[LRflex] Sick kids and comments
- From: KEITH LONGMORE <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:52:42 +0100
Folks
I read with some interest the comments from Ted and others about the
latest offerings from Steve B. I got to thinking, in the light of some
other unrelated events. The comments that caused me to start thinking were:
it moves and impresses me how some people get a positive message from =20=
these images of resilient children, and others see only a frightful =20
and negative side to it...
and:
I am always afraid to look....it's too disturbing, it makes me cry so =20=
I won't look...
Isn't it commonly the case, Ted, that the more graphic images that photojournos
take are usually kept back from publication in the media, in case they upset
someone?
This is very much the case here, where images of terrorism are
concerned, even on late-night news on TV. Maybe there is also fear of
sick voyeurism. But, you know, I can't help feeling that the impact of
man's cruelty and barbarism are both even more moving and the fortitude
and positiveness that many of the victims of war and terrorists display
even more cause for admiration and perhaps awe, again, even more than
kids like Steve's.
I say this because whoever gets sick, young or old, that's an inevitable
part of life; but war and terrorism are entirely avoidable, and
therefore, I believe, more disturbing, or whatever the right word is.
In the context of this forum, and noting the comments that Steve
captures the essence of these kids in his photos, I can honestly say
that I have never seen any photographer genuinely capture the trauma of
war as it affects the victims. I wonder: has anyone here seen Ernst
Friedrich's 1924 anti-war book 'Krieg dem Kriege'? Or the photographs
of victims of the Japanese atrocities at Nanking or Harbin? Or the
survivors of, for example, the bombing of Hamburg? Those images
certainly capture the awful ghastly horror of man's predilection for
killing and maiming and other excesses; but do they capture the effects
on the victims who survived? Or the fear and pain of the victims who
succumbed? I don't think so, and as I said, I have yet to see the
photographer who can even get close to really bringing it home to
his/her audience.
How do you capture the soul of say one of the soldiers in Friedrich's
book, most of his face missing, having to be fed by tube for the rest of
his life, unable to exist outside of an institution; of the consequences
of shell-chock, like the old man who used to roam Coventry city centre
every day in the 50s and 60s, dressed like a soldier, wearing white
gloves, marching his imaginary squad up and down, directing traffic,
oblivious to the real world around him; of one of my work colleagues
many years back, who went to war as a Jack-the-lad type, reached Lt
Commander in the Royal Navy, and came back unable to 'say boo to a
goose' for the rest of his life? What about Simon Weston, horrifically
burned in the Falklands War, yet having the guts to turn it into
something positive, to go on TV, to schools, etc.,, without hiding his
injuries, and campaigning for various military-related causes?
Could any of us really show - really, truly show - what such people feel
and represent? Could you, Steve? Could you Ted? Somehow, I doubt it.
And if you did, what of the media? Would they respect it? Would they
show it to the world? I doubt that, too. Reality, in all seriousness,
is not for the masses.
Sorry if this sounds a bit maudlin, but I felt I had to make the point.
Cheers
Keith Longmore
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
