Reflections in the Wall III

Sorry Mark, you must have edited your comment while I wrote mine. I see now what you think about the photo.

Mark,

I did not intend to imply that Philip made the selection, though I admit my clumsy phrasing seems to imply it. I was merely referring to him as the one who presents these photos to us and, presumably, has some editorial control over the whole thing.

As for your other comments, I think you need to read my posting(s) a little more carefully. I am not questioning anyone's right to feel what they feel or even the right to take and display photographs like this. My point was to argue against the artistic merit of the picture. This monument is fundamentally a public relations exercise by a morally bankrupt government tying to put a nationalistic, deceptive spin on the war (very clever though, I must confess) and appease a certain amount of resentment that had grown over previous neglect of the matter. It's essentially in the same class as Soviet socialist realism and I apply the same standards of contempt. The photograph (which is hardly neutral, Samuel) not only swallows the hook, line and sinker but makes a go for the fishing rod too by exaggerating the chin-stroking sentimentalism. The unpleasant business of an unprovoked war that the commemorated individuals were engaged in when killed in self-defense is conveniently (and altogether) ignored. As a result, those who understand the history more clearly may tend to find the photo to be in very poor taste.

I suspect Philip imagined these sorts of political or moral "questions" when he described why the photo was selected, rather than a debate over the best possible lens/film/aperture for rainy days and reflections from wet granite.

 

I wonder if the guys could confine their comments to, how you percieved the POW. Not how witty or smart you can come off on comments of WWII and WWIII. It's not constructive to the photographer and is annoying to fellow photonetters. Here's a wild idea e-mail each other.

Every week I look forward to seeing the Photo of the Week on Photo.net.  I really like the picture chosen this week because of the sadness it portrays.  I don't think it's particularly original, but like it anyways.

As far as the "war" comments go - I think it's great to have differing opinions, but the discussion is about the photograph and NOT the facts, issues, or opinions on war.  I for one would appreciate it if those of you who have comments on the rightness or wrongness of war would privately e-mail each other.  The comments spoiled my usually pleasant visit to Photo.net.

This is an example of the subject itself taking over the picture. When I first saw it on the photo.net homepage, I thought it was a newspaper article or some type of print taped up inside a window with a reflection shot taken from the outside. Clicking on it brought up a larger image that filled my screen, and I thought what the heck, this is a terrible picture. It was only after scrolling down and finding out what it was that I began to appreciate the meaning of what was being presented. As far as a photograph itself, I would only rate it at 4.0 or 5.0. (If I really want to nitpick, I think the upper right hand corner should be cropped off a tiny bit.)

Too dull! low light.

Several of you are suggesting that a discussion of subject matter with this picture is somehow irrelevant to its merit. I can definitely see how that could be true in many other photographic circumstances, but in this case, the impact of the shot depends almost entirely on the meaning of the wall. Just imagine if it were some big electronic billboard listing stock prices or something even more banal. If stripped of history and meaning, the formal aspects amount to little more than a very dull and uninteresting image, one that would never have come close to earning the prestigious "picture of the week" status. Since the ideas make (or break) this photo, it is entirely fair to discuss them. I have also been very explicit in delineating the connection between meaning and artistic value of the photograph, so I don't feel it's at all fair to dismiss my comments as tangential or off-topic. The following remark illustrates quite well what I was trying to get across about the incredibly offensive sentimental-but-not-too-disturbing (real war disturbing) fairy tale spin that the marketing people behind this wall achieved with their "capitalist realism" art:

"I for one would appreciate it if those of you who have comments on the rightness or wrongness of war would privately e-mail each other. The comments spoiled my usually pleasant visit to Photo.net."

My day has been spoiled by the reminder that the world is filled with people capable of inhuman comments like this. (Apologies to Irene if she was simply being sarcastic in an extreme Monty Python way.)

I agree with Rose-marie B about cropping the top right hand corner. If you're already going to slice and dice the picture in PhotoShop, then a critical eye should be used on how that area will effect the total composition.

 

* My time to nitpick as well *

I wish people would quit plastering useless copyright, signature and website advertisements on their photo mattes. It detracts from the image, and IMO makes it less artistic and quite annoying.

How would you feel if you attended a picasso exhibit show with advertisements pasted all over the images. Yuck!

Use the watermark feature in PS for copyright info and list your personal webpage address on your photo.net portfolio page - which offers you the option and is quite clear for visitors viewing your page.

A copyright sign on your photograph is only a small roadblock to someone who know PS and wants to rip off your image.

Let the artistic strength in your photographs be the tool to attract customers rather than blatant marketing techniques.

* End nitpicking *

 

BTW - I love this photograph. Great job.

 

I also find the background of this photo completely overwhelms (sp?) any technical/artistical merit (quite poor, IMHO).

So anybody should be allowed to freely express their own feelings about it, being from a political rather than moral point of view. "Shut up"? Let the others speak, if you don't like it, MOVE AWAY!!

Having visited the memorials of our ANZACS at Gallipoli, and the memorials at Auschwitz, Berkenau and Prague. The memories of being there, of standing in the fields and the rooms is all bought back by this image, which is what taking a picture is all about, to capture a feeling, in this case it is in sombre rememberance to the fallen and slain regardless of who or why they were sent there. Well done Joseph.

 

Least we forget ...

In my experience the general feeling is that such Memorials are intended to serve two purposes: to remember those who died, and to remind the rest of us of the consequences of war. Not just one war, but all wars. This is not IMHO the place to discuss at length the rights or wrongs of the USA's foreign policy over the years, or to take pot-shots at the US Government (easy though that may be). The sight of all those names, those lost lives - husbands, brothers, sons, and the grief of relatives - that is what it does for me most of all.

 

I have no problem with the Photoshop manipulations done to this image. The result is what counts, not how it was attained. Why do some people get hung up on this? My only criticism is that it's not entirely clear what it is for those of us not familiar with this individual structure. However, this image makes me want to go and visit the real thing, as I would appreciate its impact. The photographer tried to interpret the sombre feeling this memorial exuded, as well as offer clues to its location, and I think he has done a good job.

"I for one would appreciate it if those of you who have comments on the rightness or wrongness of war would privately e-mail each other. The comments spoiled my usually pleasant visit to Photo.net."

 

Photo.net does have a chat feature with a couple of rooms, one for general photography and another one called "web nerds". Perhaps we could get the Photo.net Elves to add another room to the chat...call it "Free for All"...let everyone who wants discuss all the off-topic aspects of POW have at it.

I think that person is correct the image looks flipped

 

as to photoshoping an image that's the authors right and in no way detracts from the quality of the original, all he/she did was tint the image

 

I find the image visually interesting also, it is very journalistic in content like all art it has an emotional link, and that is the story, also it's a story that may people can relate to in their own way.

as to the technical, sure, anyone can focus, and adjust for lighting, but not everyone can pick the perfect moment...

 

the criteria for this photo was, for me, that I could place the image without even reading the caption as I'm sure almost any in the US can

 

just the numer of comments alone on this image are testement to it's strength

 

and you people who got off topic, please remember that we're commenting on the PHOTO and the overly negetive comments were not necessary as well

The skill of the photographer here lies in combining many elements to make an interesting whole. "Complex" rather than "complicated", it is a photo essay: a discussion in the form of an image. As such it combines the pictorial with the didactic (and does it well, judging from the lively discussion). The photographer obviously did not just "snap" this picture off. He constructed it carefully to achieve a certain result: discussion and consideration of its point of view as expressed in a well-crafted image.

 

Whilst not agreeing with some of the "political" comments expressed above, I personally think their presence here is fair enough as long as they relate more or less to the image.

 

There are a thousand war memorials around the world similar to this. They all evoke the same feeling in most of the people who visit them. The dead soldiers no longer have a political view (if they ever had one). When they were killed some were all "Stars-And-Stripes", some were scared, some were professionals doing a job, some were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They weren't all noble and courageous and they weren't all politically and morally committed to killing the enemy. But they WERE there. And they deserve a memorial.

 

As this photograph uses the mechanism of reflections, so should Americans reflect on these young men and women and what they died for. They should also reflect on the dead from the other side and what THEY died for.

 

For America has become the new bully of geopolitics. It's not just based on guns and threats of death to those who disagree with them. It's got to do with the economy and the crazy market concepts of "globalisation" and "privatisation" (read: "do it our way or we'll send your country broke"). It's got to do with cultural domination via TV, films, music. Yet one body bag is enough nowadays to turn America's spine to jelly and for it to run away and hide in the closet. That's why I use the word "bully".

 

The danger for the world in this third milennium is that America (by this I mean "the American Government" and presumably a handy proportion of its people) is suffering from an extreme case of chauvinism and national hubris. It expresses this at the press of a button (on either a hedge fund computer or a piece of military hardware). The "Tom Clancy" syndrome, where "foreigners" are the problem to be either forced to conform or eliminated casually from on high.

 

Yet there are so many good and honorable Americans who appreciate other cultures and conflicting points of view. Why aren't they shouting out that something be done about what's happening to the rest of the world at their country's hands?

