Exercise 3.4: Post-photojournalism

For this exercise, look at the work of one of the practitioners discussed in Project Four. Write a short analysis of one of their projects or the practitioner’s overall approach. Comment on how appropriate you think their creative responses are. What is your impression of the evolving nature of photojournalism?

Benjamin Lowy is an award winning photographer and photojournalist based in New York City. He began his photography career by covering the war in Iraq in 2003. Since then, he has won countless awards for his work and has documented events in Afghanistan, Libya, Haiti, Yemen and Darfur.

Lowy is one of the first photographers to use his iPhone as his first choice of ‘camera’ when shooting in a war zone, instead of the usual large, bulky, obtrusive, DSLR camera. The reason behind him choosing to shoot with his iPhone, rather than the usual DSLR,  was due to a client that asked him to shoot in chrome film on a panoramic camera for an assignment. After almost a decade since he last shot film, Lowy decided to use his iPhone and an app called Hipstamatic. Lowy shot his assignment on the desired film for his client, and on his iPhone using the app. He produced the iPhone photographs first to his client which he then printed out on 8×8, whilst the film was still being processed. His client ‘loved’ what he produced, using the 8×8 Hipstamatic photographs, and from then on, Lowy used this app and his iPhone to document war zones.

Hipstamatic was a relatively new app, which produced photographs that needed no alterations as the app would do them for you. Essentially this app would enable your iPhone to transform itself into the vintage point and shoot cameras. I have researched the app Hipstamatic, and their website quotes: “The Original Point & Shoot Analog Camera Has Returned. Experience the retro camera that changed iPhone photography forever … Hipstamatic brings all the joy, quirk, and randomness of film photography to your pocket.” [1] You are given the choice of retro, vintage lenses to choose from such as Tintype, Pinhole, Fisheye and many more.

Lowy found that using his iPhone when shooting in a war zone, he became more comfortable. “As I grew more and more comfortable using the phone, I realized it had certain advantages – it was anonymous, it wasn’t particularly heavy, it didn’t get in the way of being intimate with a potential subject. And it was fast, I could just pull the phone out of my pocket and take a picture as things were happening in front of me.” [2]

Looking at Lowy’s set of photographs from his series’ iAfghanistan Part 1-3, you can see that he has produced truthful, honest, real, up close and intimate photographs of an actual war zone. The people he photographs seem relaxed around him, most likely because he wasn’t using a large DSLR camera, which would normally be pointed in their faces or in their general direction. His photographs are dissimilar to the usual bold, bright, clear and in focus war photographs we are used to seeing on the news, on social media, online and in the newspapers. The ones that are used to shock us instantly.

The 8×8 photographs have been taken with the pre-loaded app retro filters, which have given the photographs washed out, dull and cold tones, making the locations and places photographed appear bleak and cold. There are over saturated colours in certain photographs and some with muted colours, and he uses vignette to frame his subjects. Lowy has chosen to shoot several photographs that are blurred and out of focus. His iPhone camera has dust on the lens which appear in several of the photographs. There are reflections in the windows and glass and he uses the sun light to produce polygon flares and sun flares.  His choice of strange compositions and exposures, give the photographs a snapshot feeling, like they may have been taken by an amateur. They are similar to the old 35mm film photographs that I remember during my childhood, where my family members would take photographs of random places on holidays, of shops and stalls, flowers, people, cars and objects, with over exposed or under exposed shots, because they were learning how to use the ‘new’ 35mm film cameras when at home or on holiday.

Producing a series of war zone photographs with these qualities, in my opinion, enables them to be more realistic and down to earth. Lowy was able to get close to his subject matter and the people living in the area. He was able to get up close and intimate with people, producing striking portraits, despite not being ‘professionally’ in focus or with the correct exposure. He was able to achieve this simply because he didn’t use his large DSLR camera pointing it at people, which can usually make people feel really uncomfortable. Lowy quotes ” … More than that, it produced images in a visual style that people weren’t used to seeing. That is important to me. There is so much information out there these days, and its very hard to capture the attention of a – for the most part – apathetic public. By showing important images of a war or social issue to people using a unique aesthetic, I believe I can capture their attention and shine a light on some of these stories.” [3] Even though we as viewers can’t relate to the war zone being photographed, we can relate to the way in which these photographs were taken, and the style they have been produced because anyone of us could have taken them ourselves. As mentioned previously in Project 4, perhaps we are beginning to see the professional photographer imitating the amateur in order to achieve authenticity.

References: 

Lowy, Benjamin.

http://www.benlowy.com/bio/  [Accessed 10/03/2020]

iAfghanistan Part 1 

http://www.benlowy.com/editorial/iafghanistan/iafghanistan-part-1/ [Accessed 10/03/2020]

iAfghanistan Part 2 

http://www.benlowy.com/editorial/iafghanistan/iafghanistan-part-2/ [Accessed 10/03/2020]

iAfghanistan Part 3 

http://www.benlowy.com/editorial/iafghanistan/iafghanistan-part-3/  [Accessed 10/03/2020]

Quotes:
[1], [2], [3] taken from, War Through an iPhone Lens. Q&A, with Ben Lowy. By Severin, EyeEm website.

https://www.eyeem.com/blog/qa-with-ben-lowy  [Accessed 10/03/2020]

Hipstamatic

http://hipstamatic.com/x/  [Accessed 10/03/2020]

Project Four: Re-thinking photojournalism 2: ‘Post-Photojournalism’

” There is so much information out there these days, and it’s very hard to capture the attention of a – for the most part – apathetic public. By showing important images of was or social issues to people using a unique aesthetic, I believe I can capture their attention and shine a light on some of these stories. ”  ( Benjamin Lowy, quoted in Shore, 2014, p.252 )

The rise of the citizen journalist and the increasing use of UGC in the news has certainly had a significant economic impact upon professional photojournalists. However, the myriad shifting contexts where news stories and imagery can be found today, and the opportunities that these might offer, is equally important to consider. The rise of television in the 1950s presented photographers – who illustrated magazines were the dominant form of new and entertainments, rivalled only by the newsreel – with a comparable challenge. Many photojournalist are turning to more sustained, investigative, documentary projects; others, such as Michael Wolf and Cristina De Middel, produce work for gallery audiences, monographs and print sales ( See Ritchin, 2008, p.146 )

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 provide us with some interesting examples of the way photojournalist have evolved their practices in response to change in the business and technology associated with photojournalism. There are two key points to note. First, the documentary photograph – particularly depicting conflict – was already embedded in the contemporary art gallery at the start of the conflicts, and the potential contribution of citizen journalist was recognised on 9/11. Second, as in the Vietnam War ( with which the invasion of Afghanistan is often compared ), the frequency with which the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been reported has risked creating ‘ compassion fatigue ‘ and photographers and editors have had to develop new strategies to retain audiences’ attention.

If you can’t beat them, join them. 

Benjamin Lowy and the late Tim Hetherington are two photographers who worked in Iraq and Afghanistan. Far from shunning the technology that was supposedly endangering their trade, they embraced the aesthetic and practical capabilities of the iPhone. Not only did the technical capabilities of the camera phone offer a reasonable practical alternative to their bulkier DSLRs, but the ergonomics of the smartphone made it possible to transmit their photographs back to their picture editors much more swiftly and easily than traditional methods permitted. The familiarity of the smartphone, less intimidating than a professional DSLR, clearly has benefits in terms of relating to the subjects depicted. Indeed, Stuart Allan describes how, after witnessing the fate of another professional photographer and his camera while documenting the 2010 London riots, Lewis Whyld swapped his camera for a Blackberry smartphone ( Lister, 2013, p.196). In the quote above, Lowy describes the iPhone as possessing a ‘unique aesthetic’. Perhaps as you saw in Project 2, as well as the familiarity of the ‘camera’ to the subject, it is the familiarity of the smartphone image (Lowy sometimes uses the filters within the Instagram software) that gives it a fighting chance of catching the attention of apathetic audiences. And, ironically, perhaps we see the professional imitating the amateur of achieve authenticity.

Dipping into the archive. 

Magnum photographer Thomas Dworzak was working in Afghanistan in September 2001. He went immediately to Northern Afghanistan which was controlled by the Northern Alliance soon to be the coalition’s allies. For a period under the Taliban, all photography was banned, apart from photography for ID purposes. Dworzak published a collection of portraits that he purchased from a high street studio photographer in Kandahar. The surreal collection comprises illicit images that the Taliban sitters would request in addition to a prosaic ID photograph – generally posed with their pistols and rifles against pastoral backdrops, or colour-tinted black and white formal portraits. Although the book (Taliban, London: Trolley Books, 2003) contains some of Dworzak’s own photographs exploring how (comically and eerily) the face was expunged from Taliban society, it is predominantly a collection of found images, which subverts the regime by exposing the contradictory behaviour of its adherents. This collection can also be seen on Magnum’s website in marked contrast to the agency’s traditional content.

see http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResults7ALID=2TYRYDIT12AL

Although not depicting Afghanistan or Iraq, Patrick Chauvel’s series Guerre Ici [War Here] (2009) addresses the problem of image fatigue very directly. The celebrated photojournalist literally ‘brings home’ the conflicts he has experienced, perhaps neglected by audiences, by digitally combining fairly traditional, dramatic, adrenaline-filled images of war zones such as Beirut, Panama and Chechnya, with innocuous views of Paris, eliciting a sympathetic and urgent response from viewers who might otherwise be jaded by yet another mage of fighting from a distant land.

 

Luc Delahaye is another photojournalist who has moved his imagery from news contexts to the gallery space. Working with large-format analogue technology, his ongoing series History presents large panoramic photographs of scenes and details from world events, showing ‘big’ pictures or perhaps vignettes within the ‘bigger picture’. Often, Delahaye turns his camera on his previous profession and reveals the role of the media within these events, such as The Palestine Hotel (2001).

See http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/delahaye-the-palestine-hotel-103072

Like Jeff Wall, Delahaye connects his art to the narrative-rich fine art tradition of ‘history painting’ – large-scale tableaux representing pivotal, ‘pregnant’ moments from history like Eugene Delacroix’s July 28: Liberty Leading the People (1830) and Emanuel Leutze’s Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851).

See http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/jeff-wall/room-guide/jeff-wall-room-8

The Individual Cost: 

In his essay ‘Documentary Pictorial: Luc Delahaye’s Taliban, 2001’, Mark Durden discusses a particular image which gazes down upon a dead Taliban fighter facing upwards. Durden compared Delahaye’s photograph to Don McCullin’s famous image of a dead Vietcong soldier in Hue, Vietnam (1968), and discusses how the representation of the Taliban fighter echoes classical depictions of Christ. Delahaye’s photograph also exemplifies a thread within war photography from Iraq and Afghanistan, and responses to it by contemporary artists, which is an acute examination of individual soldiers. Commercial photographer Alastair Thain has done this in a literal sense: using custom-built cameras and highly specialist film, Thain takes exceptionally detailed portraits of his subjects and prints them in enormous proportions. His images of British Marines, made in 2009 ( commissioned by the Imperial War Museum ) and printed 5 meters high, have a heroic quality but also show the exhaustion and fragility of these young recruits in the middle of training sessions.

Back ‘in the field’, the circumstances of the conflicts have curtailed, or even compromised, the access – and perhaps objectivity – of photojournalist, for example through the practice of ’embedding’ photographers and reporters within military units who protect them but also manage what they witness and, in turn, what they are able to report home. This has, however, resulted in some sustained and intimate studies of coalition soldiers and their units as photographers have documens the units themselves rather than the ‘action’ they are involved with. Most intimate of all perhaps are Tim Hetherington’s observed portraits of sleeping US Marines at the Restrepo outpost in the Korengal Valley.

See http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResults&ALID=2K1HRG77RYJ8

 

 

 

 

Exercise 3.3 – Breaking the News?

Read this blog about the New York Post’s image of a man about to be killed by a subway train. Read the details of the blog carefully and write up your own analysis of the event. Comment on the ethical decision of the commuter who took the picture.

http://www.ibtimes.com/new-york-post-subway-death-photo-unethical-or-just-tasteless-918619

When reading the blog post, the first thing I noticed was that the photograph of the incident hasn’t been included, and therefore, I would be relying solely on written evidence via this blog post in order to understand the full incident. I would therefore have to try and view both sides of the ‘story’ to try and understand what the truth of the incident may be, and what may have been fabricated along the way, in order to understand the ethical decision made by the commuter who took the photograph.

The first few lines of the blog post advised me that the headline used on the original report containing the photograph, read, ‘This Man is about to Die’. My immediate first response to this was, if you knew this man was going to die, why didn’t you help him and how/why do you have a photograph of this man prior to his death. Why were you photographing someone about to be killed?

The blog goes on to say that a 58 year old male named Ki Suk Han, was hit by a downtown train on the Monday afternoon at Times Square station, after allegedly being pushed onto railway tracks by another commuter stood on the platform. His injuries were life threatening, and he pronounced deceased at Roosevelt Hospital later than day.

The photograph of Mr Ki Suk Han, prior to his death, was taken by freelance photographer, R. Umar Abbasi. Mr Abbasi claimed that he was using the flash on his camera, in order to grab the train driver’s attention, so the train driver would see the flashes, and would notice the male on the train tracks, and would hopefully stop the train before it would kill the male. When Mr Abbasi was questioned by a reporter for the New York Post, as to why he used his camera flashes, he replied that he used them to grab the attention of the train driver before the train “….crushed him like a rag doll.” “I just started running, running, hoping that the driver could see my flash,” . Unfortunately, however, this wasn’t how the incident ended, and in fact the train driver didn’t see the camera flashes, and therefore, the train was not stopped, thus meaning Mr Ki Suk Han was unfortunately killed.

On the Tuesday Morning, after Mr Han’s death, the photograph and article were published on the front cover of the New York Post newspaper. Kevin Z. Smith, chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics committee, saw the front cover and immediately wanted to know if this photograph was photoshoped or if it was genuine and the article was real.

During a telephone interview, Mr Smith was quoted, “I was astounded … it defies any sense of professional, moral or ethical judgment … You have to ask yourself what’s your motivation for publishing the photo. Is it just to make a sport out of it? Was anyone at the New York Post asking how this man’s widow is going to feel?”. 

According to Mr Smith, journalists and reporters are taught at journalism schools, about a working set of voluntary guidelines which advises them on how to cover and report on gruesome subjects in a manner which shows compassion for those who may be affected by the articles or news coverage and/or any photographs shown which may be gruesome. However, Mr Smith was concerned as to why the New York Post editorial chain of command, enabled this photograph and article to be published without a single person in that chain of command enquiring as to why this article was still being published, despite it being horrific.

Going solely off of the written evidence alone, I have to come to some sort of judgement regarding the incident and the ethical decision of the photographer, Mr Abbasi.

According to Wikipedia, their definition of an ethical decision is:
“An ethical decision is one that engenders trust, and thus indicates responsibility, fairness and caring to an individual. To be ethical, one has to demonstrate respect, and responsibility. Ethical decision-making requires a review of different options, eliminating those with an unethical standpoint, and then choosing the best ethical alternative.” Wikipedia

After what I have read, I am confused as to why Mr Abbasi didn’t just help Mr Han off of the tracks. A train is moving at immense speed, towards a man who is on the train tracks, and the first thing you think about doing is opening up your mobile phone and flashing your camera flash at the train driver, in order to grab the train driver’s attention. Trains cannot just stop and break to a halt, it takes several seconds/minutes before a train fully stops after breaking. Surely it would have been quicker to just help Mr Han off of the tracks, as the time you spent on your phone meant the train was speeding quicker towards Mr Han, leaving even less time if you did change your mind and did run over to help get him off of the tracks.

Understandably Mr Abbasi was quoted saying that he ran and ran towards the train, flashing his camera flash in order to grab the attention of the train driver, sounding genuinely heartbroken that he couldn’t save Mr Han. Therefore, not knowing exactly where Mr Abbasi was standing at the time on the platform, it is hard to judge whether or not Mr Abbasi was close enough to have saved Mr Han on the tracks, or if he was stood too far away perhaps at the other end of the platform, before noticing Mr Han. I would also like to mention that Mr Abbasi was not the only commuter stood on the platform that day. There were other people stood on the platform watching the incident unfold, including the commuter who pushed Mr Han onto the train tracks.

Incidents like this where there are literally only seconds or minutes to spare, were you have to make a quick decision or judgement on the spot, sometimes mean that the right decision may or may not be made during that time. In a group of people, all facing this decision, it is hard for people to decide what to do because everyone assumes someone is going to do it before them first. For example, someone may have gone over to help Mr Han off of the tracks, but perhaps the person stood next to them was also just about to move forwards to help him, so the first person may have stood back because they assumed the other person would help instead and didn’t want to get in the way. Or, perhaps people were scared of the commuter who pushed Mr Han onto the tracks, and didn’t want to also get pushed onto the tracks because they were trying to help Mr Han off of them. Perhaps people were scared that they may not be able to lift Mr Han off of the tracks in time and they too may also be pulled under the train. It is lack of communication that hinders help from reaching the person who needs it during that time.

What happened to Mr Han was no fault of Mr Abbasi’s, however, it seems as though he is bearing the brunt of the blame for not saving Mr Han and only delivering a photograph of Mr Han’s final seconds alive. Mr Abbasi sounds as though he was stood a distance away, thus meaning the only way to grab the attention of the train driver was to use his camera to flash at the same time as running towards the train. In that moment, Mr Abbasi was not stood still on the platform photographing Mr Han in his final moments purposely. There were other commuters around him who could have run to help grab Mr Han off of the tracks, but they chose not to, or were unable to due to factors we can only assume. Maybe if they all helped, they could have all saved him.

After the fatal incident, Mr Abbasi unfortunately had photographs of the incident, that were taken simply because he was using the camera as a flash. However, ethically, Mr Abbasi made the wrong decision in my opinion, when selling this photograph onto the New York Post, in order for the article to be published. In regard to Mr Abbasi selling this photograph, Mr Smith quoted, “You find yourself in possession of a photo like this and your instinct is to sell it? … There are so many levels of ethical lapses here, it’s disturbing.”

I completely agree with Mr Smith, however, it is hard to judge why Mr Abbasi sold this photograph. Did he need the money, did he want to bring attention to how dangerous train tracks are and how unsafe the underground is, did he want to simply shock people with a gruesome photograph. It is really hard to judge the reason behind why he sold the photograph, however, in my opinion, the New York Post, should also be held accountable for their ethical judgement when writing this article on the front cover with this photograph. As quoted above, “To be ethical, one has to demonstrate respect, and responsibility. Ethical decision-making requires a review of different options, eliminating those with an unethical standpoint, and then choosing the best ethical alternative.” The New York Post editorial chain of command all had ethical decisions to make and not one of them chose to respect Mr Han and his family during this shocking and heart breaking time. They had no care, respect or consideration for Mr Han and his family, by publishing this photograph. The New York Post could have easily chosen the best ethical alternative which would have been just to write an article about the incident on the Monday afternoon and not attach a photograph with it. But they wanted the shock factor and to sell newspapers. Before the end of the day, they would have forgotten about Mr Han and would be ready for the next articles to write and publish and another even more gruesome photograph to publish for the shock factor.

