Aftermath and aesthetics

Aftermath photography, is more prevalent in the modern age, where video and film captures action, photography captures the aftermath, the remainder, the residual effects. I find that I disagree with Campany’s essay http:// davidcampany.com/safety-in-numbness/ .

He states that there is a danger that it can also foster indifference.

There is a fascination in seeing the aftermath of an event it can highlight the atrocity and devastation, it can show us the final outcome, the brutality of a situation. A forest fire is merely a raging fire until you view the aftermath and can see the enormity of the fire. This puts a perspective on events that the brain can process as it takes in a still image.

Reading Campany’s article brought to mind my own assignment for Expressing your vision in which I photographed an empty flat after the resident had been moved on. I did not portray him in his flat or his physical existence in the flat but I showed him through the aftermath of moving out and what remained. It was as Campany states closer to forensic photographer than photojournalism , there were indeed remnants of activity. I found there was a beauty to evidencing the scene and a story that could be told/ witnessed.

My assignment can be viewed here:

https://wordpress.com/post/wendyrose.blog/5071

 

Compassion fatigue

Compassion fatigue – Susan Sontag “In these last decades ‘concerned’ photography has done at least as much to deaden conscience as to arouse it.” (Sontag, 1979, p.21) Sontag argued that bombarding the public with sensationalist photographs of war and poverty was a certain way to numb the public’s response. She believed that the more distressing images people saw, the more immune they became to their impact; viewers became reduced to inaction, either through guilt or a dismissive lethargy towards making a difference.
Sontag reversed this view in Regarding the Pain of Others (2004), but ‘compassion fatigue’ is still used as an argument against war imagery today.

I have read through some of Susan Sontag’s ‘On photography’ and I cant help but agree but the more we are exposed to imagery the more de-sensitized we become. If I were to conscientiously count every image I was exposed to in one single ordinary day it would be shockingly high. We are oblivious to the extent of images and advertising we are subjected to, they are so commonplace that our brain does not even seem to acknowledge them, they are often viewed on a subversive level. Social media bombards us with more images than text, such is the power of an image. The more we are subjected to it the more I believe our brain filters it, this I think is true of even the most shocking of images, the more we see them the less power they have. In turn we then need to see a more graphic level for it to shock us, in a similar way that adrenaline junkies need to consistently try something more and more dangerous to increase their adrenaline fix we seek more from images in order to shock us.

Some images I think stay with you perhaps these were the first images that shocked you, that initial feeling is hard to feel again. I also do not believe that video is as effective in the long-term as a single image, images can be brought to mind in crystal clarity and stay with you a video is made of many moments so is not as easy to replay in memory.

In any news event the initial images are the ones that last, they are the ones that are presented alongside the naming of the event. The planes hitting the world trade centre, the falling man, Grenfell tower ablaze to name a few examples. the subsequent images of the rubble of the world trade centre, the protests at Grenfell are not at the forefront of people’s memories.

In the age of internet and social media we are bombarded by images to the point that people keep scrolling or turning the page until something is shown that perhaps they have not seen. How often to people scroll past the ‘please type Amen’ posts on Facebook or ‘please share’ because they are so prolific. I don’t think it’s because people don’t care I think it’s because the effect has been diluted.

Another debate that has not yet been mentioned is the role of the ‘innocent bystander’? The ethical questions that surround how or in what circumstances the images were taken and whether the photographer becomes culpable to the action if they have been witness to events unfolding. But this is a debate for another time…

Read your answer again when you’ve read the next section on aftermath photography and note whether your view has changed. See also: http://lightbox.time.com/2014/01/28/ when-photographs-of-atrocities-dont-shock/#1 [accessed 24/02/14]

This particular link did not work but I was directed to the following link which I believe maybe the archived article:

http://time.com/3426427/syrian-torture-archive-when-photographs-of-atrocities-dont-shock/ (accessed 13.08.17)

I viewed the images in the article and found I was not shocked but them (despite the warning) When I looked at the photographs and read the text I was more moved as I could put the images into context and imagine the event. A google image search of ‘girl being napalmed’  will bring you to the one iconic image that everyone will recognise. ‘Saigon execution’ will reveal the before, during and after images on google of Police Chief Nguyen Ngoc Loan being executed. However a google search of Syrian dead will reveal the most graphic images for beyond the image of the dead Syrian boy on the beach that moved the nation (The innocence of children as victims is a powerful tool) that I do not think the general public ‘On a mass scale’ have been subjected to, these are deeply shocking images that go beyond the warning from the article. These images exist in the public domain, however they are there to incite terror and as such I believe that we are protected from these images invading our everyday lives, such is the power of censorship. These images do have the power to shock but what change would they provoke? They have been designed to shock and to incite fear, surely these images although standing as a document exploit the fate of the victim for a political /religious/ party agenda. Should these become commonplace where would our emotional boundaries be? Would we be completely de-sensitized to death and destruction?

 

 

Research point

If you’re interested in the critical debates around photojournalism, try and make time to find out more about at least one of these critical positions during your work on Part One. Here are some questions to start you off:

• Do you think Martha Rosler is unfair on socially driven photographers like Lewis Hine? Is there a sense in which work like this is exploitative or patronising? Does this matter if someone benefits in the long run? Can photography change situations?

Her viewpoint is interesting however I believe that their intentions ,however flawed, were to try to assist in bringing about change. They were not intending to change the world but merely try to reform the standards for the lower classes. Without people taking a stance for social reform we may well not have the social welfare and human rights that we have today. Highlighting the difference / divide between classes is an unfortunate by-product of social change.

• Do you think images of war are necessary to provoke change? Do you agree with Sontag’s earlier view that horrific images of war numb viewers’ responses? Read your answer again when you’ve read the next section on aftermath photography and note whether your view has changed. See also: http://lightbox.time.com/2014/01/28/ when-photographs-of-atrocities-dont-shock/#1 [accessed 24/02/14]

Without experiencing the atrocities of war I think we could not visualise the unimaginable, photographs show us what we are unable to see or fathom. I do however agree that the sheer number of images that are made available de-sensitise us. The images no longer shock or surprise, so does this mean that photographers will try to seek ever more graphic content in order to achieve / provoke change.  The only images I recall from recent ‘news’ that created a reaction were the images that showed the dead, particularly children as these are seen as ‘innocents’.

• Do you need to be an insider in order to produce a successful documentary project?

An outsider can remain objective, whereas an insider is subjective. I think that either can produce a successful documentary project as they would both be 1) An image of the immediate moment 2) The time period of the image/ historical/ social conditions.

The viewpoint however would differ between an insider and observer.