Here is a challenge for myself and you. This is something that I’d like to hear responses on so those of you who read this blog please reply because getting a dialog going is what blogs are all about. There is a good case made by Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin in their article regarding the world press photo of the year by Tim Hetherington. Now, this article proposes that the winning image is unoriginal in its concept in that it looks like Capa’s Spanish Civil War soldier and numerous Vietnam photos, so the photo is a repeat and brings nothing new to the table. Tim Hetherington has defended his photo and Broomberg and Chanarin certainly didn’t rip him. But they make a proposal that photojournalism take a new course, a new direction. Their points are valid, how is a photo that looks like it was made in any number of previous wars new and what does it tell us about the current war? But in asking that question therein also lies the answer. The answer and what the viewer is looking for and ultimately told is that nothing is new. That’s not Tim’s fault, he just photographed what he saw. Its not original, its been done before but I find myself saying, “so what”. Isn’t that the point?
This war is no different than Vietnam or the Spanish civil war, not because of the political or ideological enemies, on that front they are both different. But in comparing any war, isn’t the act of war the ultimate subject? Does a soldier act differently if he is shot at by a communist, a fascist or a terrorist Islamic sect? No he doesn’t. He doesn’t like getting shot at. Soldiers die, they burn, they cry after all they are human and in this photo of Tim’s, after a fierce firefight the soldier breathes and reflects that he is still alive but for how long? The photographer isn’t there to say if a war is just or unjust or our troops right or not, that is not what photos of war are about. Tim’s photo is of a man, a soldier yes and one of ours, an American, but a man who just was in one hell of a fight. The human element is what makes all wars hell. Put the Capa, Eugene Smith, Eddie Adams or a Tim. Hetherington photo side by side and they are the same. It doesn’t matter if the soldier was American, Vietnamese, Spanish, its not about just unjust, right or wrong its about death, war, fighting, and that doesn’t change. Its primal and its sad. But isn’t that the theme that ties them all together? If that is the reality, that there is a war and this is what is looks like, then how can Tim or anyone else act as if there isn’t? And as long as it goes on, doesn’t it warrant coverage?
Broomberg and Chanarin suggest that a war or such topic is too vast and complex to be photographed by a photographer and objectively illustrate realities. Rather their suggestion is to make photographs that acknowledge they don’t explain everything. It’s a good proposal and seems logical to me. My thinking is that both style of imagery is valuable and still necessary.
