Wednesday, August 29, 2012
First Posts
For your first post, please respond to the questions/prompts you received in class on Tuesday. The prompts were fairly "big picture" but try to respond with depth rather than breadth. Each post should be the equivalent of (roughly) one page, but feel free to adjust the length to your topic. If you have difficulties, don't worry. We'll work them out tomorrow (Thursday.) ~T. F.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When the photographer said “To take pictures of the war was to be against the war,” I think he meant that the closeness his work brought him to the devastation of the war turned him against it. It is easy to support a war when you are not forced to see the destruction and heartache it brings. If we chose to blind ourselves to the damage wars cause, and instead focus on the positive change it brings, however small it may be, then we can view war as a beneficial tool to bring about positive social change, and ignore the extreme damage that results.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, we are so sheltered and complacent that we see only that which the government wishes us to see. However, photographs like his bring to our attention the damage a war can cause. His chosen line of work leads him to deal directly with those most affected by the various wars he covered. Dealing constantly with the injured left him feeling angry and in turn shaped his view of the war. Furthermore, by distributing to the public the pictures of some of the horrific things that took place, he ultimately turned others against the war. Whether intentionally or not, his pictures are so graphic and full of emotion that they tell viewers that war often brings immense pain to innocent bystanders.
Regardless of his political views, this is the effect his photographs can have. His work, like many others in similar fields that deal directly with the suffering of others, has lead him to turn against the source of that suffering.