Tom Stoddart & iWitness

Stuart, This should be a really good exhibition to see. I wish this kind of thing made it to Asia more. Sigh.

Many of the images are really strong. The ones of the people running to cross 'Snipers Alley' in Sarajevo always strike me as really spooky. Man by comparison my days are easy.

The first shots on famine are miserable. I mean not as photographs but the situation - what a dire mess. It always strikes me as weird when you see shots like this in such a slick presentation like this website - with the trendy i-Witness logotype givin' it all that. I don't really know how I'd do it any different but it still bugs me for some reason. It reminds me of the debates brought about by one of Salgado's or Natcheways book that is a big coffee table volume. The images of hell taken and put into something so slick.

Anyhow - thank's for the info on this site. I wish that there were some captions with 'em as well.

Unfortunately, I live in Tucson AZ and can only see the netsite and its images. Tucson's art / photography culture is a bit inbred and rarely offers any exhibits of interest outside the Center for Creative Photography, which has completely lost its ability to advertise itself. My current hopes are resting with MOCA and its less restrictive attitudes on Art and Photography

I've just done a search on amazon and a book of the photos is to be published in September - search for iWitness. Hopefully some of the monies will go to the Disasters Emergency Commitee.

I was particuarly drawn to the images of Sarajevo. The idea of going about one's *normal* business whilst having to cope with snipers is very spooky. And this went on for a couple of years. From memory I think about 1500 children were killed by snipers.

These images brought me to tears. How shallow our preoccupation with pictures like this week's POW of the pretty girl at the expense of seeing these. THIS is the highest achievement in photography for me. They go right to the heart.

They are superb shots. Thanks for posting it, Stuart.

Went down to the exhibition this morning (monday) and there were two guys wiping down the exhibits (its an outdoor installation and we'd had some rain yesterday). I asked the first guy how long the exhibition would last and he said all summer. When I said I was bowled over by the photos the guy asked me if I knew who the other guy was. I didn't and it was in fact the photographer Tom Stoddart.

I nearly fainted. We had a little chat me asking stupid questions in giggly-girly fashion. Very modest chap.

Managed to pick up a book of the exhibition called iWitness - didn't ask for an autograph! If anyone is interested in the book, the ISBN is 1904563295 and is published by trolley ltd.

I am grateful you posted this addy. I am inspired and enriched by these images. I asked and management's policy is not to link to other sites from the homepage unless they are affiliates. Personally I would like to see photography such as this promoted here more actively. Thank you for your offering to this community. I want the book!

Thanks for the update. Man, lucky you. I could rant on about how good shows don't make it to Asia much - but anyhow...

Yeah most of the guys I personally know that shoot anything similar tend to be quite modest - or sometimes actually quite cagey. A friend of mine is putting together a book on East Timor at the moment and has shot in many dire places/conflicts in the past 10-15 years. He will always be the last person to even bring up photography when out for a beer.

Lucas,

When you friends book is published can you let us know.

Cheers,

stuart

Hmm, I guess I was the only one that found such a trendy treatment of such serious subjects a bit too trite. Some of the images are brilliant. But others have a very "hey, look at me, I'm an edgy photographer" sort of feel that is distracting to me at least. Perhaps this is what happens when you live in a town full of photojournalism students; you see so many edgy and contrived shots of the mayor at the pancake breakfast that you begin to associate the style with a bit too much striving on the photographer's part.

Just my 2 cents.

I may not be sophisticated enough to recognize the trend. Many of the subjects go right to my heart. In Famine there is one of a starving boy on his hands and knees. Compared to you I must be sentimental because it made me cry. Several others had this same effect on me. Maybe if you could describe the trendiness that you find so obnoxious. It?s one thing to accuse a photo of being trendy. That?s just putting a label on it. It?s another to describe the trendiness and what it all means. You admit some of the images are brilliant. But you end with a condemnation of pretentiousness by the photog.

Consider that the "hey, look at me, I'm an edgy photographer" label you assign is in your head and not necessarily in the photos. I think you can say they?re edgy. The locations and the subject matter are on the edge of survival. How can the treatment be anything but edgy? But to accuse the artist of shooting this way for the narcissistic motivation of getting attention seems a projection by you onto the photos. Then having concluded your own projection is true, you condemn the photog and the work. So whatever you originally found brilliant is lost to you and your reader.

