im sure there are a million awful photos related to the war but this one apparently has upset the tender feelings of the warfloggers.
Salon gave that big play a couple of days ago, and Lindsay Beyerstein interviewed the photographer.
I find it annoying and exploitative, a "lucky shot" for the photog that can't help but garner the attention it's getting.
Exploitative because the "high production" values accentuate her beauty and his trauma.
We don't need this shite, pro anti or indifferent.
i dont think we can be reminded enough of the human cost of war. im not interested in the production values or whether or not it was a "lucky shot." im sure whatever blew his face off was a lucky shot too.
I'm not interested in those either--that was my point. Whatever its merits in "making the hidden war visible," a photo like that does more harm than good to the individuals involved. The photographer gets celebrated and the victims get the "media glare."
I don't see it as a "lucky shot" or "high production". The photographer spent time with the couple, and took lots of shots, candid and posed. There are others that are very good. And this photographer has spent time photographing other survivors of war. I'd mark it up to skill and effort, not luck.
And as far as the production value, it's taken at a wedding photography studio. People do it every day. Personally I find wedding albums kinda cheesy, but it's pretty much an institution at this point.
To me it (and the portfolio) shows a) an valiant struggle to maintain normalcy despite terrible injuries, and b) war is a motherfucking meat grinder.
i think this photograph is byproduct. most probably a home town wedding photographer hired for the occasion. it will only do more good than harm if the subject couple are willing to be the poster children for what it represents. the fact that they even took it is somewhat significant. but i haven't followed the back story.
The portfolio puts it in better context.
The effort to document the guy's life seems sincere, although I don't really care or want to know about the photographer's "talent."
The photos seem self-consciously artistic to me.
All the attention is being paid to the single shot, out of context, though.
The beauty and the beast archetype is problematic.
Would Salon have run it without the cute girl?
oh wrong. sorry. its activist kunst.
From the interview ... How many frames did you shoot of the couple in that pose?
Just one frame of that pose. I also shot some from the side. I thought those were a little more artful, a little softer. Then I came around to the front. I liked the flatness to it. I like that it had almost a snapshot feel. It didn't require a lot of technique to take that picture. It's a standard wedding photograph, but something's different. The war is affecting our rituals, our daily rituals. Look around.
Perhaps the attractiveness of the bride plays into it. But aren't all brides beautiful? At least there's an industry built around achieving that. I think youth plays a bigger role than beauty in the impact of the picture. They're just kids. Just starting their lives together. And this is the burden that's been placed on them.
Anyway, the wounded troops pictures that I remember are from Mother Jones -- The Damage Done. I just realized these are also by Berman, and are drawn from her book Purples Hearts, Back From Iraq. Here's a 2004 interview of Berman from Mother Jones.
Anyway, I see the photo as the product of a much larger effort.
|
- dave 3-13-2007 6:02 pm
Salon gave that big play a couple of days ago, and Lindsay Beyerstein interviewed the photographer.
I find it annoying and exploitative, a "lucky shot" for the photog that can't help but garner the attention it's getting.
Exploitative because the "high production" values accentuate her beauty and his trauma.
We don't need this shite, pro anti or indifferent.
- tom moody 3-13-2007 6:24 pm
i dont think we can be reminded enough of the human cost of war. im not interested in the production values or whether or not it was a "lucky shot." im sure whatever blew his face off was a lucky shot too.
- dave 3-13-2007 6:40 pm
I'm not interested in those either--that was my point. Whatever its merits in "making the hidden war visible," a photo like that does more harm than good to the individuals involved. The photographer gets celebrated and the victims get the "media glare."
- tom moody 3-13-2007 6:45 pm
I don't see it as a "lucky shot" or "high production". The photographer spent time with the couple, and took lots of shots, candid and posed. There are others that are very good. And this photographer has spent time photographing other survivors of war. I'd mark it up to skill and effort, not luck.
And as far as the production value, it's taken at a wedding photography studio. People do it every day. Personally I find wedding albums kinda cheesy, but it's pretty much an institution at this point.
To me it (and the portfolio) shows a) an valiant struggle to maintain normalcy despite terrible injuries, and b) war is a motherfucking meat grinder.
- mark 3-13-2007 7:44 pm
i think this photograph is byproduct. most probably a home town wedding photographer hired for the occasion. it will only do more good than harm if the subject couple are willing to be the poster children for what it represents. the fact that they even took it is somewhat significant. but i haven't followed the back story.
- bill 3-13-2007 8:50 pm
The portfolio puts it in better context.
The effort to document the guy's life seems sincere, although I don't really care or want to know about the photographer's "talent."
The photos seem self-consciously artistic to me.
All the attention is being paid to the single shot, out of context, though.
The beauty and the beast archetype is problematic.
Would Salon have run it without the cute girl?
- tom moody 3-13-2007 9:20 pm
oh wrong. sorry. its activist kunst.
- bill 3-13-2007 10:27 pm
From the interview ...
Perhaps the attractiveness of the bride plays into it. But aren't all brides beautiful? At least there's an industry built around achieving that. I think youth plays a bigger role than beauty in the impact of the picture. They're just kids. Just starting their lives together. And this is the burden that's been placed on them.
Anyway, the wounded troops pictures that I remember are from Mother Jones -- The Damage Done. I just realized these are also by Berman, and are drawn from her book Purples Hearts, Back From Iraq. Here's a 2004 interview of Berman from Mother Jones.
Anyway, I see the photo as the product of a much larger effort.
- mark 3-13-2007 10:59 pm