This was a very interesting read, mostly a history of the way humans have evolved war photography. I didn't find myself having an opinion as much as simply taking it all in.
The writer herself doesn't seem to have a firm stand either, mostly she explores a variety of perspectives on war photography and the various ways it manifest and gets used.
There seem to be pros and cons on every side, which is natural I suppose.
On page 109 she makes a strong argument against Debord's claim in The Society of the Spectacle. Not only does she defend the existence of reality, but also the ethical responsibility of responding to it. She says, "To speak of reality becoming a spectacle is a breath-taking provincialism. It universalizes the viewing habits of a small, educated population living in the rich part of the world, where news has been converted into entertainment-" (p. 110)
My own reading of Debord was more moderate, and so I didn't have the same reaction she did. I see that Debord is partially right on, and so I am able to excuse any exaggerations or broad generalizations.
The value of Sontag's book for me is that it makes me think about what I photograph and why, as well as why kind of photos I look at and why. It changes my thoughts about war photography. In fact I did not know that some of the most famous war photographs were staged.
I am clear about my own feelings on that matter either. I'm not sure if it is ethical to photograph the dead and spread the images all over the media. On the other hand, the total lack of photos from the current Iraq occupation may contribute to its ongoing status. I find myself feeling like Susan, able to see many sides of the issue, and unable to make a strong, definitive stance.
I'm not sure that photographing the pain or death of others is "good" or "bad" but it takes place and so the book is useful as an examination of this phenomena and its history in human affairs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment