The Burden of Photography

DRabbit

There's this relatively new Showtime series called "This American Life" which profiles interesting people and stories from all over the country. It is an adaptation of the award-winning Chicago Public Radio show of the same name.

Last night, episode two was on (called "My Way") and one of the stories was about a photo-journalist style photographer. The photographer's name: Marcus Halevi.

The photographer talks about a series of photos he took... he had been hired to capture a bad storm down at the coast, but while down there he ended up capturing a series of photographs of a woman drowning. She has been standing on the shore smoking a cigarette and having a beer when a big wave knocked out the ground under her and swept her into the surf. A nearby lifeguard and another man, standing about 100 feet away, jumped in and tried to rescue her, but were unsuccessful. The photographer, though he internally debated whether to help out (and he had been standing closer to her) decided to continue to take photos. I will tell you, the photos were extremely compelling and drew me in. But there was an obvious burden weighing heavy on his shoulders for not having attempted to assist her, and he readily admits that his lack of involvement may have had serious consequences, and it's highly possible it changed the outcome of this event for the worse.

Photo copyrighted to Marcus Halevi - from "This American Life - Episode 2 - My Way"



He had discussed at the beginning of this segment the fact that many award winning photographs are of this type... where they use the suffering as their subjects.

He has since changed his style to photograph more "happy" subjects... where most of the time no one's life is in danger and his subjects are in a more celebratory mood. His reason was simply that he can sleep better at night (paraphrasing of course).

Being I have a DVR, I rewound the whole segment and watched it again.

I wonder why it is we ARE drawn to these types of photographs... whether we find them controversial, compelling, sad or even infuriating, we can't help but be pulled into their stories. These aren't merely snapshots of just anyone on the street... in the hands of a skilled photojournalist you are suddendly IN the story, and can feel the anguish.

Is it because most of us cannot relate? Is it because on some level we can all relate? Is it the blatent truth of the moment that intrigues us? Does it merely remind us how lucky we are or how short life is?

And what burden IS it to the photographer to step outside the moment enough to be able to photograph it without intervening or fleeing? Is it something you could do? I'm not sure if I could. I think back to 9/11 and that day and the things I was feeling and it never even occurred to me to grab my camera and get closer to NYC on that day... and even if I could have, I'm not sure I would have stayed in a frame of mind to photograph what was occuring around me... yet I collect photographs from that day and am immensily moved by that type of photography.

Thoughts?

padu

That's a very interesting question, and obviously you're not the first one to raise it. Take the pulitzer prize for example. The great majority of them depicts either war, coup, upheaval, crime or terrorism.
There's even a study about it:
http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101a&L=aejmc&T=0&P=2479

I'm not saying about the specific case you mentioned, where the photographer could make a difference saving the life of that person. But think about some photos where a photo is so strong that changes the mind of millions, and being able to stop atrocities.

Like that famous picture taken by Edward Adams of the vietcong being executed in the middle of the street... that's a very strong photo.

RogersDA

DRabbit wrote:

And what burden IS it to the photographer to step outside the moment enough to be able to photograph it without intervening or fleeing?

For some it is too heavy a burden. Check out Kevin Carter's story.

greenpea

padu wrote:

Like that famous picture taken by Edward Adams of the vietcong being executed in the middle of the street... that's a very strong photo.

I think it is a question of what purpose does the picture serve. In the case famous picture that padu references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Adams_%28photographer%29, Edward Adams was quoted as saying...

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.

There is also the famous picture by Huynh Cong Ut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huynh_Cong_Ut

In both cases it could be aruged that the photographer could have put down the camera and done something to help, but in both cases it is unclear whether the photographers help would have accomplished anything, but in both cases it is clear that capturing the photo did accomplished something.

ericgtr

RogersDA wrote:

For some it is too heavy a burden. Check out Kevin Carter's story.

I don't know his story outside of that link but I would never have it in me to witness a scene like that without aiding, it's absolutely horrific. The capture is eye opening and stirs a lot of emotions, no question about it but it takes a certain type of person to be able to do that. It's too bad it ended up with his suicide, I would think any normal human being would suffer heavily with it. On the other hand, I can see how a photo like this would appeal to aid, let's hope it has.

bsvirginian

In a sad way it reminds of the last segment of the Seinfeld series where the principals were too caught up in themselves to come to the aid of a citizen. This individual should have doubts of his life after purposely witnessing a tragic event and feeling compelled to record it rather then offering assistance. bsvirginian

LiquidAir

Whether you have a camera in hand or not, generally if there is a lifeguard on duty you should not run into the water to help someone unless you are trained and equipped for water rescue. Otherwise you risk the lifeguard having two people to rescue not just one. The appropriate response in that sitution is to ask the lifeguard "can I help?" and offer to dial 911 on your cell if you have one.

In that particular situation, once I had determined that there was nothing I could do to help (the likely result), I'd take pictures expecting to capture a dramatic water rescue. Realistically, I don't think that at the time it would occur to me that the outcome would go any other way. However if, in the end, I ended up with a set of pictures of someone drowning, I doubt very much that I would make the public.

Terrence

In Kevin Carter's case, I can't see why he could not have taken the photo to document the suffering and emotion he saw and felt, but then slung the camera over his shoulder and carried the child to aid. For someone so experienced in that genre, it wouldn't have taken more than seconds to compose and shoot. Of course I wasn't there and only know his story based on a hundred words or so that are written.