I decided that I wanted to view the photograph in order for me to gain a better judgement on the overall incident, and to see if my previous opinion before viewing the photograph, would change after viewing it.

For the photograph used on the original post, please see:https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/04/nyc-subway-death-push/1744875/

After viewing the photograph, I still stand by my opinions. Mr Abbasi should not have sold this photograph and the New York Post should definitely have not printed this. The full headline is quite shocking and actually quotes in full, ‘Pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die’ and underneath at the bottom is capital letters are the word ‘DOOMED’. You can see Mr Han holding onto the platform edge, probably trying to get back up by himself, but his head is looking towards the train on its immanent speeding approach, knowing he won’t make it. It is a heart breaking photograph, and I can only imagine the horror that Mr Han was feeling in those seconds before his death. I can’t imagine the pain his family must have gone through when not only seeing their loved one on the front page of the newspaper, but with this disgusting, almost joking headline written all over the photograph.

Unfortunately, with citizen journalism and the ever increasing ease of being able to access a camera, whether it be on a smart phone, digital camera, go pro, dash cams, drones, etc, means that it is increasingly easy for people to be able to record or photograph accidents, thefts, arson, fights, murders, terror related incidents, hate crimes, bullying and much more, then share it out onto social media platforms or sell it to newspapers, online articles or news channels. I know Mr Abbasi didn’t just stand around photographing Mr Han before he died, because he ‘wanted to’. But unfortunately, there is an increase in the amount of people who will stand back from a situation and simply pull out their smart phone or camera device, and just stand filming or photographing the incident without calling the emergency services or offering help. I am extremely concerned not only for my safety when out in public, but for the safety of others. No one seems to want to help others anymore, and I cant understand if it is out of fear of being hurt themselves, fear of the unknown or just because they find it more interesting to stand back and watch. I know that I am the type of person who would stand up and help someone if needed, and I understand that it may be a dangerous situation for people, for example being on train tracks or during a terrorist incident, but we all have the moral obligation as kind human beings, to help someone if they need help, but unfortunately it seems that in this day and age, help doesn’t seem to exist very often. Cameras are taking over.

References: 

Should NY Post have printed photo of man about to die?. Laura Petrecca and Melanie Eversley, USA TODAY, Dec 4, 2012.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/04/nyc-subway-death-push/1744875/ [Accessed 10/03/2020]

Project Three: Re-Thinking Photojournalism 1: The Citizen Journalist

The speed and ease with which pictures can now be transmitted from maker to audience ( via news desk, for instance) is, for photography, arguably the most significant practical effect of the digital revolution. Digital photography has had an impact on all fields of photography, but nowhere more profoundly than in the field of photojournalism.

While one hopes, there will always be a need for professional news gathering photographers to be commissioned to take photographs at ‘newsworthy’ events – whether reporting on a major disaster or a stage-managed press conference – the photographs most likely to ‘break’ in the news nowadays tend to have been made, not by the most efficient photographer who happened to be in the right place at the right time, but by the most technological savvy passer-by.

 

Simon Roberts: 

Simon Roberts, The Revolution Will Be Televised, Cairo, 2013, From the series The Last Moment, 2011-2014.

Simon Roberts’ series The Last Moment, both strikingly illustrates how people use their camera phones to make personal photographic records of ‘newsworthy events’, and acts as a kind of elegy to traditional photographic institutions and ideals. Roberts’ formally striking images take as their starting point, photographs from newspapers, deliberately scanned to reveal the halftone patina of the analogue reproduction. He then creates an opaque mask across the image and deletes portions, revealing behind it the individual cameras that are snapping the event. The event itself becomes secondary to the numerous citizens and their phones who participate within it. ( This work also resonates with Penelope Umbrico’s definition of ‘collective practice’ – Roberts’ series documents this in action).

Roberts draws our attention to the demise of Kodak, who bought us the concept of a memorable and precious ‘Kodak Moment’, as the hallowed ‘Decisive Moment’: the translation or expression of an event’s true meaning within a single photographic exposure, the ability to achieve which was traditionally considered to demonstrate mastery of the art of photojournalism ( Cartier-Bresson, 1999, P.42 – see http://simoncroberts.com/work/the-last-moment/#PHOTO_18 )

Along with the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, the 7/7 bombings in 2005 are widely regarded as marking a crucial moment for ‘citizen (photo-)journalism’. On that day, the BBC received 50 photographs from members of the public within the first hour of the bombings, and Alexander Chadwick’s screen grab from a video sequence he uploaded, has become one of the defining images of that event. Chadwick’s blurry, impressionistic image of a line of passengers walking along the underground track at King’s Cross station has, like iconic images of previous historic events made by professionals, become indexical of the terrorist attacks of that day.

The poor technical quality of Chadwick’s photograph – typical of this kind of ‘user generated content’ – is worth considering. Celebrated war photographer Robert Capa  ( who captured the only photographs of the first wave of landings on Omaha Beach and whose memoir of the Second World War was titled Slightly Out of Focus ) is reported to have said:

“If you want to get good action shots, they mustn’t be in focus. If your hand trembles a little, then you get a fine action shot. ( Robert Capa, quoted in Kershaw, 2002, p.43 )

The equivalent visual quality comes naturally to the camera phone image and provides the kind of realism that Capa pursued. Regarding user generated news imagers, Stuart Allan ( in Lister, 2013, p.194 ) writes:

‘ More often than not the raw, blurry imagery being gathered was prized because it offered a compelling eyewitness perspective, in effect making a virtue of technical deficiencies as a matter of pragmatic necessity.’

To a public jaded with the plasticity of the digital image, the familiarly poor technical quality of the UGC new image might, ironically, restore confidence in the authenticity of the photograph and go some way to explaining its acceptability to consumers.

Institutions like the BBC have exploited the phenomenon of the citizen journalist and invite people to upload UGC through their website, which they tend not to pay contributors for. Picture agencies concentrating on UGC include Scoopt (2005) and Demotix (2009), which, interestingly, have been absorbed by stock library giants Getty and Corbis, respectively. The rise of the citizen journalist has obvious economic implications for paid photojournalist, and the proliferation of lower-quality imagery across the media might degrade our perception of a ‘good’ picture. However, the normalisation of photographing sensitive and controversial subjects also has wider ethical implications for what is deemed to be morally acceptable behaviour. Within a broader historical context, the impact of the invasive methodology of the paparazzi is worth considering. Although the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed in 1997 promoted a degree of soul-searching amongst newspaper editors, the public appetite for ‘celebrity’ news over national and international current affairs has not subsided.

When criticised as ‘voyeuristic’  for taking pictures of suffering and humiliation of any kind, the clichéd retort from photojournalist and paparazzi tends to be along the lines of ‘I’m just doing my job!’ Do ordinary people who are similarly criticised for whipping out their phones reply to outraged passers-by with ‘I’m just doing what anybody would do!’? If the rising volume of UGC indicated the increasing acceptability of recording such events, what might this mean for society’s relationship to the photographic image more broadly?

 

 

Exercise 3.2 – Controversial Public Image

For this exercise, find one or two recent photographs within the public domain that you consider to be ‘controversial’ or to transgress social barriers. Write a short entry about why you feel it/they are controversial.

 

On the 7th January 2018, Swedish clothing brand H&M came under fire when they published this photograph of a young male model wearing a ‘Coolest Monkey in the Jungle’ hoodie. Hundreds of people began commenting on their social media pages, raising their concerns regarding this hoodie and the racist undertone of the overall piece. Social media users were quick to point out that several other designs in the range, with the slogan ‘Survival Expert’ on the front, and one with animals all over the hoodie, were modelled by Caucasian and Asian male models, thus beginning the debate regarding why this African child was assumedly ‘made’ to wear the ‘Coolest Monkey in the Jungle’ hoodie, instead of the Caucasian or Asian males. People world wide commented on the fact that the word ‘Monkey’ is a hateful, racist slur used towards a person of colour, and they wanted answers from H&M regarding their decision.

H&M have since pulled the photograph off of their website, but the hoodie still remains for sale. They followed their decision with a very short apology quoting “We sincerely apologize for offending people with this image of a printed hooded top…The image has been removed from all online channels and the product will not be for sale in the United States.”

Many celebrities refused to work with H&M following their error and this short apology, thus leading to H&M issuing a second apology statement quoting ” Our position is simple and unequivocal, we have got this wrong and we are deeply sorry…We clearly haven’t come far enough. We agree with all the criticism that this has generated… This incident in nature…We have taken down the image and we have removed the garment in question from sale. We have got this wrong and we agree that, even if unintentional, passive or casual racism needs to be eradicated wherever it exists.”

Terry Mango, the young boys mum, commented on the social media posts about her son modelling the hoodie saying peoples reactions about it were exaggerated, people were crying wolf and they should get over it. These social media posts made by his mother have now been removed, however, both Terry and Frank Mango, the boys parents, made a TV appearance on This Morning, defending their decision to let their son model this hoodie.

    ‘I wouldn’t see such a connection to anything other than my son modelling a shirt, and until the controversy now and the whole furore that is going on, then you kind of look back and wonder what might have been my initial response to it…So this was not a response to the whole world thinking I endorse racism or what that T-shirt meant, it was a response to the website that had put up Liam – a mother’s instinct to a child being posted to a page that you don’t expect.’ [1]

Terry went on to explain that she and Frank didn’t even notice the slogan on the top during the shoot – simply being there in their capacity of accompanying a minor. ‘Those professional people are responsible for his styling and his photoshoot- as a mum you’re there because he’s a minor and you have to take him through the process because he can’t be there by himself.’ 

I myself am not 100% sure how I feel about this whole incident. Taking into consideration that Terry Mango, the young boys Mum, said that people were over reacting about the whole situation, and that both herself and his father were ok with their son modelling this brand and the hoodie, I can’t help but feel that maybe this whole situation is been blown out of control, as surely his parents are the ones who know what is best for their son and at the end of the day, it is their decision and their choice whether or not they agree to let their son model something like this.

I do not agree with racism in any shape or form, and I 100% believe that H&M were entirely to blame regarding this photograph and their decision to put this boy in this hoodie and an Asian boy in a hoodie with Asian animals all over it. You can’t help but see that these decisions were made purposely, but if that is the case, then why didn’t people raise their concerns at the time this photoshoot was going ahead in the same room. Surely, several people were watching these boys modelling these hoodies, and noticed that something was not right about the slogans on the front and the ‘stereotyping’ of the models wearing them. Why wasn’t this issue raised before they even got to the photoshoot. I understand that people on social media have defended H&M saying that they call their kids ‘cheeky monkies’ at home as it is just a ‘funny’ expression when a child is being cheeky or naughty, but why did H&M choose to use a person of colour in this hoodie, with this wording on the front of it, knowing full well that ‘monkey’ is used against people of colour, as a racist slur. Someone would have known that this may cause an issue when published, yet several people made the decision to let this be printed.

I did read on a social media post that someone believes H&M did this for a reason, and they wanted to attention on them, in order to boost their sales, and to be in the spotlight again. However, this isn’t the way to go about getting in the news again in order to boost sales, if anything, I would have thought it would have the opposite effect.

As mentioned above, I’m not sure what my feelings are towards this, as there are two sides to every story. No one will ever know the full, whole, truthful decision behind why and who made the choice at H&M, to let this photoshoot proceed and the model wear this specific hoodie. Did someone do this for a reason, in order to gain publicity over their new hoodie release. Did they know it was racist, but went ahead anyway. Was it a genuine mistake. You also have to take into consideration the parents views regarding this. At the end of the day, this is a controversial photograph, and it is one which has been talked about all over the world. It has raised awareness that racism is still happening even in this modern day and age, and for a large, known clothing brand to publish something like this, just goes to raise more awareness that racism and stereotyping is happening all over the world, publically.

 

References: 

[1] Quote taken directly from metro.co.uk 

H&M boy’s mother speaks out after hoodie race storm and admits she didn’t see it as racist. Caroline Westbrook, 15th January 2018. Metro.co.uk

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/15/hm-boys-mother-speaks-hoodie-race-storm-admits-didnt-see-racist-7229551/  ( Accessed 28/03/2018 )

H&M’s Latest Apology for its racist hoodie is an actual, honest -to- god apology. Leah Fessler 11 January 2018.

https://qz.com/1177010/hms-apology-for-its-racist-hoodie-is-an-actual-honest-to-god-apology/   ( Accessed 28/03/2018 )

Local Voices: Controversial H&M Ad Follows Store’s History with Racism and Human Rights Abuses. Brooklyn Reader. 15 January 2018.

https://www.bkreader.com/2018/01/controversial-hm-ad-follows-stores-history-racism-human-rights-abuses/   ( Accessed 28/03/2018 )

Project Two: Digitising Atrocity

” For death must be somewhere in a society; if it is no longer ( or less intensely ) in religion, it must be elsewhere; perhaps in this image [the photograph] which produces Death while trying to preserve life. Contemporary with the withdrawal of rites, photography may correspond to the intrusion, in our modern society, of an asymbolic Death, outside of religion, outside of ritual, a kind of abrupt dive into literal Death. Life / Death : the paradigm is reduced to a simple click, the one separating the initial pose from the final print.” ( Barthes, 1982, p.92 )
From its beginning, people have used photography to document the grotesque and horrific effects of violence and injury upon the human body. Certainly many images of horror have been made by morally motivated professionals with a desire to share the reality of pain, violence and taboo horrors across the globe. However, many – if not perhaps the majority – of the most disturbing images of the abuse and damage inflicted upon the human body have been made by professionals in other fields – as well as ordinary people with a thirst for the macabre.

Post Mortem

We might think that photography, death and memorial form an awkward axis, and photographing the dead may be socially taboo. But with that said, a trend for taking ‘selfies’ ( aka ‘corpsies’), before, after and even during funerals, has emerged, indicating perhaps the extent to which the digital camera/smartphone has shifted barriers around what is considered appropriate subject matter to photograph and what isn’t.

I remember when I was in primary school, at the age of roughly 9 years old, several friends of mine, all from different ethnic backgrounds and religions, showed me photographs their family had taken at relatives funerals. For example, one of my friends who’s family were from Jamaica, attended their brother’s funeral back home. Family members celebrated his life, and during the ceremony, they had an open coffin, so family members could pay their respects. During this time, it was not un-common for family and friends to photograph their loved one, in their coffin. When they returned home, they showed us the photographs they had taken from the funeral. At the age of approximately 9, for me, this was a very small shock, as it was probably one of the first ‘dead’ bodies I had seen. However, I wasn’t upset by the images, I was more curious about their traditions and the reasons behind why they photograph their loved ones at their funerals. They didn’t really give an answer, as for them, this was normal and it was a way of celebrating his life and remembering him forever.

As time went on, and I got older, many of my loved ones passed away, and I too, went to visit them in the funeral home, before the day of the funeral. Seeing a dead body, for me back then wasn’t a shock, as from a young age, seeing my friends photographs of their relatives, helped me adjust to ‘awkward’ situations like this.  However, that being said, I never photographed my loved ones in their coffins. For me, I personally feel very uncomfortable photographing my loved ones dead, as I want to respect them and remember them as they were when they were alive. Death is hard for anyone to come to terms with, and for me, I wouldn’t want to be reminded of how they looked, when they were laying in their coffins. On the day of a funeral, for me and my family, taking photographs isn’t something that would even cross our minds.

While many such selfies seem to be taken and shared amongst peers for comic effect, photography has played a part in funerals and memorial rituals since its invention. In the nineteenth century, post mortem photography was very common, partly because infant mortality rates were higher than those of today.

Dead Child on a Sofa, c.1855. Daguerreotype, applied colour, quarter-plate.

Photographing a deceased loved one was perfectly normal; often the only time an individual had his or her photograph taken was in death. Below is an interesting article about post mortem photography back in Victorian England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36389581

Interestingly, it is increasingly common practice for hospitals and maternity units to suggest that parents whose babies are still born or die prematurely have a photograph taken with their baby. Organisations such as Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep, established in 2005, offer ‘remembrance photography’ or ‘heirloom portraits’ free of charge to families, as a way to help with the grieving process and to create a lasting, positive record from such a painful and tragic occurrence.

Historic post mortem photographs can be found in Robert Flynn Johnson’s photograph book Anonymous: Enigmatic Images from Unknown Photographers, ( London: Thames & Hudson, 2004 ), which is a collection of photographs from his archive of vintage photographs divorced from their authors. Alongside these kinds of images, the final chapter, ‘Endings and Infamy’, contains images of violent deaths – decapitated car crash victims, crime scene photographs, and perhaps most disturbingly, a picture of the execution of a man in China (c.1990) by decapitation. There is a quaintness to this particular photography book – published just as digital images, and the size of the photographic archive, was growing exponentially.

The internet has no shortage of gruesome photographs and videos to satiate the appetites of the most curious or morbid. There are numerous websites that offer viewers a diverse range of highly disturbing images, gleaned from across the globe and related only by their unpleasant and disturbing content – from scenes of violent crimes and accidents, to physically harmless by cruel pranks. These kinds of photo-spectacles have a heritage – although less gratuitously – within the weekly illustrated magazines, particularly of the 1930’s, which in places read like a photographic freak show. Within a print media context, this tradition extended into the ‘lads mags’ like FHM, Loaded and Front, which were at their most successful in the 1990’s, before the internet became a dominant place for both sexualised and sensational imagery.

For me, death is something which affects me hard if it is someone I love, however, I am completely fine looking at dead bodies, blood, crime scenes etc. I have always been into forensic science, and it is something I have wanted to study for years, ever since I was young. One day I hope to pursue a career in forensic photography or even forensic science. I follow several pathologists and doctors on Instagram such as Mrs_Angemi, Forensic_Tattoo and MedicalTalks, who update their profiles regularly with gruesome images of blood, medical procedures and even dead bodies or crime scenes. They don’t do this as a way to shock anyone, but instead, it is a way for people to learn about science, biology, criminology and much more, which I find extremely interesting. For me, viewing these types of photographs, regarding death, is completely fine, as it helps people to learn.

‘Shock and Awe’

Although websites showing violent and offensive imagery are voyeuristic and generally used purely for entertainment, the internet could be applauded for allowing I mages depicting the true extent of state-inflicted violence to be seen. Photographers have generally been critical of publishing institutions, governments and the general public, for a failure to look at their images of the real effects of war and violence and the injury it inflicts upon the human body, revealing – at best – a sanitised version of war, or – an effectively censored version of events.

The flipside of the democracy of the internet, however, is how it can be used to broadcast what are arguably some of the most offensive and disturbing photographs and videos currently on the internet, namely the broadcasts by ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups/organizations. These broadcasts depict live decapitations, dismemberments and death by burning. Terrorist organisations have made extremely effective use of the internet and social media, to disseminate imagery to incite fear as well as to elicit sympathy and recruit members. Such broadcasts are highly choreographed, often dressing victims in Guantanamo Bay style orange jumpsuits, and even using post-production techniques such as selective colour desaturation to emphasise aspects of the violence and accentuate the vividness of the macabre scenes.