 

This picture is such a good choice for PoW. It depicts another time when Americans actually fought and died for what they believed in. It gets your thoughts going. It invites consideration and expression of opinions - "pro" and "con". It is also very good pictorially (see my earlier comment, the first on this image).

 

On the Photoshop issue... there's a limit to how far you can go with Photoshop before the image becomes "graphic art" rather than "a photograph". As this is a photographic site, once this limit is passed the resulting images should be posted elsewhere and judged according to different standards. IMHO, I think this picture remains well within the limit and is a true and well-crafted photograph.

"The photograph (which is hardly neutral, Samuel)..." Vuk Vuksanovic

 

Hmm... I think it is neutral. The photograph depicts something far removed from neutrality, but is itself neutral, overall. (The guy on the far right is altogether too stereotypically American to fit this picture, which is why I would crop him out.) It is not maudlin in the naff sense, so does not imply that the dead are innocent unfortunates. It contains an active human element, so does not lapse into cheap sentimentalism from that point of view either, by occasioning one to put the dead soldiers on a plane of honour above the rest of humanity. It does not instigate thoughts of "why", only the suggestion to "look" (at what has been done). It does not endeavour to rationalize what is irrational, and I admire the photographer for his decision not to do that. It is altogether passive in nature, and I think it is neutral.

 

I fail to see how it, the photograph, exaggerates "the chin-stroking sentimentalism".

If the purpose of art is evoke emotion, then Joel has succeeded brilliantly with this photo.

 

Now time to stand tall. I'm an American veteran, quite proud of it, and unashamed of our military heritage. I note that our collegues in Australia, who were with us in Viet Nam, and experienced great debacle in Gallipoli under command of European generals, seem to feel as we do. I note that its mostly Europeans who accuse us of being in kind with the Nazis and such. Congratulations! You are celebrating the freedom that many, many Americans, Aussies, Brits, Canadians, and French won for you. I would dare you to repeat your comments over similar memorials at Normandy, Gallipoli, or the Somme. To those in the UK, talk to your grandparents about who kept England alive to stand against the Nazis in 1940, or who broke the U-Boat strangle hold in '43. To our Eastern Europe collegues, maybe we should have let the Nazis and the Soviets have you for good. We can openly criticize our government for every foible it makes. You didn't dare under past regimes. Who enabled you to tear down the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain? Maybe we should have let Iraq gain control of the Middle East in '91? Maybe we should have let Milosovic continue his slaughter too? Maybe we shouldn't have ended (one way or another) all of the wars Europeans and European politics started in the last 100 years. Maybe we shouldn't have refused the tactics of the European generals in both world wars that fed soldiers to the slaughter with no tactical nor strategic purpose? Maybe we should have let Imperial Japan keep Viet Nam, the Phillipines, and take Australia too? (Then Joel wouldn't have taken this photo.) Finally, maybe we shouldn't have given the world this internet, which you seem to enjoy, a product of the evil American Defense establishment.

 

Enjoy your freedom folks. This is what its all about. Once again, congratulations to Joel for his photograph, and to photo.net for making this discussion possible.

 

OOHRAH (macho American military jargon)

A photograph, like any other work of art, should first seize attention. From that attention should flow emotion. Only then should rational reflection of the elements occur.

 

Your photograph seized the attention of all those who have commented here and doubtless many others who have not. The emotional power of the photograph is evident, the comments are proof of that.

 

As to the rational elements Mr. Dummett said it best, "This intelligent picture has succeeded admirably."

 

Bravo Joseph!

It's written Milosevic FYI.

 

It seems that maybe my earlier comments about this photo are being neutralized, considering how much of a debate your photo has sparked. After viewing your folder I would have to say that I find Reflections in the Wall II a much better piece (this one just doesn't do it for me). I encourage everyone here to view the entire series in his folder, as well as his numerous other fine photos. I agree with Tony, I believe that digital photographers would benefit from having a digital forum here rather than be subjected to the wrath of all these film snobs (myself included so take it easy folks I'm not trying to be a jerk). Not to say that digital deserves any less consideration for PoW (I mean we're all still photographers here, and a few grammarians too!) but judging by the comments I think many photodotnetters are biased. Maybe a seperate "PoW petty arguments" forum is also needed so we can escape all of these annoying posts that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHOTO or are just silly little nit-picking spelling corrections.

I think the discussion about Joseph's photo shows us how political and controversial photographs can be and how much symbolism they can contain. In this case the image seems to tell us more about ourselves than of the actual subject. We all interpret this photo in our own way, and this discussion is valuable in showing how differently we experience its symbolism.

