Before I start on this I would just like to say that these are just thoughts and opinions based on spur observations, people are complicated, and the world and the way it works even more so. I would never profess to assume anyone's intentions or to purposely be antagonistic, but there are some observations recently that have got me thinking about how we use imagery to tell a story and the ethics involved with this responsibility.
There is no doubt that imagery has massively informed modern communication and the subject of its value as a means of information delivery is far too vast to be discussed in a flippant thought based blog.
On the front page of the Guardian today was an image of a man who had just been informed by Malaysia Airlines (we are led to assume) that a close member of his family was almost certainly dead. He is obviously distraught - head in hands, tears streaming, features frozen in a contorted caricature of pain. But it was not the mans obvious distress that jumped out of this image at me, one of the things that I first noticed was the 5 or 6 other people taking pictures of him within the picture, some even on smart phones, suggesting they are simply interested in the mans lowest moment on a purely personal basis, maybe they were later to share these images, identifying themselves with this major world event.
What stood out even more was the obvious fact that the photographer had used a wide angle lens. This is not merely a technical observation - the choice of lens meant that the photographer had to be very close to the subject - probably less than a meter, it also means that the photographer was waiting and anticipating this moment, to capture this perfect immediacy of sorrow alongside the dozens of others waiting for this man to break so they could immortally preserve his pain.
What struck me most of all about this picture is the total lack of dignity given to this man in what will undoubtedly be the worst moment of his life, for what? To get the 'money shot' the image that most shows his breaking point? To sell papers? To make a living? This is someones job, to capture the most devastating moments of peoples lives, but not from a distance, from less than a meter away, multiple cameras surrounding the poor man while flashes freeze his tears. Is this where we are? A place where it is acceptable to throw a mans dignity to the side to capture a descriptive image for the world to comprehend the horror? Any normal person will understand the horror of this moment, more so by reading the details taken from a safe distance away from the embers of the mans hope. But we need immediacy, we need to see the horror before we understand it, we need to pick up the paper to look so we can understand why!?
I am sure that Don McCullin, Robert Capa and the multitude of photographers that have brought world events to our doorsteps over the years have had nothing but righteous intentions, but their lives were in danger, they made sacrifices on many levels to share events the world would otherwise never of seen or heard about. I cannot see them however waiting in an airport for a man to break on the inevitable news that members of his family are dead, this, to me, seems a step too far in the pursuit of a visual description.
There is no doubt that photojournalism is the most valuable form of photography, and has changed the world in which we live, often for the better, but it cannot be beyond account. Is it acceptable to sacrifice one mans dignity, to bulldoze into his darkest moment to share that with the world so that they can digest its consternation in seconds rather than minutes? Are our own valuable moments worth more than this mans worst? Or have we become so voyeuristic towards the horrors of others that we are numb to its effect?
I am sure papers were sold on the story, I am sure the photographer was paid and his family will eat this week, but the man he shot, the man whose bitter tears he could almost taste won't ever see some of his again. No picture will change that.
| LA |
No comments:
Post a Comment