POLL - Photography and world events

[Damien_Demolder]

I wonder whether you believe that photography can change the world. I am told that the pictures sent home during the Vietnam War helped to bring the conflict to an early close, and I’m certain the images of starvation that dominated our screens and newspapers in the summer of 1985 helped to contribute to the massive amount of money raised by Live Aid.

There is a difference, though, between photography altering the course of world events and photography changing the world. There is no doubt that world events did change as a result of the population being exposed to a measure of the realities these situations conjured up, but for a world to change attitudes have to be altered for good. I’m not convinced we have learnt to avoid the horrors of war or of famine, as both have played a significant role in the planet’s recent and current history. But maybe the world came to know more about what those words mean.

The world has a memory as short as its attention span, but that only means we should employ photography more often to remind it. Photography can bring us jolly things, too, but as Benjamin Rusnak shows us all this week, its weightiest role is to show us what we can do to change the world for others.

Take part in our poll, Can photography change world affairs?, by visiting the home page.

Thanks

damien.

[Fen]

No, but it can record them.

Of course, that may make no difference in the long run as the victor creates the version of history it wants to record.

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you include all forms of photography including TV I suspect it can influence world events.
It can certainly effect behaviour.

Photography during wars has been a special case, especially the Vietnam war. This was extensively covered in an almost uncensored and graphic way.

The wars going on today are covered in a very restrained way, mostly by military photographers, The governments have learnt that if they want to keep their options open they need to control the access of the media, and that includes photography. all we see now is a very sanitised view of war with very little blood and guts.

[Clive]

I'm a 'yes man'. Certainly images from Vietnam shaped public opinion and I remember them well, as I do the Biafran war in the 60s, and more latterly images from the former Yugoslavia. However I'm not sure how much photography has influenced the more recent wars.

Oh, and Sharpeville in 1960.

[Atavar]

I'm of the opinion that, like poetry, photography as a simple pure format is not strong enough to meet the demands of today's audience.
You cannot deny that even in competition imagery has been 'assisted' be it in blatant set up or digital adaption but that is just the point. Its imagery, not photography. Photography may be the foundation of that imagery but it is not the end product as such any more... Just as a poem may be included in a TV program it could never carry a high price by itself any more. Lord Byron bought a mansion off the back of just one of his pieces. I don't think photography has the power to impact the world anymore without some form of digital media to sustain its bare bones.

[gollum]

I think one of the main reasons Magnum survived as long as it has, is because a lot of the early members felt that was the case. One of the major problems with photography being used in this way is that it's always open to the individual interpretation of the photographer or his brief, not always the truth! It can make a difference, only people can make change!

[ermintrude]

Of course it can, its a tool, its psychology, used by the media and politics every day. How do you think pictures of third world victims raise cash? How do you think advertising inflates capitalism? The way the world is presented to us always sways our opinion.

[Fire_Monkey]

I don't think photography can, as a stand alone subject, change world affairs! It can influence them, help hi-light a point and help give an emotional impact to a subject! It is a powerful aid to those wishing to shape world affairs, but they need to have more than photographs to do this!

[boldoneye]

I think it can change world events,those pictures from Vietnam did'nt just bring about an earlier end to the war,it made people question why the war was being fought in the first place and to confront the Establishment in what was being done in their name.This thought process we can see today in the Iraq enquiries which IMO would'nt have been conducted pre 60's.Pictures of Holocaust victims changed the attitudes towards Jews around the world and in some small way maybe helped create the State of Israel. Pictures from Ethiopia(and the like) changed the attitudes of the Public in that they are much more willing to give aid en masse to foreign disasters since then.I'm sure there are many other examples.

[RonM]

Like Clive I'm a 'yes' many images have shaped and influenced the public and therefore governments (including politicians) because images have given us, the public knowledge, thereby informing and clarifying our thoughts on what is happening in this world we inhabit.
As I said a few years ago on here, after attending a Sabastio Salgado exhibition, which had a number of disturbing images. That images like those I saw provide us who are mostly well off and safe, a required dose of humility.

[FujiSigmaNolta]

An absolute "yes" from me. Photos have been behind a good few major historic events that have shaped public opinion and therefore kickstarted change. Of course images can be manipulated but either way you will have them, they will generate opinions and sway people's perceptions one way or another.

[TimF]

Pictures of Holocaust victims changed the attitudes towards Jews around the world and in some small way maybe helped create the State of Israel.

You might wish - click.

[Still_Togging_Along]

With the Vietnam and Cambodian wars, I suspect the delay in which you don't get with digital, meant that images didn't deliver the impact they could have done, I think because incidents reported in the press, were out of sync by 1-2 or more days. Having said that, those published, strike me as being a lot more 'In your face and personal' than the more 'Propaganda sanitised' images we see from the Iraq and Afgan conflicts. Maybe the photographers in those earlier conficts, realised that the time-lag would impact on the shots they took and sought to record more 'Gritty' images? ... On the other hand, it's far more than likely that the 'Sanitation' of imagary, has prevented these getting published.

The images coming from Haiti, confirm that photographers are just as determined to 'Show it as it is' as those in Vietnam were. Maybe being subjected to large amount of video output broadcast has 'dulled' the public's emotions? Admittedly the present two conflicts are more 'mechanised' so one does not get the hand-to-hand type fighting that occurred during the war in Vietnam. One only has to look at film footage of the battles that took on places like Iwo Jima during WW2, (Troops using flame-throwers etc) to see how changes in warfare tactics makes recording 'In your face and personal' events a bigger challenge to those recording modern warfare.

It's likely that until a year or so has passed after the dust has settled in Iraq and Afganistan, that the unsanitised images begin to surface, and it will only be at that point the public will really get a hell of a lot more emotionally involved in these two conflicts.

[beejaybee]

On the other hand, it's far more than likely that the 'Sanitation' of imagary, has prevented these getting published.

Yeah, the Americans learned from Vietnam ... not to allow photographers to freelance in the war zone. "Embedding" them allows the output to be tailored to whatever propoganda message The Powers That Be want to project. They may claim it's for the togs' "safety" (and there certainly have been casualties amongst the "unarmed combatants" of the press corps) but being "on message" is much more important to those who control access to "our side" of the "battle lines".

[Still_Togging_Along]

Regarding Anti-Semetism, I think the Israel and their hard-liners and the Fundamentalists amongst them, could well be 'damaging' the Holocaust images, by 'wheeling them out' what seems like every time their actions against the Palastinians, hits the news. Before this comment upsets some people, I want to emphatically point out that many of the Jewish faith, are utterly disgusted and ashamed by what is happening out there.

[gollum]

Quote: "Photography cannot do much. It provides some level of information, yet it has no pretensions about changing the world."

John Vink
Magnum

[Done_rundleCams]

regarding "photography changing the world events" ... I think John Vinks quote via Gollum pretty much sums up my response.

Cheers and, BTW, congrats to the Monthy Poll winners

Jack

[Fen]

If you'd of posted on the 9th Feb you would of had the correct 'weekly' poll.

You're 19 days late Jack