 

Expressing political views on photo.net is fine, as long as they are properly in context (like this discussion about Joseph's photo).

 

You have succeded where every photographer wants to succeded in, you have captured an emotion in your photograph. Something very hard and rare to do. Congratulations!

 

While I myself am too young to remember Vietnam, never lived in the US, though I did serve in the Canadian Armed Forces, I have to admit this photo does affect me.

 

10/10!

 

I really like this image a lot Joseph. It contains many different visual depth levels with the reflections and the different refelctive tones of the lettering on the memorial.

A very somber and moody image of something that tugs at the heart strings of the millions who had loved ones in the Viet Nam War. This is the type of image that truly displays the feelings of many people in my opinion.

 

For those who comment on the various inequalities and crimes committed in any war. This memorial does not celebrate any victory gained or supposed, instead it serves only to remind everyone of those who died and those who lived in a terrbile time. My father served three tours in Viet Nam in the US Navy and luckily came home without any external wounds. The names of the men and women on The Wall did not make policy, they most likely did not support the policy, but they served and died because their country required them to. Before anyone can judge the worth of anyone, try walking in their shoes.

Well this photo has certainly acted as a lightning rod to galvanize opinions of the U.S. from many quarters. As an American let me provide perhaps some other thoughts on the imagery from the standpoint of an American. First of all, it might be worth noting that this particular memorial of all American memorials was highly controversial from the start. There was a lot of social and political debate as whether it would even be constructed.

 

This was no doubt due to the unsettling and ambiguous nature of it, much as the Vietnemese war itself was to we Americans.

 

I myself am highly unsettled about the so called "Americanization" of the planet, there's much I don't like about it. I'm not sure its really American per se, more a post-industrialization phenomena that took us over first. I'm also not here to debate this country's moves of the last 20 years. Others can do it far better than me. I will say they have not all been bad and many were good.

 

What I want to try to say is that the Vietnam War Memorial was really intended to help heal Americans from the aftermath of the war. It is not intended to dis-respect the Vietnemese, or the other countries that lost people in that war. (added by edit) nor was it intended to glorify war, or glorify sacrafice but was intended to pay tribute to those who did pay the ultimate personal price for their involvement. (end of edit)

 

I don't know if I can properly express this but its more of a memorial about what the tragedy of the Vietnam war brought to the American experience of itself. This is not to denigrate any other opinion expressed here, they all have seeds of truth. But to Americans, this particular war was a shattering experience of awakening from the sleep of our own moral certitude. Both in terms of political goals, but also of general and generational war of societal values.

 

The monument brings up all that soul rendering conflict, which of course in those days was seen in all of its forms, including film from the war and from the streets in America, daily on TV.

 

Therefore the memorial is unique, it that it doesn't, like most most memorials, just honor the brave dead who gave their lives for their respective countries and causes(no small thing), but it memorializes the times when a whole culture turned upon itself (with many far reaching effects)in which this war also happaned and acted as a magnifier. So as you can see its more of a basically subjective experience of and for Americans.

 

Given the harsh realities in many places in this world, this may not make much of an impression, but its what it is.

 

Therefore back to the image. Looking at it from that standpoint, you can see the wall itself with the victims, the stolid reminders of the human waste of that particular war and the societal wreckage. The reflections, the people, meandering in the mist, the survivors of the confusion and the turmoil of the times trying to find meaning, assimilate and heal from what has happaned and the sense of loss. Not only of loved ones, but of the innocence, the hyman, the cherry of american world view. Last of all, the dimmed, vague somewhat distorted reflection of the Washington Monument, that proud symbol of America to Americans, shining forth across the stage of the world, now diminished, confused, wounded, at a new place in history and not knowing what that place is or what it will be wondering what will be "the american dream" of the future. So, to me, this picture with its reflections does a great job of evoking (in some of those that were around in those days) a very particular sense of "memorial" to those times.

 

What more do you want the bloody photo to do. I won't niggle about the bright spot on the upper right corner, cropping it out in my view would diminish the symmetry of the rest of the photo which I like.

 

I give it 8,8.

 

Sorry for the length, but I just wanted to present a different , not neccesarily truer perspective.

 

 

There is a justification to discuss the backgrounds of the picture, folks. After all, a work of art, a photograph here, isn't all about the technical side of it - exactly like this you could insist on discussing Rubens' canvas, Vermeer's colours, Boticelli's brushes as the only suitable subject. Now, all these secondary items are indeed discussed by the art critics, but none of them would come to the idea to compare artists (or the artistic value) only upon technical aspects. If anyone can notice a political aspect in the POW, it's legitimate for him to discuss it.It all seems to boil down to the fact that this is a photo of an american war memorial, for american victims of war. I think you need an effort of will to associate this monument with glorification of any kind of politics. Even if there's no limit to the extent to which a decided mind can misinterpretate anything, please try not to, try to see the photograph as what it really is instead. There is a variety of ways and techniques which could have been used to make this a stupid patriotical, military-glorifying, distastefull propaganda photo; none of which was used.

Mr. Vuksanovic' assumption, the technique used by the photographer could be used to photograph a nazi monument, turning it into a kind of opposite of what the POW is, is really running in neutral. I wouldn't feel a bit different about it if the monument was for the soldiers of Wehrmacht. In fact, here in Austria (and in Germany too) you can see them by scores, every little village has one, most carrying insignia of the Wehrmacht (the swastikas have been probably chiselled out of existance) . Not so impressive like the big american counterpart due to smaller bodycount - yet the bodycount is the only significant difference. Whenever I stop by for a bit of contemplation, all I think is the same I would have thought on the POW location or in front of any memorial of this kind: Nie wieder Krieg. Perhaps it's just me, but I see no reason why anybody should make a difference between people killed by their country's politics, be it USA, be it Nazi germany, Vietnam, Iraq or Serbia: knowing they're killed in a war is just an argument against war and nothing else.

What got me going about Mr. Vuksanovic' comment is the imprint of serbian nationalist propaganda drivel in it, evidently without him being aware of it at all. Looking for Holocaust Industry and its abuse of memory of the greatest atrocity of mankind for petty gains, Mr. Francey? You could have found it here, for this drivel was all about USA being nazis, doing to serbs what nazis did to jews. Not a word of it was nearer to truth than it was intended to be in the first place, of course, but the long and intensive immersion succeded in imprinting this innocent-victim pattern of thought into minds of those who haven't yet seen the real face of or been burned by the politics behind it. I've encountered this far too often, and had to comment on it. I've asked fellow photonetters to forgive my doing it, because I felt it was just as inappropriate as the original posting by Mr. Vuksanovic (which, by the way, probably done no harm whatsoever, the only one aware of the backgrounds being me).

Do not misinterpretate my opposition to your views as standing up to protect US-politics. I am critical about it, but not in the dull, wittless way some of you are. There are shades of gray between black and white, and I can make a distinction among them, but I wouldn't have any interest in teaching anybody to do the same even if this was the appropriate forum to do so. Keep your opinions and I'll keep mine, but bear in mind that you need more than just a hint of a reason to come up with them, especially in a dedicated forum about photography.

And to Mr. Francey: the mere remark about the holocaust being unique has set your mind up and going through mysterious twists to set me up as a target of your hate, forming your perception of my "position" in a prefabricated mould for antics of the representives of the "Holocaust Industry" and their brainless sycophants. Obviously, you're convinced that I'm jewish: "believe it or not, but six million people were not gassed to death and shovelled into an oven in WWII just so you can make an ass of yourself (...)" - excuse me, but this is a clearly antisemitic "argument" typically used against jews. Now, these two together fulfill the requirements for a genuine polemical warfare: if I really was jewish, I couldn't possibly reply to you without (seemingly) confirming that I really am what you accused me of being in the first place. Being really a muslim, I can afford the luxury to insist on what I said, for the likeliness of me being a shareholder of the Holocaust Industry is indiscernible compared to the likeliness of any muslim "brainless sycophant" being repellently antisemitic. I can also afford the luxury of identifying your argumentation as one of a latently or openly antisemitic person abusing this forum to give air to its questionable views, thus making an ass, a nuisance and a (selfcensored) (selfcensored) (selfcensored) of himself.

The holocaust is unique. All the other examples Mr. Francey mentioned (and might care to come up with) had to do primarily with gain/securing of power or teritory and cannot even make it to a close match (unless you resort to simple body-counting). Holocaust was pure genocide. Even if I might agree on some of Mr. Finkelstein's theses (and the observation that not allowing any discussion on the uniqueness of holocaust would be inacceptable) , everybody should be very careful about discussing them; because the fact of Mr. Finkelstein being a jew doesn't impregnate his views against the possibility of being antisemitic. I think it's a very valuable work indeed, for even if it proves useless as a discussion material, it at least will be an excellent way of baiting some naive antisemits out in the open - they'll consider it legitimate to show their opinions if they can reference a book written by a Jew. I know of at least one case where it worked perfectly.