The Imagemaker's Responsibility

After seeing Dr. Masur speak on multiple occasions today, naturally I had a lot of thoughts running through my head. As a photographer, I was intrigued by his analysis of images and how deeply he examined them. As a skeptic, I was wary of the feeling of powerlessness a photographer must have being in those situations. Robert Capa, a member of Magnum Photography, a prolific group of the world's most talented photojournalists, was quoted on their website saying,

"It's not always easy to stand aside and be unable to do anything except record the sufferings around one."

This thought kept running through my head, as Dr. Masur spoke and the former Associated Press photographer spoke after him. Is it really enough to capture the moment in history? One of the most important things Dr. Masur said, I thought, was that as powerful as an image is, you have to be able to fluently read the image. That is- you need the whole story. Making sure the story is told, the entire story, is the image-maker's responsibility. Though their work may be used to communicate one message, the facts behind the photograph are often more powerful than the story constructed by what is left out.

I could stop there readers. I could, but I had a bit of a Masur-moment when I came to this conclusion. I geeked out. I started scrambling for the stories and images that came to mind. That lead me to the artist known as Banksy.

Banksy creates images, and more often than not they are without words or context- if there are words, he is brief. And while context is certainly important, he leaves a lot of the investigative work up to the viewer. The image that first came to mind when thinking of an image-maker's responsibility was this piece.



In Masur fashion, lets go right ahead and unpack this image. There's a few things that caught my eye. The lack of color, other than red- drawing your eye towards both the blood and the red cross. The impressionistic background but very detailed facial expressions. I think this image largely speaks for itself, but these are few of a multitude of moves the artist purposely makes to force us into drawing the same conclusion. That being, "how important could that shot possibly be?"

What interests me too, and I have no explanation for- is why Banksy let himself get the Pulitzer Prize winning angle. This could have been from a distance, setting the photographer up for the angle the pictures is presented from. Perhaps this even is self parody- as Banksy largely is in a similar position to the photographer, not doing any other activism than showing the world his images.

The other Banksy piece that I thought of was this.



We spoke a lot about the use of the flag, as well as parodies of powerful images (in Dr. Masur's lecture on Springsteen) and this is certainly an intentional homage to an image that is part of our "cultural DNA". What's interesting as well is that Banksy is British- perhaps these images a product of a more global society or simply something democratic nations share. Another part of this image that spoke to me. The grasp! That reach/pull dynamic that kept Dr. Masur up at night- did it have the same effect on Banksy? Especially given our class's discussion about African Americans feeling left out by white American society in Song of Solomon might this explain why the boy on the left is desperately grasping for his piece of the flag instead of triumphantly raising it?

I think I've about overstayed my blog-welcome, but please please please comment with your thoughts, I could go on for hours about Banksy's work as well as any of the Magnum photographers or anything else I brought up in this post.

Oh- almost forgot. Power of images? I'll have to blog again about what's going on with President Obama and the release of photos of abused prisoners of war.

Death Be Not Proud

Ok readers- I'll let you in on a secret. I may have a comic book or two floating around my room. Among them is The Other Side, a five-issue series that came out in 2006 about the Vietnam War. Our class discussion of soldiers' experiences during war reminded me of these comics, as they really focused on the psychological aspect of both a Vietcong soldier and an American following their deployment and respective death and life afterwards.

It was really an interesting asterisk (that term has become a class-cliché at this point, I gotta think of another way to phrase that) to the regular portrayal of Vietnam that we're used to. It was gritty and realistic, similar to Saving Private Ryan in that respect, yet in showing both sides it also reminded me of Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. As both stories were meaningfully juxtaposed throughout the book, both soldiers' lives, though drastically different, appear similar as they both undergo the horrors of war. It was a powerful read, and I highly reccommend it (and I'm sure you can find it on Amazon.com if a comic book store is too scary).

The picture included was a scene from the comic, and the poem his helmet is referring to is a famous piece by John Donne, which I'll leave you with to ponder for yourself, comment with your own thoughts on it's meaning in reference to the context of the war.

DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

New technology could in fact, destroy technology

(via Discovery.com)

The concept of an EMP bomb is not all that new, however last week FOX News brought attention to a new, smaller version of the weapon that is being produced.

EMP stands for Electromagnetic Pulse, the article stating that it creates, "a supermassive blast of electricity, usually from a nuclear blast high above ground, that fries electronic circuits for miles around, crippling computers, cars and most other modern gadgets." What this means in terms of war is that an entire infrastructures can be shut down, in varying lengths of time and scope.

Our discussions in class have touched on the ethics of warfare, as well as what is considered war. This technology begs the questions- is shutting down electricity ethical in war? Is this more or less damaging than other attacks, such as bombing?

