This post is intended for my International Relations course I am currently attending at the LSE in London. I figured I’d post it here to give you a break from my musical rants.
I’ve been capturing the city of London in photographs ever since my arrival. It’s a bit daunting coming to such a famed city and taking photos. As a photographer, you want to capture a city in a manner in which no one else has ever captured it before. I believe in the power of photographs. I also believe that no two photographs are the same.
I refuse to convert to the digital side of photography. I still shoot film. The reason being, film is tangible. You can see it, feel it, and therefore connect with it. Digital Photography and Video is intangible. I feel there is a lack of connectivity between you and your work. Okay, done with the intro, as for my entry.
I’ve been struggling on deciding what to write about for my blog entry in regards to this course. I’ll be honest, politics are not one of my main interests. I don’t think I have ever mentioned politics on this blog. However, I’m fascinated by the media. I am beginning to see all the different degrees to which the media functions. Whether it be in Music, Politics, or any other field, journalism should, ideally, abide to the same formula (strive for objectivity, provide a unique perspective, etc.)
So I figured I’d use one of my favorite interests to convey an idea that no one has blogged about yet. The sheer power of photos and videos on the public.
The photo seen above was taken outside the Tate Modern. From far away, it looks as though the subject is carrying a gun; however, as you move closer to the piece, you see that it is what seems to most as a harmless video camcorder. The same camcorder that can record blase family videos can also record gruesome images of victims during and after a tragedy (see 9/11, 7/7, etc.).
We are now in an age where the power of photography and video is as powerful as “weapons of mass destruction”. In a sense, a cell phone camera is equivalent to an A-Bomb, if used correctly.
In a globalized world where citizens are now interacting with the media, in what Silverstone calls for the term mediapolis, images and video spread instantly from one side of the world to the other. Images that can ruin lives, or define conflict. For example, the whole Iraqi conflict can be summed up as a failure by looking at the Abu Ghraib torture photos which debuted on 60 Minutes.
Another example is with the Danish Mohammad Cartoons. These illustrations instantly traveled the nation and stirred up hundreds of riots resulting in injuries and deaths. What was created as a joke, turned into a world wide crisis. In a sense, a photograph or video is more powerful than any nuclear warhead on the planet. Because, not only can a photo or video travel the face of the earth instantly (reaching all people at once), because photography and videography are art, it can be interpreted any way the viewer wishes. This interpretation is what makes media the most powerful weapon imaginable.
I end with my favorite wartime photograph.
This photo, taken from the Vietnam War, is a horrific site. It evokes thousands of thoughts and emotions. This photo also brings up one of the interpretations of the concept of proper distance. Is this photo ethically appropriate?
In my opinion, it is, because it is true. The truth, no matter how harmful it is, is always the ethical route. The question I’m left with is: In an age of self-censorship, would an image such as this see the light of day in today’s world?
So many photographs are not published in today’s papers because of the concept of self-censorship. While a picture may have been worth 1000 words, today its stock is dropping fast.
Replacing its worth, is that of video, fueled by sites such as Youtube which allow the submission of User Generated Content no matter how harmful or unethical (such as video of Myanmar victims).
