The Migrant Mother, Benetton Aids Advert, Execution of a Viet Cong Guerrilla 1968

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Susan, thanks, thse last question are a nice chunk to chew on.<br>

Instinctively, yes, a still image is somehow more 'in your face', more dramatic and more imposing, than video, in this case. To me, anyway. Whether that is because of past memories or similarities, I wouldn't dare say. I am afraid there is a big part psychology attached to it, and I'm certainly no psychology scholar.<br>

So, for what it's worth - what seems to play the difference for me in non-scholarly words.</p>

<p>Images, such as Eddie Adam's, basically contain the same information as a video would; my mind fills in the gaps of the missing frames preceding and following that one moment. But it is that exact one moment what it is all about - that one moment contains a whole story. And yet, it doesn't. It's frozen, still, on its own. We imagine what came before and what will follow, but we recognise that exact moment, and what it means (or will mean).<br>

A video seems more real maybe, but it also passes that exact moment, and it conveys <em>the action</em> happening; the photo just conveys the utter horror of <em>the moment</em>. We cannot tear away because we recognise the raw emotion of that moment. With video, we want to go away because we do not want to see the action. (Maybe I should replace "we" with "I", but this is how I perceive video versus photo in cases like these)</p>

<p>When I was reading your Nov 15, 2011; 08:44 a.m. post, I had to think of the scene of the movie JFK where Kevin Costner repeatedly shows the Zapruder movie. And at the end, he stops the movie running, leaving the exact moment where JFK got hit.<br>

Always when I see this, the Zapruder movie material intrigues me (as in "what really happened there?", "how would I react if I stood there", the normal questions). And the second the image is frozen, the horror of that event strikes me. Not those secondary thoughts above, but the raw idea of the event.</p>

<p>I think that's the effect. Not a matter of composition, lighting, well-crafted cinematography or photography - but the exact depiction of a drama. Rudely said, timing is everything here.</p>

<p>Only once in my life I shot a video. I did not like it at all, because all the time I was looking for that moment, that precise moment to squeeze the shutter. Only to be reminded by the LCD panel of the videocam that I recorded that one moment, and a next one already passed. In my mind, there were about 10 good photos in that timespan; instead I had one hour of video.<br>

Probably I focus too much on the video-photo comparison, but well, I hope with this detour to explain a bit what makes a photo work for me, within the context of photos you described.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Another point to ponder, and one which has concerned working photographers greatly, is the contrast between the Eddie Adams picture and the shot of Jane "Hanoi" Fonda sitting on the AA gun mount, which appears on this page:<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</a><br>

The US military accorded virtually unrestricted access to all combat areas to press representatives, which meant that images which would take on iconic significance, such as the Eddie Adams shot, the little girl caught in the napalm attack photographed by Nick Ut, etc. , were published without hindrance of any kind. Meantime the North Vietnamese kept an iron grip on the media, helping foster the idea in the minds of war protesters back in the USA and elsewhere that the NVA were boy scouts. Never again were press people to have such access to combat zones - in many wars (Falklands, 2nd Gulf war) access was so restricted that reporters were hardly able to work at all.</p>

[susan_langford]

<p>Thankyou, your replies have helped a lot. It always amazes me the stories behind an image.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>To understand the impact of a single photograph it is probably worthwhile contemplating the effect of this moment on the three most involved - the victim, the South Vietnamese general, and the photographer. Obviously the victim's life was changed in a heartbeat, but because of this photo the lives of the other two participants changed forever. The impact was felt broadly, with the disquieting effect on everyone's feelings about the war, but for these two it was a turning point in their lives, and even as they passed away (one of them here in northern Virginia, within a few miles of where I am today) it was the thing most-discussed in their life stories. I think the "frozen" moment discussed above is one of those "what-if" sequences we consider in life, and for these three the what-ifs include "what if this picture had never been taken".</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Adams_(photographer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Adams_(photographer</a>)</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_Ng%E1%BB%8Dc_Loan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_Ng%E1%BB%8Dc_Loan</a></p>

