place to hire for lack of sufficient money ... And even if you decide to proceed at your own expense, then try to be published, whatever is the quality of your work. Real battlefields to change the world are not only war zones... and to change the world even a little, a photograph must be taken and published ! And this is not the easiest part of the problem in our present world. FPW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now