There have been lots of great photographers of all the time,who have stunned us with their photographs.I personally love war photographs,it takes me to an other time,it excites me to watch the conditions and surroundings of wars and places in old times.Lately,I watched a documentary movie"War Photographer",featuring James Nachtwey,one of my favourite war photographer,I have been influenced by the photographs of Steve Mccurry,Josef Koudelka and many other great photographers.
I myself is a part of lots of photography groups on facebook ,I love looking at other people's photos and getting inspired.There have been quite a few cases ,like some people posts a photograph of a slaughter house,with hanging meat,pork,faces of dead animals and other parts which are a part of diet for some of us,these kind of photographs gives rise to discussions most of the time and I notice people saying,that is a photo featuring cruelty on animals,that is sad to see,that is inhuman,that is gruesome.So,what would you call a photo of that kind?It was just a photo featuring the truth,the true face,many people eats that,its their food,whats wrong?Isn't it be called being judgmental?Just because you think it is not okay to watch it?
Well sometimes,a question may arise,that the the photographer who was clicking a photo of that kind is heartless,For instance,think of a photographer shooting in war area,if he is shooting someone in blood,lying on floor,about to die,and he clicked a photo for publication to show the obscenity to the world,was he heartless?He should have tried to save him?Well its more like an ambiguidy for me,the situation and scene wasn't created by the photographer,he/she just wanted to capture it to show it to the world but sometimes there might be a situation where a photographer would have to choose between saving someone or shooting him/her that might decide if the photographer was single minded or cruel or heartless.
Photo courtesy -James Nachtwey
Well the answer of this ambiguous situation can differ with different people,like for some, beheading of goat could be hard to see and he/she might find it immoral,but the same could be normal to watch for some,so it might differ,it depends on opinions,Different people,different opinions but as per me,the photo or the photographer shouldn't be judged like this.
That's a good article :)
ReplyDeleteJust like doctors, soldiers etc.
We are doing our duty.
One has to be very strong to go against humanity and capture those moments.
It depends on person's point of view.
It takes a lot as a photographer , doing his work in such hard times , expressing his views/experience through a single photograph.
ReplyDeleteKudos for Article Devashish .....
gd one but one from slaughter is inhuman because it was subjected to those who can't talk , who can't express there emotion , they are untalkables . there were many cases in the history in which people tried to kill humans and to eat them (there were many movies too on this issue like vertigo) but they are considered as psychos why not this simply considered as there food because we have the higher brain.we have higher and evolved brain that's the reason we should take care about them . by eating animals we are also interrupting food chain . the basic food chain does not contain humans in it they are there forcefully .
ReplyDeleteon the other hand the war photographs contain intense patriotism and the chaos of men for their greed . i think this is cruel if you slaughter them for your greed.it is also cruel that animals are testing for improving the cosmetics . like shampoo eye liners are initially the chemicals which are tested on animals so that it can be improved to used by us so that's also cruel.(that's my own opinion).
think of a photographer shooting an animal who is being slaughtered,do you think a question may arise "Why di that photographer didnt try saving that animal?"he was just taking photos?
DeleteI agree with you (Shivam ) only for chemical testing (only) .....
DeleteRegarding the food chain , the animals are specifically bred (most of them) , in the wild you wouldn't find too much of those ....
And a photographer ( majority of them) dont enjoy slaughtering of animals ,... All they do is Sh00t !
Very intersting!
ReplyDeleteGlad you like it :)
Deleteu r rite devashish !!!!!!! as a viewer i love photographs of nature not like that u mentioned about
ReplyDeleteglad you like it :)
Deleteinteresting topic ... as for photographers it's interesting as well as for the people looking at pictures. I never thought about photographers as "war photographers" or " landscape photographers" or any other category ... never ... until I met some of them, and talked to them, and after having met some more (especially on Facebook) I thought ... hm, they really like to categorize pictures, things, people, situations ... but now, after thinking again, I still don't like categorizing photos or photographers, no matter what their object/subject might be.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's cruel, judgmental or whatever if someone likes to look at pictures showing something that's part of everyone's daily life ... there might be one or two exceptions ... photography as the art form to do documentary work is not among these exceptions. this world needs the work of people pointing their camera at things that look cruel or brutal, our daily lives are filled up with these pictures ... on the news, in the papers and on the internet. we can't escape ... and we shouldn't try to get away from this, as much as it hurts sometimes ... and it has to hurt if things that are shown should change, and what is better than changing people's way of thinking to change the world. photography is a strong weapon for changing and influencing people's mind ... but as I said before, there are one or two exceptions ... one of course is showing pictures of war, dead and/or injured or suffering people, children even animals ... for propaganda (including religions) and the other exception coming to my mind ... beside the "news" and the necessarily shown cruelty and brutality of people due to their circumstances for "fun" ... a sick way of having fun. the so called "social media" is a good place to see a lot of pictures, photographers shown for reasons that I don't like and that I myself try to avoid having them on my screen ... having worked with children and disabled people (mentally and socially) helped me a lot to draw a line keeping the things out of sight that I really don't want to look at, because of their doubtful intentions ... while pictures and statements are rushing faster and faster through our newsfeeds it's getting harder to be aware of the photographer and/or publisher try to offer or have in mind ... it's hard but it's worth the time and effort. having people in mind and trying to do things that others have done brilliantly, like the above named photographers ... is something we all do, in any case of interest ...
thanks for your deep review,
Delete