Robert Capa controversy

[albert knapp md]

<p>I just read a most interesting article in today's NY Times regarding the authenticity of Capa's famous photograph of the dying militiman during the Spanish civil war... Seems that they located the actual spot and that... there was no combat inthe area when Capa was there....<br>

Judge for yourself... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/arts/design/18capa.html?_r=1">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/arts/design/18capa.html?_r=1</a><br>

Albert</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Did Oswald act along in killing Pres Kennedy? Was OJ innocent? Who was William Shakespeare? Where is Jimmy Hoffa? Is the M4 the best M of all time? Certain controversies will seemingly never go away. This is one of them. It's a great photograph. Period.</p>

[syed]

<p>I guess if it looks real to me, then it is real. Your mileage may vary, however.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>It's a great photograph. Period.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>exactly. Capas' "Loyalist Soldier" (it's real title) has become an iconic photograph because it's true value lies in it's strong and overwhelmingly direct methaphore of (useless) death and the insanity of war. The question if it's faked or not has long since lost any meaning and won't change it's photographical historic value either way.</p>

[rick_donnelly]

<p>I think I agree with you guys. This professor is a publicity hound looking to sell his book. I am tired of hearing from people who want to rewrite history for their own personal gain.</p>

[cpj]

<p>This "controversy" has been resurrected for years again and again. While I have today's NYT story in front of me I haven't read it yet, but I do own three or four books on Capa.<br>

If this was a one-shot Pulitzer Prize photo never to be repeated again by the same photographer, there might be reason for controversy. But Capa was a pioneer photojournalist of his time and he repeatedly produced outstanding work during WWII (even though Larry Burrows screwed up his D-Day in the surf photo when processing the film) Capa still stands as an icon to many. There was no percentage in him faking a shot that would be processed and distributed by someone else.</p>

[dr._karl_hoppe]

<p>Anyone see Judge Crater lately?</p>

[pc_b]

<blockquote>

<p>It's a great photograph. Period.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the genesis of great photographs must not be examined by academics? (...) Only topped by</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess if it looks real to me, then it is real.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>,of course.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Capas' "Loyalist Soldier" (it's real title) has become an iconic photograph because it's true value lies in it's strong and overwhelmingly direct methaphore of (useless) death and the insanity of war. The question if it's faked or not has long since lost any meaning and won't change it's photographical historic value either way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Back in the 1930ies this picture was published mostly because it was such a rare thing that a photographer would produce a picture of somebody about to die. Since its publication it has been discussed widely for several reasons (e.g., publishing ethics, Capa's general motivation(s) as war photog, staged-or-not). Which is exactly what made it stick out – in photo history books! I doubt this picture stands for the war in Spain for the majority of the Spanish citizens (what I'd call iconic). I could be wrong though, I don't know the Spanish people well enough.<br /> The staged-or-not-question will not loose meaning until definitively answered (I don't think we'll get a definitive answer ever). Capa's photo is part of general history, cultural history, history of photography, history of journalism etc. and therefor deserves such academic attention. Historians investigate such questions day in day out. Why? Because in all kinds of history (art h., cultural h., h. of war, ...) the position, importance, reach, etc. of even the tiniest _relevant_ 'historical subject' is hardly ever settled once and for all. Everything is open to re-examination, re-interpretation, re-evaluation. New evidence and fresh ideas never stop coming.</p>

<p>The ongoing staged-or-not-debate has – by its sheer existence – put this Capa photo in a different historical position compared to where it 'stood' 40 years ago.</p>