The article focuses on the possibility of groups outside of the military being able to construct these, as well,

Israeli counter-terrorism expert Yael Shahar tells New Scientist magazine. "And much of this could be built from off-the-shelf components or dual-use technologies. Shahar says she's especially worried about two devices — one called a Marx generator, which beams an EMP at a target, and the other with the "Back to the Future"-like name of flux-compression generator."

If seemingly anyone willing can have access to this technology, how will it change warfare? Perhaps in the future we will see wars of limiting resources and shutting down civilian life as opposed to killing soldiers- is this for the better or the worse? Moreover, is the fact that we are asking ourselves this question the problem in the first place?

I'm sure you've seen this around

via New York Post

This immediately brought to mind

"Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a dismal portrait of the white male psyche. Can I really expect white males to recognize that? Yet they must. All of us suffer the consequences as long as they do not."

-Julius Lester

Even if the argument being posed here was not racist, as the artist is arguing- isn't this the cautionary tale of Mark Twain? If you are going to be a satirist you have to be conscious of your audience, and this artist may or may not have purposefully put forth an argument that recalls the hatred seen in Twain's Huck Finn.

Is Michael Moore keeping too critical of an eye on government?

I'll admit that I'm not a fan of Michael Moore. The most recent film of his I watched was called Slacker Uprising, which was released for free on iTunes and while he presents provocative ideas they usually lack substantiative evidence and more commonly offend people (I myself felt attacked as a young person for being targeted in this film in particular.)

More recently, he made headlines in the New York Times about a new film that is supposedly in the works. This time he's tackling the economic recession, and guess what- there's something the government is keeping from us: a shocking new topic for Mr. Moore.

My bias aside, I did find it interesting though predictable that he'd tackle such a topic at this time. The article quotes his website, he having said, "I am in the middle of shooting my next movie and I am looking for a few brave people who work on Wall Street or in the financial industry to come forward and share with me what they know. Based on those who have already contacted me, I believe there are a number of you who know “the real deal” about the abuses that have been happening. You have information that the American people need to hear." and said that "a few good people have already come forward."

Taking from our study of critical essays and Mark Twain's satire of being overly sentimental- I think it's good that there is someone out there that is keeping a critical, even cynical eye about what's going on., I just think Michael Moore isn't very authentic in doing so, though this really isn't a post just bashing on Moore. If the film does end up happening I'd be delighted to hear what Moore "uncovered" and perhaps do some fact checking on the film myself after seeing it. No details of a release were discussed in the interview, so if it's anything like Slacker Uprising, we might not hear about this film again until the economy has recovered (let's hope).

Bail-Out or Stimulus Package?

(via the New York Times)

Well that would vary depending on who you ask. The New York Times published an article today describing the Senate's Approval of the Stimulus Plan. As we have been discussing the importance of word choice through reading critical articles about Huckleberry Finn, I thought it appropriate to take a look at the word choice used by House Speaker Pelosi, President Obama, and others quoted in the article.

While the debate over whether or not to pass the stimulus package is moot at this point, the nature of why we "need" one is still being talked about and examined.

President Obama said of the bill, “Doing nothing is not an option. You didn’t send me to Washington to do nothing.” I found it interesting that he seems to be taking a much more aggressive stance, and this sound-byte seems almost accusatory of those now disagreeing with him.

The New York times reported that Nevada Senator Harry Reid had said, “Throughout our history, the federal government has catalyzed a good idea, invested in the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the American people, and let the private sector flourish,” the majority leader, Senator Reid said before the vote. “Faced with an economic crisis today, we have an opportunity to make similar investments that will help our country prosper in the years to come.”

Mr. Reid added, “With common sense as our compass, we must now answer the urgent call for action.”

His language is also echoing the sense of urgency in the quote from President Obama. Word choice like "common sense", "urgent call for action", "ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the American People"- these all are broadcasting a more forgiving way of saying "let's get things done", contrasting Obama's language which seemed more like, in my opinion, necessary discipline directed at the businesses and consumers involved illegitimate mortgage practices among other things that led up to this crisis.

The few, the proud...

...the romanticized. As a few others in our blogosphere have noticed, the United States military has some very optimistic portrayals of what life is like for our men and women overseas. If you watch the video included in this post you will see some incredibly bold claims. While using hyperbole to strengthen an argument is one thing, what the ad leaves out is equally important.



What makes this advertisement so easy to discredit as giving an accurate view of life as a soldier is that it leaves out all of the negative aspects of being a soldier. Those depicted in the ad weren't in danger- rather basking in glory and growing as individuals. This isn't to say that there are no positive aspects of being in the military, there certainly are- however in leaving out the negative aspects this ad puts an entirely different spin on what that experience would be.

Perhaps the most jarring part of the ad was when it did hint at the negative aspects, though only briefly. The line "the strength to build...and the strength to tear down" came almost as a surprise, and removed the viewer from the fantasy the ad created. It's moments such as that one that should serve as reminders to always keep a skeptical and curious eye whenever being shown anything that is trying to argue a point. And if our textbook is correct, everything is an argument.