It's a very raw issue and tough question to answer. In the end it is a personal choice. I don't think I could take the picture and not lending a helping hand.

DRabbit

Terrence wrote:

In Kevin Carter's case, I can't see why he could not have taken the photo to document the suffering and emotion he saw and felt, but then slung the camera over his shoulder and carried the child to aid. For someone so experienced in that genre, it wouldn't have taken more than seconds to compose and shoot. Of course I wasn't there and only know his story based on a hundred words or so that are written.

It's a very raw issue and tough question to answer. In the end it is a personal choice. I don't think I could take the picture and not lending a helping hand.

Terrence - I agree with you... I somehow fail to see how Carter could not have offered even the smallest amount of aid after taking the photo he did. I also feel like his suicide was the result of a lot more than that one photo... maybe it was more the result of seeing so many world atrocities over time that led him to such despair.

LiquidAir wrote:

In that particular situation, once I had determined that there was nothing I could do to help (the likely result), I'd take pictures expecting to capture a dramatic water rescue. Realistically, I don't think that at the time it would occur to me that the outcome would go any other way. However if, in the end, I ended up with a set of pictures of someone drowning, I doubt very much that I would make the public.

I don't know the entire story other than what I saw on this 10 minute segment of a TV program... but the impression I have was that the photographer was under hire from a large publication. It leads me to believe that the photos he took were then the property of that publication. It may not have completely been his choice to make them public.

Which of course leads to an entirely new discussion... if it had been you, would you just have deleted them or told the publication you were hired by that you didn't get anything? In other words, would you have lied about it in order NOT to make these photos public?


I often wonder how it would feel to be on "the other end" of these photographs. An example that comes to mind goes back to my original reference of 9/11. I have an issue of Time Magazine from the week that followed 9/11 and it contains some of the most emotionally devastating photos of that day... photos of jumpers.

How does it feel to be a family member or loved-ones of someone that was in the towers and to see these photos?

How does it feel to see a photograph of something so difficult when the subjects IN the photos are people you know (whether it be 9/11 or another tragic event)?

And what burden is THAT to the photographer?

Terrence

DRabbit wrote:

I also feel like his suicide was the result of a lot more than that one photo... maybe it was more the result of seeing so many world atrocities over time that led him to such despair.

I meant to write that in my post. I think the poor fellow was seriously affected by the years of horrors he witnessed, then he wins a prize for it and perhaps the guilt or symbolism of winning an award for showing suffering was too much for him to bear. No matter how you slice it, the man did wonderful work, raised awareness on apartheid and suffering in Africa and it is a tradgedy to see a person's life cut short like this.

Photog

I can comment on spending a career on "that" side of the fence. At times I feel a bit of culture shock here--lots of pretty photos, but not many of the type pictures I had to take over the years along with the stress relating to the dynamics of access. The subject matter wasn't always sad, but it was almost always an immersion into someone's life at either the best or worst of times when there was only time to get one sequence of shots. No post, no going back. You either got it or you didn't.

When you're first on the scene and someone needs rescue, it's not uncommon to drop the camera and try to give aid. I've done that dozens of times over two decades of news shooting. If there are professionals there, I'd stay out of their way and document what's going on. There have been grey areas in-between...where help was there but more help was needed. I think that's where Halevi was, and it's complicated...and ultimately he has to live with the decision. I can't second-guess him, only hypothesize what I would've done.

I have covered the tragic deaths of my own colleagues (helicopter crash) and got to know intimately the pain of coverage and being covered--knowing my friends were in the crumpled cockpit, pulling their personal belongings out of the chopper, and so on. Always, when it gets to be too much, you sink into a place deep inside your mind where you are simply monitoring audio, watching focus and iris, and staying glued to your viewfinder.

I've watched all kinds of death and maiming; the worst to endure is not the victim but the reactions of the loved ones who mourn them, and always I think the best mantra is minimize harm in every way possible.

Thankfully I've never had to make a life-and-death decision to drop the camera and give aid or keep shooting. I have, however, felt tremendously helpless.

One thing to remember about pro news shooters is that they shoot many stories a day, most days. They may be sent from the scene of a child's murder to a governor's press conference, to a huge traffic accident to a feature about pets, a brutal biorhythm of ups and downs, and everyone has to figure out a way to deal with it without losing their humanity.

I suppose at some time there has to be an understanding of one's place in the world as a photojournalist.

As I said, I'm not second-guessing the photographer, but given that particular situation, my thoughts are that it takes a second to fire off a frame or two while moving into the surf to help. That's what I'd do--snag a shot if time permitted and move in to help. That person will live on...the photo carries far less weight than a life.

I, and others I know, have been called on the carpet by management for involving ourselves in a rescue instead of just shooting it.

I have a good friend who shot 9/11. He moved into the second tower with firefighters...and escaped alive. In those situations I think there's a different dynamic, and one's role as a shooter is crystal clear.

padu

Now, just to stir up things a bit more, what do you guys think about this:

http://www.ap.org/bilalhussein/

I think there are two aspects in this case: the political (should the US release or formally charge the man), and the ethical one (was he affiliated with terrorists?)

I have opinions on both aspects, but I believe a healthier discussion would be on the later aspect, since the political aspect will quickly go off topic.