Alright Kent, I'll bite on this one. Perhaps I am more jaded than you, but I'm still entitled to my opinion. I'm willing to describe what I see as trendy in these shots, but let me ask you what you think makes these so much worthier of our attention than the current POW? I rather like the current POW, and I don't see why I should be shamed into thinking that pics of human suffering are somehow more important than pics of human beauty.

What makes them trendy? Let's look at famine, since you brought it up. I noticed two pictures of boys on their knees. One's a child in a field framed into the bottom right. The other is a child seemingly reaching out to a much better nourished looking figure walking by. The first one I would consider one of the better ones of the series. Nice tones. Composition that draws you to central figure. And that haunted look in the kid's eyes. Now thats a brilliant shot. The second one, however, seems a bit hamfisted. There's no sublety in this image. We are being told to be ashamed of ourselves. Here's how. First the photographer's perspective above the subject emphasizes both the moral highground he is taking by calling on us to act while at the same time subjugating the main subject to the roll of victim being ground under foot. The figure moving out of frame is us; we are leaving this poor victim in the dust by our actions. The contrast between the wealth of the walking figure (he/she holds a bag of food, doesn't appear to be malnourished and is actually clothed) and the wretchedness of the child (obviously horribly malnourished and practically unclothed) mirrors the contrast between the rich post-industrial nations and the rest of the world. The pleading look in the kid's eyes are at this point icing on the cake.

This is trendy Kent, and the trend is none too subtle; a lot of folks involved in the media these days are all about manipulating our shame and fear often for their own profit. The serial manipulation of the particular site in question is disturbingly like the evening news; 3 minutes on 6 different kinds of human suffering, instead of enough depth to actually make a lasting impact.

Lastly, photography in edgy places of edgy subjects is very often narcistic in some way. There is an immense self-righteousness that most folks feel when doing this kind of work. In many of these photo's, the self righteousness is just a little too evident for my taste.

Whatever else, I think we agree the kid kneeling in the field of long grass in the Sudan is a brilliant photograph. It?s the one that initially brought me to tears. After that I admit I was an easy mark. That shot brings me to MY knees. To be a photographer and accomplish this is, to me, the highest achievement. And for that I have a huge respect for this photograph. I wonder about your assertion that Stoddart is in it for himself. If he was, why choose a subject matter so compelling that you forget the photog completely and respond directly to the subject? That doesn?t seem narcissistic. For me the import of this subject matter so outweighs any other subject matter I can imagine that I take it more seriously. ?No man is an island...?

The 2nd shot you mention is perhaps melodramatic and without subtlety, I?ll give you that. But when you consider the action and circumstance of that photo what subtlety would you think appropriate. How would you tell this story of life itself being stolen from one too weak to keep the very thing he needs to survive and what rightfully belongs to him? And how would you tell the other story of the one who takes it from him without notice or pity? In that photo is a plea for mercy which I can?t ignore. I can?t look at it and not feel the pity. For them both. For us all. This is how the world works now in the Sudan but it?s not new. We are both victim and victimizer. How can we do this to ourselves? Isn?t this disease? We somehow have failed during the advance of civilization to fix this particular problem. I feel complicit. You call it shame but I call it complicity. I live in comparative luxury and comfort. I cannot escape it. And that kid on the floor or the kid in the field in Sudan cannot escape their circumstances either. How long do we have to go on like this? All the while as we have this philosophical discussion on our Dell computers with high speed internet those 2 kids are starving to death or already have. And in the immediate future there will be 100,000 more just like them. And 10 years from now it will happen all over again. After considering these things, the current POW seems trivial. This entire conversation seems trivial. I say this in no disrespect to you.

While I respect Matt's point of view, I find his arguments against the pics to be quite weak and slightly derogratory to the photographer.

We can't just assume he is narcissistic or in it purely for his own benefit. I also think you are wrong to describe them as trendy. Certainly not as trendy as the zillions of candid shots of gormless americans starting into space.

I personally think one could pick just about any one of the photos in the exhibition and it would have more power and purpose than all the photos on PN put together. Of course there are other reasons for taking and appreciating pictures.

Well, I suppose this proves Stoddart has "made it" and been elevated to that rare lofty height in his profession where a photographer's motives are questioned.

