Final

 

“Beautifying is one classic operation of the camera, and it tends to bleach out a moral response to what is shown.” (P64) I chose this sentence because while she goes on to talk about active response in terms of shock value, I originally interpreted this sentence to mean pictures of people and how they react to seeing an image of themselves. It got me thinking about how people expect a camera to magically make things look good, even if the origin of the photo isn’t beautiful. There is an unspoken expectation from the subject of the photograph that the things the don’t like simply won’t show up in the picture, but that’s not the reality of photography. Photography captures the raw truth of a moment, whether it’s beautiful or not.

 

“I argued that while an event known through photographs certainly becomes more real than it would have been had one never seen the photographs, after repeated exposure it also becomes less real.” (P82) I found this quote to be very impactful. I was inspired by the way she eloquently expressed how I feel about the matter as well. I know she was responding to this belief because it was one she had years before, but I think that it is an appropriate belief for the question of whether exposure of an image determines value of an image. It loses its initial reaction after you've seen it enough times. 

 "That news about war is now disseminated worldwide does not mean mat the capacity to mink about the suffering of people far away is significantly larger." (P90) This is why I believe that images of cruelty should not be censored. Not everyone is exposed to the cruel environments that people in other countries live in. Just because news spreads faster and farther now, doesn't mean that we are getting the news of the troubles of other countries. This form of media hides and monitors things that could potentially scare away viewers rather than just showing what's going on in the world. I think that every person should have an opportunity to understand what its like to live as a person that is less fortunate than them, and this can be done through photos. A person can be exposed to the harsh realities that unfortunately do exist.

 

 

 

 

 

3. Answer each of the following questions:

 

    - What is this obsession and fascination with the depiction of crime, pain and horrors,  

      bordering on voyeurism? Are we becoming immune to shock or at least being

      desensitized over time? Do people want to look at horror or even get pleasure out of it?

 

 

I think it stems from a concept that Sontag mentioned about how these types of photos invite a person in, it gives them the option to either be a spectator or a coward. And over time we become desensitized because we detach ourselves from what is going on in these depictions. People want the possible satisfaction of knowing. (p73)

 

 

    - Has our society become anesthetized by and is apathetic to the horror depicted on a  

      daily basis on TV and in the social media?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

    - Does our incapacity to deal with distant events of horror leave us indifferent when we are not

      directly affected by them?

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

     - Why do people post images of cruelty online for the whole world to see and think they       

       can get away with it? For example, in 2013, two high school football stars from Ohio posted

       a video on YouTube of the rape of a drugged and unconscious girl. When the crime

       came to light, it split the town in half between people defending the players and others

       who wanted them to be prosecuted. There is a screenshot in the picture section below.

 

 

Sontag quoted Shakespeare in saying that the reason that people were attracted to the villainy on stage during his plays was the “love of mischief,” or as Sontag interpreted it, “love of cruelty.” She said it is as natural to human beings as sympathy. (p77) I think that a part of the boys didn’t see that there was something wrong with their actions (and therefore did not think that there was any reason for them to be punished) and since they enjoyed doing it, they thought people would enjoy watching them do it.

 

 

     - American soldiers photographed the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the infamous

       Abu Ghraib prison, and then passed the images amongst themselves. These pictures seemed  

       to the soldiers nothing more than boys and girls having fun, or as the radio personality Rush  

       Limbaugh said: “You know, these people [the US soldiers] are being fired at every day. I’m  

       talking about people having a good time. You ever heard of emotional release?” What do

       these images say about empathy, power and humanity? Look at the images of Abu Ghraib.

 

These images show that it is possible to operate without a sense of empathy. These soldiers tortured people without wondering if there was even an inkling of decency in the prisoners. These war prisoners were tortured because some soldiers didn’t care about other people’s lives. They held power over them. They caused other people pain in order to show off their power. I think that the soldiers were so far beyond desensitized that they had lost their sense of humanity.

 

 

 

 

     - What is the role and responsibility of the photographer in taking and disseminating

       images of war and cruelty? Do they need to censor how and what they photograph?

       Look at the images by Robert Capa, Eddie Adams, Nick Ut, Susan Meiselas, Richard 

       Drew, Ron Haviv, Kevin Carter, Alan Kurdi, James Nachtwey.

 

 

I think that photographers should not censor what or how they photograph. I think that there is no way to fix a problem that you don’t know exists. It may be harsh but those types of photographs educate people from areas that don’t have the same problems that these issues exist and need attention too. I think that the role and responsibility of the photographer is to take the pictures of war and cruelty, not to appease an audience, but to educate an audience.

 

 

 

     - The great photo journalist Sebastião Salgado has often been accused of producing

       “spectacular, beautifully composed pictures” of misery that were aesthetically too pleasing to

       give the subject matter its full weight. Does somebody like him need to forgo his style and

       create conventional looking photographs? Look at the Salgado images.

I think that he can have his style and continue with it because that is how some people handle viewing misery, they aren’t bold enough to take on viewing pictures like Kevin Carter and Alan Kurdi took. His glamorized versions of misery still portray misery. I think that since this is his signature style, the viewer knows to expect the image to not be carrying the full weight of the issue portrayed.