The purpose of war photography?

Umbreon Bob

Da Trainer
    • 44
    Posts
    14
    Years
    This is a little debate I've been thinking about lately.
    What, in your opinion is the purpose or point if you like of taking pictures of war and natural disasters?

    My opinion on the matter:
    Photography was introduced to let people see accurate images of the world. War photography is just an extension to that belief, people want and need to see what is going around the world they live in, they aren't looking at the pictures to see the violence, blood, gore, poverty and chaos to entertain themselves. They see these photos seeking information and knowledge.


    So basically, what is the photographers role? Is it to fulfill our craving for knowledge or just to make money because god knows they can make it out there.
     
    Humans have always recorded events, and wars happen to be the more interesting of things; they change the world faster than peace ever likely will, for ill as much as good, but it's still change and it's still interesting. Photography is just a modern equivalent of painting on cave walls with charcoal and blood.
    The fact we record things to begin with allows us to know things we have never seen or felt, so we can learn from our past and better prepare for our future. The great people history reveres would not have been so, without the knowledge of their forebearers.
     
    Some of the best photographs I've seen have been taken during horrible war-time atrocities. By 'best', I obviously don't mean aesthetically pleasing, but rather artistically impressive photos. The Vietnam conflict, for example, was a cornucopia of phenomenal photography, from the amateur photos of the terrible atrocities at My Lai, to the now iconic images of the Burning Monk, point-blank Vietcong murders and Vietnamese children running away terrified from the oncoming Agent Orange. All of these truly horrible situations, yet many of them literally did help shape the course of future events.

    Nowadays, with the possible exception of the Abu Ghraib photos, photography seems to have ceded its dominance to that of video reporting. We now want footage of stuff happening before our eyes; live would be even better. Whether it's a case of blood lust on some sort of primal level, I can't say for sure. All I can say is that war photography is becoming less and less relevant as a news tool, but doesn't diminish its artistic merit. To go back to the original question, sort of, if photographers want to monetize their art, that's their prerogative, but the purpose of photos is shifting from a purely information-driven marketplace to a more artistic one.
     
    Photography was introduced to let people see accurate images of the world. War photography is just an extension to that belief, people want and need to see what is going around the world they live in, they aren't looking at the pictures to see the violence, blood, gore, poverty and chaos to entertain themselves
    Click to expand...

    First of all, you may want to define what you actually think photography is for, and I would agree with what you said, but until you said "accurate", as photography is an art, and it is not something that people do, in order to display clarity, purely. People take photos of anything, but it doesn't always necessarily need to represent what the world really is, or should seem like from the outside.

    I would argue that people "don't want to see", these images, as you can't speak for everyone, in what they want to see. Furthermore, these photographs aren't purely taken for entertainment. Think about research, and art. This is no different to the man who depicts a battle scene with his paintbrush, but only through a different medium. There is no moral objective for the photographer to not take a photo, because there is no malice involved in recording what you see.

    In an extension, I don't see the purpose of putting a photographer in the role of an antagonist, they simply do as many have done in history and portrayed the world in the way they seen in for a given moment through the medium of art. If you continue on from your philosophy, then you might question why people shoot films about war, and how inaccurate a fantasy novel is. Nothing needs to be accurate, what people want to see is subjective, as is their art and the medium they create it through.

    However, I'm sure you refer to the intention to simply go out, take a photo of war, and sell it to the media. And yes, I can see why you might be concerned with this, but there's a not a lot the photographer can do to stop the war, and for years, people have made money from the mis fortunate events going on around the world. But this is what people want to know about, if all we took photos of was puppies and rainbows, then this would be a blind world, and people would be very much unimpressed with the media. The public should always be made aware of what is going on, and if they are made so, through photography, then that is simply a method of letting people know. If a write wrote about war; it would simply be the same concept, but through another medium. Another profession, making money from the same travesty, but really, is it malevolent to do so? It's truth, and if you feel that people should play the naive card and pretend like nothing like this is going on around the world, and that what they want is protection from the negativity in this planet, then you'd be wrong in holding that opinion. But this is Earth, and what we wish to know, is what goes on in it.
     
    With war photography specifically it gives you a view of something that you would probably never see in person. It's another part of the story, one that you add to what you hear or read. And if you were unfortunate enough to be there you probably would have a very subjective view of the situation and the photograph lets you see the event from another perspective. It helps to create a bigger picture by giving us more information.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top