[peterkonzuk]

<p>In a morbid twist of Bresson's decisive moment the the most synical 'prize' of war photojournalism has been to capture the moment of death. Robert Capa was long believed to have been first in his image of the falling soldier in the Spanish Civil war <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Capa,_Death_of_a_Loyalist_Soldier.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Capa,_Death_of_a_Loyalist_Soldier.jpg</a> but now that is in dispute. If you take Edie Adams image out of context because I think much has been said regarding its influence on the politics of the Vietnam war at that time it remains an iconic image in that it captures the moment of death. It might be interesting to find out how many moment of death images there are? Outside of film captures it is very rare. The only other one that comes to my mind is of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot. </p>

[susan_langford]

<p>Thankyou to every one for all your help</p>

[richardsperry]

"Can it be the fact photographs can be taken at the point of death. No other media can do this, film can capture events

but it continues to the end"

 

I don't think so. I have been mulling this over and was thinking about the Chinese Toddler and this image. Contrasting moving film/video to a photo.

 

I was a toddler when the photo was taken. So I don't remember it as much as I do the film. I can imagine that those

contemporary could see or view the image over and over in whatever print form it was published in, while the film would have aired once at the time(and may have been censored in the way that the Chinese Toddler video was not aired by mainstream news).

 

When I see the photo, I envision the blood spurting from his head after the shot(from the film). This being available to

me through documentaries, after the fact, and not the nightly news which may have run once or twice at the

time. Additionally, the photo is relatively safe and gorefree, thus accessible to a larger audience(the film being more restricted in audience).

 

Thinking about the Chinese Toddler video and comparing, I don't think there is a single frame itself that can convey the ghastly effect of the video in its total. I don't really have any appreciation for the photo itself other than as an icon or avatar of the full execution seen via film. The film has a much bigger impact on me, more memorable, and contains almost all of the context of the scene; where as the photo, without additional outside context, is pretty crappy in my estimation standing alone.

[Art X Photography]

<p>Given this IS a photography forum the images Susan related her initial question/query to are in fact iconic images and should require no specificity. As photo.net subscribers no one should need a link of reference to know the images in question, however, failing that any and all confusion can in fact be avoided simply by titling a good search with Susan's reference points and these iconic images will in fact appear.<br>

<br />I'm sure Susan can google all she likes about these images but perhaps she's simply asking YOUR opinion hence the thread. The questions aren't difficult to answer, they require no over zealous philosophical approach, just a reflective opinion. <br>

Now, my views are that the images represent historical references and ongoing world issues (even if the images were based on specific points in time). That to me makes the images timeless. Their publication has helped create an awareness of human tragedy and suffering without victimising individuals (within those images, although I do find the Migrant mother image somewhat questionable in that regard). They represent a collective focus and awareness.<br>

<br /> The <strong>Benneton image</strong> in particular (as with much of <strong>Oliviero Toscani's </strong>images commissioned by Benetton) were designed for maximum advertising impact, hence why they remain iconic images<strong>. </strong>They hit their mark<strong><br /></strong><br /> <strong>The Migrant Mother </strong>is an image I personally feel need not have been promoted (notice I haven't use the term "need not have been published") to the degree it has because it DOES represent the specific suffering of an individual in an attempt to focus on a social issue (personally I think a faceless subject has greater impact).<br>

<br /> <strong>Execution of a Viet Cong Guerrilla 1968: Journalistic </strong>represents the quintessential photojournalism image. I'm sure that in a morbid sort of way it has inspired many a future photojournalist. What makes that image more powerful isn't just its subject matter but the power the medium of photography has/had in bringing the rest of us the news of the time (unlike today's digital age where news is at our fingertips).</p>

<p>Did any of these images help promote the "cause"? I guess that depends on who you ask, the photographer in question or the publicist in broadcasting</p>

<p> Perhaps those that feel the need to undermine the intent of the initial thread should refrain from replying.</p>