Clonophobia 

In his book Cloning Terror: The War of Images, 9/11 to the Present, W.J.T. Mitchell discusses the immense significance of the ‘image’ within the ‘war on terror’ which’… was launched with the production of an image of destruction on 9/11′ ( Mitchell, 2011: p.77). On the one hand, he outlines the ways in which terrorist groups create horrific spectacles to insight fear: ‘terrorism involves spectacular symbolic acts , the creation of images that traumatize their beholders.’ (ibid, p.12). On the other hand, discussing counterpoints to these, he outlines how, during the Iraq war, the Bush administration and US Military carefully designed certain ‘photo ops’ ( see Ritchin, 2008, p.147 ), such as: The draping of the US flag over the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad ( to be quickly substituted for an Iraqi one when the imperialistic connotations became apparent ); Bush’s’ mission accomplished’ speech delivered from the USS Abraham Lincoln; and Saddam Hussein’s dental examination before the world’s media ( ibid pp.89-94 ). It is ironic that the words attributed to the operation to decisively implement regime changes in Iraq in 2003 ( ‘Shock and Awe’) are so directly applicable to the war of images that Mitchell discusses.

Jesse Alexander, from the series Cyanotypes, 2006.

Central to Mitchell’s discussion are the Abu Ghraib photographs that entered the public consciousness in April 2004. These images gave a visual presence to the torture and maltreatment of prisoners of war and ‘enemy combatants’ throughout the ‘war on terror’, torture that the allied governments tried so hard to deny took place, or even attempted to justify. Critic Mary Warner Marien has suggested that the Abu Ghraib images have elicited ‘… perhaps the largest worldwide public interpretation of photographs’ ( Warner Marien, 2014, p.494. ) and their meanings have been analysed by numerous writers and film makers as well as visual artists. As well as creating some of the defining images of the epoch of the ‘war on terror’ – secondary only to the images of the destruction of the Twin Towers – the Abu Ghraib photographs encapsulate core aspects of the social uses of photography of their time and the preceding period: to document frivolous activities ( US Broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, famously compared the acts to fraternity initiation rituals (Mitchell, 2011, p.118)) and to be shared amongst select peers to facilitate a sense of belonging and community. Of course the images depict far graver and more despicable acts than mere frivolity, and because of this, self-replicated, spread and ‘went viral’. We will return to these images and these ideas in part four.

Research: 

• Read Peggy Phelan’s essay ‘Atrocity and Action: The Performative Force of the Abu Ghraib Photographs’ in Batchen, G. et al (eds), (2012), Picturing Atrocity: Photography in Crisis, London: Reaktion Books, pp.51 – 61.

You can find this below on the student site.

PH5DIC_Picturing Atrocity_Atrocity and Action. 

• Read about Abdel Karim Khalil’s We Are Living the American Democracy at http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2004/nov/22/art-iraq

 

 

 

 

References: 

Taken From Life: The Unsettling Art of Death Photography, Bethan Bell, 5 June 2016, BBC News online.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36389581   ( Accessed 28/03/2018 )

Instagram Pages. 

Mrs Nicole Angemi. 

https://www.instagram.com/mrs_angemi/?hl=en

Forensic Tattoo

https://www.instagram.com/forensic_tattoo/

Medical Talks 

https://www.instagram.com/medicaltalks/?hl=en

 

 

Fred Ritchin – In Our Own Image

References: 

Ritchin, Fred. 

In Our Own Image, The Coming Revolution in Photography. Fred Ritchin, 1999. Aperture Foundation, Inc. New York. 

ISBN: 0-89381-857-7

Project One: The Dynamic Image and Exercise 3.1

The practical differences between the analogue and the digital image also carry far-fetching implications for the nature of the medium. The ‘ontology’ of the photograph – how it is unique in its nature and compares, philosophically speaking, to other forms of representation – has always been debated. However, this has become increasingly so as it has evolved into digital forms. The fact that the digital image has no material physicality ( until it is printed ), is perhaps the most important aspect of the apparent digital/analogue dichotomy. The digital image tends to only ever have a temporary presence on a screen and/or archived on a hard drive.

The digital photograph is made up of defined pixels rather than the continuous tones of the analogue image, and beneath the visible surface lies its invisible stream of ‘1s’ and ‘0s’ that writers such as W.J.T. Mitchell have compared to DNA and described as the picture’s ‘genetic code’.

While we tend to think of this binary code as primarily for defining the visible, ‘manifest’ image, it can also contain a host of metadata recording other related information, such as time and place of capture, authorship, captions and keywords, as well as technical data of the exposure. All of these things are what we might have traditionally scribbled on the back of the photograph. The digital photograph, we might conclude, simultaneously has both a ‘front’ and a ‘back’ – almost like an infinite Mobius structure.

Hyperphotography

Fred Ritchin, in his chapter ‘Toward a Hyperphotography’ in After Photography (2009), discusses the potential of this metadata, particularly in its implications for the relationship between the photographer and the subject, and how viewers might contest the apparent message on an image or its editorial contextualisation.

‘Hyperphotography’ could be described as the ‘interactive revolution’ ( Ritchin, 2008, p.153) whereby not just viewers, but also the subjects of pictures have become a much greater part of the ‘life’ of the photograph following the initial photographic exposure. ( Within vernacular photography, this takes place extensively within Facebook, whereby parts of an uploaded image – such as a group portrait – can be ‘tagged’, so that ‘rolling over’ the image with the cursor defines who that individual is and clicking on it can take you to their profile page.)

There are instances throughout the history of photography where the subjects of famous images have contested the photographer’s version of the narrative contained within the image. For example, the children within Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother have contested the photographer’s account of the circumstances of the making of this famous image. However, Ritchin also cites many recent example where the internet has allowed subjects to questions the editorial contextualisation that their image or property has been made a part of. We can see this as quite a marked shift in the traditional power relationship between the photographer and their subject.

We are already within the age of Hyperphotography, but Ritchin prophesises that photography will play an increasingly pre-emptive function within society, particularly because of the ability to cerate an infinite network of images across the digital sphere with hyperlinks and metadata. Ritchin is optimistic in his aspirations for this; his own online project PixelPress.org  creates exhibitions an thematic archive of image through open submission, and allows for political comment to emerge from poignant juxtapositions of narratives. Ritchin also suggests that photorealistic virtual imagery ( ever more indistinguishable from lens-based pictures and increasingly used instead of photographs in advertising ) might be – transparently – fabricated, and used to deliver cautionary messages: for example, revealing the projected estimates of how far a glacier might recede within a timeframe. Such a tableau could be hyperlinked to published scientific research or other evidence to support the authenticity of the ‘illustration’ ( Ritchin, 2008, pp.149-150), or perhaps more accurately, the ‘hyperphotograph’.

• Watch Fred Ritchin’s lecture, where he discusses several key aspect of the digitalisation of photography, including his description of ‘photographs of the future’. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541UY8jgkxU

Ritchin was picture editor of the New York Times magazine until his decision to leave in 1982. During the period of time he was leaving the magazine, Ritchin noticed changes regarding photographs and the increase in digital manipulation. He voices his concern and frustration with the way magazines used photographs to illustrate the text, giving them no life on their own. Ritchin describes 1982 as the beginning of the Digital Revolution, due to National Geographic using digital pyramids on their front cover.

When National Geographic Magazine, digitally moved the pyramids on their front cover, in order for the horizontal image to ‘fit’ better on the vertical front cover, Ritchin interviewed their editor in chief regarding their decision to manipulate the image and why they did it, despite them being a highly conservative magazine. The editor in chief replied saying that all they did was rotate the one pyramid behind the other pyramid, in order for them to be vertical. ” It’s really nothing, all we did was go back in time and move the photographer for a couple of meters to one side, to get a different point of view.” Ritchin quotes, “So they had time travel in 1982 in photography, you could go back in time and move the photographer one side or the other to get a different point of view.”

Photographs were now malleable, and people began changing them how they wanted to. He mentioned that at the beginning of his career in publishing, a colleague of his wrote an entire book for Time Life, and the editors changed every single sentence in the book, thus meaning that not a single sentence written in that book was intact and written by his friend. Ritchin decided to switch to photographs as they seemed safer, and he believed that if you choose a picture, you cant go in it and change it like you can with words and punctuation. However, in the digital revolution, this is no longer true. 29 years ago, Ritchin was concerned that we would get to a point where no one would believe photographs anymore because they are too easy to change. Unfortunately, his predictions were correct. Being sceptical about a photograph is always a good idea.

The Chicago Sun Times newspaper, which has been around for 150 years, fired all of their 28 photographers and picture staff in one day. They then gave every single one of their reporters, new iPhones, so they could go out and photographs the scene they were reporting, thus meaning, they didn’t need photographers anymore. This has happened in several other countries too, however, Ritchin asks, “why do they need photographers?. If 1 billion people have smart phones with cameras, then what do photographers bring that the cell phone amateur doesn’t bring?”

 

Exercise 3.1: 

Read Fred Ritchin’s essay ‘Toward a Hyperphotography’ in Ritchin, F. (2008) After Photography, New York: W.W. Norton.

Available on the student site:

PH5DIC_AfterPhotography_TowardHyperphotography

The US invasion of Haiti, 1994.

The US invasion of Haiti, 1994. Alex Webb, Magnum.

In 1994, U.S troops were deployed to invade Haiti. The first photograph was taken, showing the brave, courageous troops, lying on the airport tarmac, ready to shoot at the unseen enemies behind the camera. The U.S Government used this photograph to convince everyone, that their claims regarding their troops invading Haiti, in order to support democracy, thus liberating a neighbouring country from a dictatorship, was true. However, the second photograph was taken at the same exact moment in time, by Alex Webb. This second photograph, taken from a different angle, shows a completely different scene and scenario, to that which was promoted by the U.S government. This photograph shows U.S troops, almost staged and posed, in front of several professional photographers, and not in a war zone, nor any immediate danger. 

    “This contradictory, double image, is Cubist; Reality has no single truth. Perhaps these soldiers are heroes and perhaps the U.S government is justified in its invasion. Maybe they have to lie prone on the tarmac, anxious about an unseen enemy. The additional photograph asks the question ‘ Is this for real? Or is this a simulation of an invasion created for the cameras?'” [1]

• Look at the websites Ritchin discusses. Can you find any visual examples of ‘cubistically unmasking photo opportunities?’  Look for multiple points of view around a single news event or story.

I remember watching Obama’s inauguration on the TV back in 2009, and being in awe of the amount of people and crowds, watching him being sworn in as President at the White House. When I watched the news coverage of Trump being sworn in as President, in 2017, I noticed that the helicopters, reluctantly wanted to fly over the crowds. I wasn’t aware of the time, or when the main ‘event’ was taking place, but when I saw the vast empty space, with people just aimlessly walking up to the White House, I wondered if this was because it wasn’t ‘fully beginning’ yet, or it was only just getting started. However, as time went on, I noticed that these vast, empty gaps, were not filling up, yet I could see Donald Trump, being sworn in as President. 

I personally didn’t pay much attention to the event, as I am not a fan of Donald Trump, however, after a few days had passed, the news coverage mentioned that the White House were denying that these vast gaps of spaces, were empty, and they said that it was full and packed with a crowd of 1.5 million people. Yet when I watched parts of it on the tv, I could see visible gaps. As time went on, people began demanding evidence showing whether or not the gaps were real, or whether the photographs were taken at a different time, when Trump was up on the stage area. The White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer claimed that the photographs of the inauguration were “…intentionally framed in a way… to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall”

I found a link which I have attached below, which quoted that The National Park Service had to release several photographs, of different angles, from air and ground, showing the area outside the White House, and the empty gaps. These photographs appeared to counter Trump’s claim that 1.5 million people attended his inauguration that day.

 

2009 – Obama 2017 – Trump

https://wtop.com/dc/2017/03/park-service-photos-challenge-trump-on-inauguration/slide/3/

I personally find this very funny, but also very sad in a way. I find it funny, that Trump would hand on heart, say that these photographs were lies, and were framed to make him look less popular than he is. Comparing them to Obama’s inauguration photographs, there is a very large, visible difference, which clearly shows who was the favourite person out of the two. It is sad that Trump can’t see that he isn’t ‘liked or loved’ world wide, nor in his own country, so why lie and pretend that you are, by suggesting that these photographs are all fake. The ‘Professional’ photographs, taken from up on the stage, which were obviously White House approved, show vast gatherings of crowds and people, yet the ones taken by helicopter in the air and on the ground, show these vast empty spaces. I suppose we will never know what set of photographs are real, and who is to believe. Perhaps the White House approved photographs were staged at an angle, in order to deceive the viewers, as a way to show both his supporters and the people who don’t support him, that he is loved, and he is a great man. The angles of the cameras, were aimed  a certain way at the crowd, in order to enhance his ego. 

 

 

References. 

[1] Quote taken directly from ‘Toward a Hyperphotography’, Ritchin, F. (2008) After Photography, New York: W.W. Norton. p.147 ( Accessed 26/03/2018 ) 

Park services releases photos of Trump inauguration crowds. Associated Press, 6 March 2017. https://wtop.com/dc/2017/03/park-service-photos-challenge-trump-on-inauguration/slide/3/   ( Accessed 26/03/2018 )