Now all he has to do is commit suicide like Diane Arbus, endure a scathing commentary by Susan Sontag and his place in the Valhalla of photographers will be secured.

Lex, I'm just cynical enough to question the motives of any photographer regardless of whether they have made it or not. I question my own motives all the time; I think it's a largely underated exercise.

Kent, I appreciate that these photographs are moving to you. I'm not so cynical that I can't recognize that, but unless the photographs move you to do something to change the situation they are ineffective and in that regard are less important than a picture of a pretty girl which at least makes me feel good. I don't know about you, but I'm generally a much kinder person when I'm happy. If the photographs have moved you to sell your Dell and send the money to Africa, then good. I'm glad if it has done that, but that isn't the effect they had on me.

Lex: "........I suppose this proves Stoddart has "made it" and been elevated to that rare lofty height in his profession where a photographer's motives are questioned."

I believe that it's utterly healthy to question the motivations of photographers regardless of the "worthiness" or otherwise of their subject matter. The primary motivation of most photographers is vanity rather than "concern" for the plight of others - the concern often coexists, but seldom overrides the vanity. Without the vanity, if you really cared, you'd be more likely to be involved as an aid worker.

Matt: ".......unless the photographs move you to do something to change the situation they are ineffective......."

In the past Tom Stoddart's pictures have been used to great effect to raise funds for those he photographs. The simplicity of his pictures actually adds to their strength in the world of fundraising. A more sophisticated photographer, for example Gilles Peress, might impress his peers more, but when it comes to getting a response from the public at large someone like Stoddart is way more successful.

"... but unless the photographs move you to do something to change the situation they are ineffective and in that regard are less important than a picture of a pretty girl which at least makes me feel good."

It is not always possible to directly change a situation in the short term. But awareness of a situation is one step towards changing a situation in the long run. To draw some value judgement on an image or a series of images by coming up with some self centered cause and effect relationship is silly. Because an image makes you feel 'good' doesn't necessarily make it a more 'important' image than one that makes you feel bad or concerned. I suspect if you follow your logic about pictures of pretty girls you'd end up with porn shots high on your list of most important images. lol.

"I don't know about you, but I'm generally a much kinder person when I'm happy.

That's all fine and well if you live so situationally and are able to draw the lines on how much compassion and regard you have for the suffering of others based on your level of comfort at a given moment. People kept as POW's don't generally follow that line - in fact if you read a bit you'll find that many acts of great compassion happen between individuals in the most dire of circumstances. The ability to empathize is one of the elements that seperates humans from the rest of the animal world. I've been many many places in the third world where people who have much much harder lives than myself and have gone out of there way to help me out - all at no benefit to themsleves. I think what your really getting at here is an attempt to explain your own selfishness.

"If the photographs have moved you to sell your Dell and send the money to Africa, then good. I'm glad if it has done that, but that isn't the effect they had on me."

Again a rather sophmoric attempt to sum up some kind of philosiphy of the validity of an image by using a cause and effect relationship based on your own comfort level. This reminds me of the kid who is told by their parents to eat all their vegetables at the dinner table because kids in Africa are starving. The kids reply is "so send my vegetables to Africa" - obviously one doesn't have to look to hard to see why this is childish, ridiculous and missing the point.

You know I woke up this morning and said to myself "Yeah, go ahead and dig that hole a little deaper". But as long as I'm being insulted for having opinions that I have tried to articulate without giving peronal offence to anyone, sure why not.

"I suspect if you follow your logic about pictures of pretty girls you'd end up with porn shots high on your list of most important images. lol."

Lucas, actually by following my logic, if a porn shot made you go out and do something to solve a problem, it would be more important. There is absolutely no relationship between awareness of a situation and the will to do something to change it. You can have the former without the latter. The one is a necessary condition for the other, but it isn't a sufficient one.

