(JACOB RIIS)Ever since vice and suffering were recognized as viable photographic subjects, photojournalists have not been able to take their lenses away. It is as if there is some magnetic pull, drawing people back to the suffering of others in order to incite compassion or cause people to recognize the injustice. Susan Sontag believes this habituation has only proven to deaden our response to the scurrilous side of human nature. Even though becoming familiar with famine, war, and death through photography has made people in general less sensitive to horrifying images, the initial impact of a truly powerful photograph can never be forgotten. You can never anticipate the impact a photograph will have before you release the shutter.
However, what can you do the second before you capture that image? What is the photographer's responsibility in participating in events? Should they let them unfold, let history take a more "natural" course? Or should the camera serve as a reminder that there is no such thing as fate and nothing is permanent until it is captured?
I personally think that (essentially) nothing is off limits from the camera. With the exception of watching someone mourn, turning down bountiful and interesting subjects is like being off the record; it just rarely happens. No matter what faith you might profess or endorse, man's ability to destroy, corrupt, and maim are undeniable parts of the human experience. To deny these facets of reality the lens turns photography into more of a commercial ideal than an art form. By following the demands and wishes of the greater majority which might say "No, that isn't appropriate for the public" a photographer would stunt the credibility and power of their photographs. Photographers have jobs very similar to journalists. They must hold people accountable for what they do by showing them consequences and possibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment