Week 7 Responses & Responsibilities
This week’s presentations have looked over at the possibilities of a photographer holding the powers of persuasion within their practice. I believe that a photograph could provoke change within society, it might not solely be the reason but a photograph could certainly spark a conversation and highlight responsibilities within a society. Like Susan Sontag says, “Let the atrocious images haunt us. Even if they are only tokens and cannot encompass all the reality of people’s agony, they still perform an immensely positive function. The image says keep these events in your memory” (Sontag, 2003,p89). For me although Sontag is not completely talking about a photograph being persuasive she is saying the event/time no doubt provokes emotion. The positive function that Sontag mentions could mean that in some way it has highlighted something and that something is somebodies responsibility.
Capturing such events like 9/11, Iraq wars and coverage of ISIS, although I think it is important to document. I do think having every single image televised is not necessary, it is instantly put right in front of people. This could be why society is becoming desensitised to shocking images, if it is more freely available and put in front of us on daily basis. Then surly what we are viewing has less meaning to us, yes it is horrific but is it shocking anymore? “Showing wars irrationality and horror is of no effect on men. The horror makes for fascination. History is a bath of blood” (James,1910,p275)
On the flip side Kenneth Jarecke (1991) image of An Incinerated Iraq CLICK HERE the photographer is quoted saying “It was one picture after another of a sunset with camels and a tank…..If I don’t take pictures like these, people like my mom will think war is what they see in the movies” (Jarecke in Deghett,2014) Which I have to agree with, vast amounts of imagery from wars are constructed aesthetically and do not represent the war in a true light. If images are too graphic to view and lighter ones are not a true representation, then it leaves me to wonder if the photograph is the right median to use when documenting wars etc. perhaps the use of text and description would be better?
Aesthetics within documentary photography (which is normally within the context that we view shocking imagery) should be kept to a minimum in my opinion. When you start constructing an image with beauty being the main aspect it can turn your practice from capturing reality to your representation of that subject. Which is fine if that is your intent, but you have to bear in mind if your audience is aware of this. Aesthetics can add different variables like stereotypes, mythology and your own ideologies like imagery from Sebastião Salgado CLICK HERE. Much of his work stands out because he has captured shocking subjects but has constructed his images with mainly aesthetics at the forefront. These images can be viewed as quite beautiful and beauty is normally associated with positive subjects, these images have a shocking context so is it ethically correct to construct images like this? Like Sischy says “To aestheticize tragedy is the fastest way to anesthetize the feelings of those who are witnessing it. Beauty is a call to admirations, not to action”. (Sischy, Ingrid,1991 ‘Good Intentions’ The New Yorker)
Salgado’s images got me thinking if he sends the right message, he certainly sparks a conversation but I think mostly about the aesthetic composure rather than the subject. For my practice I don’t have an obvious message but within the context that my images are viewed, there is an obvious military connection. My practice could have mixed opinions when it comes to political history of these areas. My intent for my images is to capture the architecture of military buildings, which hold a trace of time. At the same time I want my viewing audience to trust my integrity of the construction and I will be mindful that the reality and technical side is to be captured in the forefront and aesthetics come last.
Critical Research Journal 