"I think what your really getting at here is an attempt to explain your own selfishness. "

What I'm getting at is that I'm at least aware of my selfishness. I'm acknowledging that, yes, my empathy for other human beings is at least partially dependent on my own state of mind. I'm acknowleging that as fine as these photographs are, they aren't going to make me go do anything to change the situation. I have yet to hear anybody chime in on this thread saying that they are going to actually do something good on the basis of these photographs. POW and third world examples of good behavior in wretched conditions are not germane to the subject of good behavior in the blessed conditions most of us live in. If you read a little, you will find that anyone that has studied human interaction in such conditions has found how abberant it is in comparison to human interaction in lower stress situation. And slightly OT, the notion that kindness is somehow more prevalent in the third world than in the rest is a nasty sort of noble savage racism that prevents people in the rich world from relating to folks in the rest of the world as equal human beings. I've worked in refugee camps and slums in South America; kindness may be abudant in such places, but so is violence and death.

"The kids reply is "so send my vegetables to Africa" - obviously one doesn't have to look to hard to see why this is childish, ridiculous and missing the point."

Enlighten me then. What is the point of these photographs if not to make you change something. If, as Boris, said these photographs have been used in the past to raise money, then good. But based on your comment, to raise money based on them is childish. BTW if you'd like to send your computer to Africa, here's a place that will facilitate that: http://www.computer-aid.org/links.htm

This dialog illustrates, to me, two very human qualities which coexist in each of us. One is the empathy we feel when we see a fellow human being suffer. It is the impulse that perhaps compelled the bystander on the walk to Golgotha to pick up Christ's cross and carry it at least for a while. The other is the callousness with which we can view such a scene and, believing it has nothing to do with us, turn away without a second thought. It is the impulse to judge and abandon another and feel no personal loss.

I thank Matt for speaking for the other side. Without him there would have been no dialog. At some level our journey here and the advance of civilization itself is nothing more than the continuing argument between these two contradictory human impulses. Central to this argument is how you define "self." Does it stop at your skin? Does it include your family? Your neighbor? What about a child in the Sudan?

In a prior post I alluded to a poem by John Donne but you may not know the whole poem so I give it to you now. In the 400 years since it's creation I don't think it has been ever worded so truthfully or so eloquently.

"No man is an Island, intire of it selfe;
every man is a peece of the Continent,
a part of the maine;
if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse,
as well as if a Promontorie were,
as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were;
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee."

--John Donne

"I thank Matt for speaking for the other side"

I'm not sure how you got from my comments about these photos being trendy and inneffectual to me advocating not doing anything to help a person in obvious need. In fact, I questioned the photos exactly because they didn't seem to accomplish anything other than elliciting a lot of gushing praise. It's one thing to think a photo of a starving child is powerful, but it's quite another thing to actually be inspired to do something on the basis of that photo. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this kind of photography, but it isn't inherently more important than any other kind of photography.

As for using your name in the subject line of my post this is done for clarity. If you feel singled out by this - well that's the point - so that others following the thread know that my comments are a response to yours - e.g. via your name in the subject post.

In regards to the image of the girl/how you feel deal - you got it a bit twisted from your original post - where you drew a relationship between the value/importance on whether or not it made you feel good - or in your case a picture of a pretty girl making you feel good so therefore more 'important' by your standards than shots that might create an awareness of a dire situation (and perhaps the seeds for the will to change that) for human beings somewhere else in the world.

"There is absolutely no relationship between awareness of a situation and the will to do something to change it. You can have the former without the latter. The one is a necessary condition for the other, but it isn't a sufficient one."

There is most definitely a relationship between being aware of something (via pictures as is the case here) and the will to change it. If you never knew about the situation how could have the will to change it? And awareness is a key ingrediant in attempting to prevent bad situations from happening a second time around. I say if there was ever a possibility of having a will to change something then you'd have to be aware of what the situation was in the first place. I think images during the Vietnam era did something similar. Prior to lots of in your face - or edgey as you call it shots coming back of young GI's being zipped up into body bags the American public didn't have much interest in getting out of Vietnam. Once the images (e.g. awareness) of what a spectacular quagmire it'd become the tide of public opinion definitely turned. Johnson got his goose cooked and decades later jerk offs like McNamara are still writing day late/dollar short apologies for the mess. And here we are back again in a very similar quagmire and there is a new jerk off in the Whitehouse. But I digress.

"... What I'm getting at is that I'm at least aware of my selfishness. I'm acknowledging that, yes, my empathy for other human beings is at least partially dependent on my own state of mind. I'm acknowleging that as fine as these photographs are, they aren't going to make me go do anything to change the situation.

That you can't be asked to do something about the issues shown in the photographs is your deal. That's your perogative - no can force you. But I find it weak to come in essentially saying that these images are worthless because they haven't motivated you to actually do something. And then to try to shore that logic up with a skewed analogy about a picture of a pretty girl. It's silly.

Something at some point moved you to work in S.America (according to your ref.) - in order to do that you had to have awareness of the situation first. There is an intrinsic value in these images - where by your own admission you have not been moved to do anything about the situation others may be - however slim the chance I think it's one that is important.

Enlighten me then. What is the point of these photographs if not to make you change something.

I don't think an images validity is based on whether the viewer actually goes out and changes something - while that is a positive result of seeing the images - I don't think it's the only criteria for judging whether an image is important or valid. Images can be valid on many different levels. Not the least of which is moving people to change. BTW the Tom Stoddart images were originally run as news and features.

For those interested to know a bit about the thought process behind the images here is an interview with Tom Stoddart

CLICK HERE FOR INTERVIEW

Matt and Lucas, despite roughing each other up you're both making interesting and valid points. Regarding the link to the Tom Stoddart interview, something to consider is that some photographers can be brutally straightforward when questioned about their motives and methods while others have a policy of giving "good" interview, and tend towards a sanitised and self-aggrandising account of what drives them on. Luc Delahaye got a certain amount of flack for honestly stating, following the publication of Wintereisse (if you're not familiar with this you can see the pictures on the Magnum site), that he made no personal connection with the people he photographed while moving through their lives. Whatever his motivations it's one of the few truly great pieces of reportage, the lack of sentimentality adding to it's power. I'm making no accusations regarding the motivations of Stoddart (and as I've already stated, he's one of the few photographers to raise serious funds for those he's photographed), but I'd take some of his comments with a pinch of salt.

Here are the collected condemnations from your various posts. 1. Photos are trendy 2. treatment of these life-and-death subjects trite 3. photographer?s statement is not look at this subject but, in your estimation: "Hey look at me, I?m an edgy photog" 5 photog is not only narcissistic but also self-righteous 6 photos are ineffectual because I haven?t yet sold my computer.

You have not supported any of these assertions with evidence or a logical argument.

I never said you didn?t advocate helping the needy. I said you represent to me the "callousness which one can look at such a scene and, believing it has noting to do with him, turn away without a second thought." That IS what you appear to be doing. You condemn the photos from your superior, all-knowing position. You haven't sucessfully defended any of your accusations as if your assertion was enough. What I witnessed was you labeled the photos using your own projections and then responded to those projections as if they were reality. You never allowed yourself to see the photos themselves because your own projections got in the way and you never saw past them. Have you yourself considered the narcissism in such an act?

BTW I recognize that both the impulses I am talking about exist in us all. I have looked at such a scene and turned away and I'm sure you have felt empathy before. This polarization that an argument drives the parties into is not representative of reality. What interests me is the internal dialog in each of us between these two impulses.

My evidence that yours are projections is that you see things which are not in the photographs. You see them as trendy, trite, narcissitic, self-righteous, and ineffectual. None of these judgements is supported by anything in the photos themselves. The only other source for these judgements is from within you. That's projection. BTW I am not immune to projection either. We all do it. Still to do it unconsciously will insulate one from reality.

Lucas, please look up the definitions for necessary and sufficient conditions; awareness of problem is not a causal link. Additionally, if you aren't aware that singling me out by using my name was an emotional response on your part and attempt to bait me, I would suggest that you take a course in either rhetoric or forensics. Finally, please don't think that I am by extension questioning the motives of any photographers that you personally know. If your friends are "quite modest - or sometimes actually quite cagey" then I'm sure that I would have no problem with their motives.

Let me run through my argument once again just so it's clear. Granted, this kind of discussion would be much easier to carry out over a couple of beers than online over the space of a couple of days.

I contend that many of the pictures on the iwitness site are not deserving of the glowing praise that has been heaped on them in this forum and that it is possible that the photographer in question is not entirely motivated by doing good for his subjects. I used the words trite, trendy and edgy in an attempt to describe what are obviously not quantitative elements. Furthermore, I asserted that these photographs are not essentially more important than the POW. In support of these assertions I offered:

1. an analysis of one photograph that I felt revealed a self-righteous agenda on the part of the photographer. This is offered in support of the use of the words "trendy, trite and edgy".

