Well I guess, my problem is that I consider news photos as editorial illustrations, not some super meaningful documentation. Strangely without captions those particular photos have no particular meaning at all, a dirt road somewhere with a bunch of round stones. The are called critics because they are critical you have to take anything they say with a grain of salt.
If the Iwo Jima photo was taken in a studio in California is it an any less powerful image? Would it have less meaning to a people at war? It is easy to sit in our comfortable living rooms decades later and talk about it as if it were some kind of conspiracy, but it was a powerful wartime propaganda photo regardless of when and where and how it was taken. The error comes in thinking of news photos as some kind of archaeological documentation made for later generations. They are not, nor were they intended as such. Bob W wrote: > it's important to challenge people who claim without evidence that > important historical or journalistic photos, or writings or whatever > are in some way fake or misleading. It's important because it is > through history and news (which is after all only history with the ink > still wet) that we gain our understanding of the world and our place > in it. It is through news and history that we learn, so as not to > repeat earlier mistakes, and only by being able to trust the sources > of history and news is that possible. > > There always seem to be claims of fakery swirling around some of the > most important news photos - the flag on Iwo Jima, Capa's Falling > Soldier, now this one. I'm sure I could think of more if I put my mind > to it. These claims, when false, undermine people's ability to trust > news photography and play into the hands of people who wish to > manipulate the news, history and us. > > On another level, if someone like Susan Sontag, a respected critic, > was sloppy in the research on which she based an important book which > has influenced many people's views on news photography, then we need > to know about that because it must affect the way we look at all her > writing, and the many consequences of her writing. > > -- > Bob > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of graywolf >> Sent: 26 September 2007 22:45 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Chicken or Egg Photo Story - NY Times >> >> Why is it so interesting? I see nothing that makes any >> difference to anyone but >> a few folks who want to be taken for pundits. The lighting >> shows that the sun >> was more overhead in the second photo, but if the >> photographer was into faking >> his photos, he could well have lied about the time he took >> them. It reminds me >> of the title to one of Shakespeare's plays, "Much ado about > nothing". >> >>>> Subject: Chicken or Egg Photo Story - NY Times >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/2oczre >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly >> above and follow the directions. >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
