1 DO WE NEED WAR PHOTOGRAPHY
If we need to understand the concept of war you must realize that death and destruction falls within that notion, but why do we need to produce images of people dying and suffering, do we have the right to photograph this? I believe that we the inhabitants of this world have the right to see images in direct response to the decisions government’s policies, whether or not we can make a difference.
We of our generation must take responsibility to record and preserve images so that future generations can try and understand the conflict. But I feel our generation, with the ability via television or the internet to have images of conflict viewed directly into ...view middle of the document...
Photography has the capacity to move us, make us think, it also allows us to share and to communicate without the need of language. War photography is more than just record shots. Sitting in a comfortable homes we can see many faces of war directly, would we have known about the Vietnamese girl running away from her village which had just been bombed with napalm? Figure 2 Helped Associated Press (AP) Nick Ut win the 1973 Spot News Photography Pulitzer Prize (Pulitzer, 1973).
Figure 2 June 8, 1972, Nick Ut photograph of Phan Thị Kim Phúc Figure 3 40 year anniversary – with her grandchild
It was, and still is a very highly emotive photograph that came to capture the horrors of the Vietnam War.
AP’s photo editor Horst Faas , a two-times Pulitzer prizewinner, would later state that "It changed the war. I met so many American soldiers who said 'Nicky because of your picture I'll get to go home early.'" (Stout, 2012)
Without war photographers would we see images, or even hear about certain events, that show how personnel war is. Without Figure 4 would we have ever seen, heard or found out about Samar Hassan agony?
Can an image stop bloodshed?
We the public have seen enough photograph’s to prove war is horrible anyway? Is taken pictures of death and destruction just voyeurism? If photographers generate a sufficient amount of convincing pictures, would they make people stop killing, will it become belligerent?
Most of us have already seen countless images of war so do we need to see more, when does images of conflicts start morph together and we say enough is enough we seen it all before. There are so many war photographers in different conflicts around the world, why do they go to these places? Is it because they are addicted to danger, death or some other personnel gratification.
War photography is open manipulation but not necessary in post-production, events can be created and used as propaganda to influence the viewer’s thoughts about the conflict. We can be caught up in lie and then start to circulate that lie as truth.
Due to the lack of control of pictures on the internet we cannot (or shouldn’t) trust war photography. If photographers didn’t have the pressure to capture ‘The Pulitzer Prize’ winner then we wouldn’t need …..
One of the recent images of the Syrian conflict that has stirred up a lot of controversy is a photography of a child sleeping between the graves of his parents.
But this image has been staged as it isn’t in Syria but in reality Saudi Arabia. In fact the photographer, Abdul Aziz al Otaibi, has stated it is part of an art project.
"I am really very annoyed by this. It is just not fair to take one of my photos totally out of context and use it for your own propaganda." (Hooton, 2014)
This is one of the reasons why we shouldn’t have war photography, the truth can be twisted or even created. Did this historical event really happen, it looks real? But actually its two images put together to create a...