2 a theory of validity by which at least one measure of a photographs worth is it's ability to inspire people to do good.

3. a theory of human psychology which ran along the lines of "you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar" or, if you like, "people are more likely, all other things being equal, to do good things when they are happy."

4. an alternative theory of photographic validity that stated a photograph that fulfills 3. could be equally important as one that fulfills 2.

I was originally responding mostly to Kent's assertion that these photographs were more important than the current Pic of the Week. I feel that the argument above is a logically coherent one. If you feel it is not, please, offer counter arguments. So far most respondents have felt all that was necessary to refute these arguments was to question my character. Still, I appreciate everyone's continued participation in what has been so far an interesting dialog.

It's always amazing how photogenic human suffering is. And the worse the suffering depicted, the more the audience appreciates the photo. Just an observation, but one that I find disturbing.

"It is possible that the photog in question is not entirely motivated by doing good for his subjects."
Hey, no argument from me. And many things are possible. This, though, is not what you said originally. You stated it emphatically and there was no "possibly" involved. By overstating your case you actually weaken it.

You used the words trite, trendy, and edgy (for some self-serving motive) and these are extremely negative judgements of the photos. I am not asking you to quantify the trendiness or the triteness or the self-serving behavior of the photog. Just support your argument so these labels are not just bare assertions. These labels are qualities which can be supported by evidence or logic. I don?t see anything trendy or trite about it and this is after 2 pages of argument. And I certainly don?t see any self-serving behavior on the part of Stoddart.

I agree that A measure of worth of a photo can be it's ability to inspire people to do good although I do not think this is a usual measure of a photograph?s value. But by your own admission, this is only ONE measure of worth. It's not the only measure. So the fact that these photos do not compel me to sell my computer is NOT evidence, by your own argument, that they have no value.

I have read a lot of psych and many of my friends are therapists but I have never heard your theory that "good things are done mostly by happy people." What is your source on this? I am willing to consider it but you haven?t given me anything beyond your mere assertion.

Let?s talk about the photo on which you base your negative judgement of Stoddart. You say: "There's no sublety in this image" There is no subtlety in the situation. Why should the photo of it be subtle?

You say: "We are being told to be ashamed of ourselves" and you offer as evidence that the photog is standing while one of the subjects is on the floor. Weak evidence in my estimation. You say the photog has taken a moral high ground because he is pointing his lens down. Bull sh*t. In my view, the photog has not subjugated this victim as you maintain. This IS a victim and this IS a victimizer. Both of them are in a sense subjugated by their circumstances. And this action is really happening in Sudan. You need to know that to be an informed citizen. And before you can do any good, which seems of paramount importance to you, you need to be informed. I asked you how you would portray this scene and you were silent. In fact you have been silent on all matters of how you would prefer to see these things portrayed. Or would you prefer to see only the pictures of the pretty girl at a grave site with no apparent emotion and a pretentious title "Memories"?

You say: The contrast between the wealth of the walking figure and the wretchedness of the child mirrors the contrast between the rich post-industrial nations and the rest of the world. I didn't think it necessary to take it that far. That opens up another can of worms entirely. This is just one too weak to keep the food he needs to live and one willing to take it without pity. It?s a simple story that does not require any extrapolation to be understood. In fact I suspect your extrapolation and your position on that extrapolation may in fact cloud your vision of this simple story and the photog trying to portray it.

And you say lastly, photography in edgy places of edgy subjects is very often narcissistic in some way> which is no evidence to me that THIS specific instance and THIS photog is narcissistic. You say the self-righteousness is just a little too evident for my taste Again this is an assertion with no substantiation. SHOW, don't TELL me, the self-righteousness to which you object.

It's ironic you think people are questioning your character. Not me. I volunteered that I am as likely to turn from another?s pain and as likely to project as you. So if your character is in question, so is mine. It's ironic to me that it is YOUR very questioning of the character of Stoddart and your final judgement that he is less than noble based upon nothing in the photographs that got my response in the first place.

I don?t think we are reaching any common ground and I wonder at the value of continuing this.

Oops. There was that emotional response again. LOL. Save the dimestore pyschoanalysis for someone who be bothered to decipher all the big words.

