Last semester I read a book by Greg Marinovich and Joao Silva called "The Bang Bang Club." It was an autobiography about a group of four photojournalists in South Africa and their documentations of a very violent time in the country. The book focused particularly on the issue of morality that most photojournalists face and how this affected them. When it comes to snapping a photo, where is the line between duty and morality? It's the duty of the photojournalist not to influence the shot because that's false documentation. However, is it moral to stand over the body of someone who is bleeding and on the verge of death while the photographer takes pictures of the scene? It's a tough call that ultimately led to the suicide of Kevin Carter for his Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of a small child being stalked by a vulture.
I think this is an issue that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. In Carter's case, I don't think he did anything wrong. He was a kind-hearted person who was only doing his job and probably just got caught up in the intensity of the shot he just took. Though he was ridiculed to the point of suicide, he didn't deserve it. His picture showed the world what was going on in Africa and why people needed to take action. It's similar to the Napalm picture. Though these children were shown in a desperate and exposed light, they became the faces of peace in a world that really needed to be shown the truth. Photojournalism is, in my opinion, one of the most respectable and brave careers in existence. It involves putting your reputation and public image on the line for the sake of truth, wisdom and the eradication of ignorance. So snap on, photojournalists!
No comments:
Post a Comment