<p>That said, Rick might be right as well! All too human a motivation not to be encountered amongst scientists.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Thank you for that article, Albert. The slide show on altered and allegedly staged photographs is equally interesting. </p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>The ongoing staged-or-not-debate has – by its sheer existence – put this Capa photo in a different historical position compared to where it 'stood' 40 years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That may certainly have been true in the earliest years after its publication but it has long since transcended that. That's also why it's become an icon, it's symbolic meaning is no longer seen as part of the Spanish Civil War but has become a universal one. Even if historians find out the exact circumstances that won't change anything. Proof? The fact that it's known by now that the soldier was in fact Federico Borrel Garcia went largely unnoticed. Most people aren't even remotely interested in such things.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You said it yourself,<br /> <br /> Capa's photo is part of general history, cultural history, history of photography, history of journalism etc....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it has become cult and only a relatively few people will care about or are interested in academic research and its results. Sad perhaps, but there you are.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>I can't believe that this could be taken so lightly. When something like this happens today we are in a fury. (New York Times)<br>

This calls into question the very soul and ethic of Capa. I can't help but wonder if most of his pictures, sans WWII, were set up.<br>

The point, to me at least, is that he presented this a factual. He told the world that this was real and what happened. Not so much the image itself.</p>

[oscar1]

<p>It's fake, for sure.</p>

<p>I don't know if the New York Times explains that this information came from a Barcelona newspaper, El Periódico, that discovered the fact that there were no fights in the place where the picture was taken the day it was taken.<br>

The news came to public now because in Barcelona we have two complementary exhibitions of Capa's and Gerda Taro's work (Gerda was Capa's girlfriend). The fact was that, when I visited both exhibitions, I discovered that Taro's pictures were far better (I mean with better composition skills, more human, and more "modern") that Capa's ones. But Capa is more famous than Taro. Why? Perhaps because he was the man and she the woman? Or perhaps because Capa signed all the pictures as "Reportage Capa-Taro" without telling who took which picture even after Taro's death?<br>

Capa is not as great as we normally say. And the fact that he staged the picture is very important for me. He is supposed to show what it is happening, not to emulate it. And, If you do it, the less you can do is say that it is a recreation, not the real facts. He lied to us. He is not a journalist.</p>

[bobtodrick]

<p>This was all hashed over about two weeks ago on 'the other' forum.<br>

This seems to come up every few years...someone comes up with 'proof' that Capa faked the photo...and everytime proof is given that in all likelyhood the photo is genuine. In response to an article (also in the NY Times dated July 23) on 'Essays, Fact or Fiction' the International Centre for Photography (ICP) came out as saying that in their 'studied' (meaning they've researched the photo quite extensively) there is no doubt about it authenticity. <br>

As they mention, considering the incredible body of legitimate work Capa produced on D-Day (and the rest of WWII) and Vietnam it seems doubtful that he was of the mind to fake something such as 'Falling Soldier'.<br>

Personally...I think the people that are constantly questioning Capa's photo are the same people that can 'prove' the moon landings never happened.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>But Capa is more famous than Taro. Why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Taro's death left Capa devastated and some of those who knew him best (one of which was Eva Besnyo) have said he never really got over it. Like all of us Capa was a flawed man and no one should make him out to be what he was not but he never needed to claim photos as his own that in fact weren't his. Capa's and Tara's story, sadly brief as it was, is well publicized.<br>

Stating Capa was not a PJ suggests you might better read a bit about him. He was, and a great one at that. Or as he himself once said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's not enough to have talent, you also have to be Hungarian"</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Dr. Hoppe - I was going to ask about Judge Crater but figured it was an historical reference few would get. Heh.<br>

Dr. Knapp - Thanks for the post - good discussion. I hope all's well - you're one of the veteran members of the forum who has contributed much over the years.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Capa was a handsome, hard-drinking, celebrity-f---i--charmer who, like his "pal" Hemingway, wove much of his own story/myth. No one should be surprised at his rigging a picture. I wonder if the guy who got "shot" got other work from this gig?</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Friedman invented Capa because he couldn't get work otherwise but that's something else from creating his own myth because he lived up to it during his career. I don't see that it follows that because of that he should be more prone to "rigging a picture". As you over yonder like to say "he did the business".</p>

<p> </p>

[albert knapp md]

<p>Great discussion and I guess we will repeat it all in another 5 years or so when the next book comes out...<br>

Albert</p>