By using simple words (this works with images well - see Tom Stodardd's work) you can cut to the quick - If you want to be informed about a situation so that you may be put in the running for actually changing it(not that you would but that's a whole different issue) you need to have knowledge of it. And what better way to do that than a photo? Quite simple really. A picture is worth a thousand words as they say.

If you dig pictures of pretty girls or the POW image and they hold as much 'importance' for you as do the images of Tom Stoddard - then it says more about you than about the images.

Again if you have to be feel happy yourself in order to empathize with other humans beings - I guess it's a realization for me that I can empathize about very basic human issues (starvation, fear, war) without having prime myself with happy pictures first.

sell your cameras, give the money to those who need it

Kent

"You stated it emphatically and there was no "possibly" involved". Quote the statement back to me in which I stated this emphatically.

"But by your own admission, this is only ONE measure of worth. It's not the only measure. So the fact that these photos do not compel me to sell my computer is NOT evidence, by your own argument, that they have no value."

I never stated that these pictures have no value. I merely contended that their value was not intrinsically higher than the current POW.

"I have read a lot of psych and many of my friends are therapists but I have never heard your theory that "good things are done mostly by happy people." What is your source on this?"

What's your evidence to the contrary?

"There is no subtlety in the situation. Why should the photo of it be subtle?"

Surely there is subtlety in the situation. All the social, economic and environmental factors that come into play to create a famine situation are very subtle. Show me pictures of them. If I know the root causes, I'm more likely to be able to participate in solutions.

"Bull sh*t. In my view, the photog has not subjugated this victim as you maintain. "

This even by your own standards is not an argument. It's an assertion. At least I've formed my assertions into a coherent structure callled an argument.

"SHOW, don't TELL me, the self-righteousness to which you object."

Self-rightenousness is evident in the camera's elevated angle and the framing of the scene such that the victimizer is anoymous. This isn't an equal treatment of both parties involved. The photographer is editorializing. Doing so in the context of a journalist is self-righteous particularly for one who's stated goal is "recording the world as it is". This is from the interview link provided above.

And yes Kent, you have questioned my character on a number of occasions. At least once you have called me narcistic. Others have called me childish. I will be the first to admit un-civil behavior, but you opened the can of worms.

Lucas, what's your beef here? You questioned the appropriateness of the trendy site design in your first post. If you find the site trendy, why can't I find the pictures contained therein trendy.

I find the layout/design of the site 'trendy' and I use that word with a negative connotation in mind. I find that the design of the site somehow detracts from the presentation and adds a 'gloss' to the images that I think doesn't really work.

I am not sure how I would want them presented. Simple and clean I guess. But it's different than that and I can't quite put my finger on it. I dunno. Manilla folder with the info on typewritten sheets? I dunno - I doubt this has much if anything to do with the photographer though. I guess I'd change layout guys or art directors.

I also think that taking to task the website design is a very different issue than is taking to task the images/photographer and his motives.

I think photographically (composition/exposure etc.)the images are good ones. I think in the sense that they convey the suffering and the misery of those places/circumstances they are good ones. I think in that the chance they may spur someone to do something positive about/towards the situation they are good ones. Even if all they accomplish is an awareness of that situation they have not failed. Obviously everyone is not going to run out and sell their computer to remedy the situation (as if that'd work). But people are more likely to be moved towards some form of understanding or action by images such as these than the alternative - which would be literally thousands of words to describe the same situation in the same depth that these images do.

Your statements speak for themselves. Despite all the pyschoanalytic hub-bub and the rhetoric 101 speak - that you find these images of equal value/importance as a picture of a pretty girl or the current POW (a heavily Photoshopped motocross shot of all things), or that in order for you to empathize with other humans in such a precarious situation as the subjects in the shots you have to be in a happy mood -

I dunno -

I guess it just comes off as absurd. That's not personal per se - I'd think that of anyone who jumped in line with such nonsense.

Boris you bring up a good point in regards to the '...having more things in common than is apparent here.."

The internet forum is an imperfect medium. There is no body language or facial gestures to go with comments. So words that can in one persons mind at the time of typing sound just fine - can come off completely out of line by the time the next person checks the thread.

I've seen so many things get blown way out of porportion (Photo.net is no exception) - where as if it was in person over a cup of Starbucks, a couple of beers or a shared needle it wouldn't be a big deal.