the quiet observer...
there's a site that I really like at the moment that involves a guy taking photos every day at a subway station in the US somewhere. What I like about it is the fact that he quietly observes the people in every day situations, and captures their thoughts, fears and private moments which he then publishes on his site.
Its not so much the creepy "take photos of strangers and then publish on the internet" thing that I like so much but the fact that even halfway around the world and back again, it shows the people all over have the same kind of lives and do the same kinds of things - sleep, play, eat, love....i like that it demonstrates a solidarity and a uniformity to human behaviour which cannot be classed by colour, race, creed or nationality. I mean, if you didn't know that this was in the US, it could be in London, Paris, downtown Melbourne...or maybe not.
I'm also intrigued by whether or not these people know they are being photographed and if they know that they are on the web....I know that I'd feel pretty invaded if I saw a photo of myself on the web that was taken without permission and then launched in the world wide web. Which reminds me of a story that I heard recently of this image...
This photo is apparently the Pulitzer Prize winning image taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The image depicts an infant crawling towards a UN camp located a kilometre away while a vulture is watching him intently.
The story goes is that no one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer who took the image, Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photo was taken.
Three months later, he was so depressed he committed suicide.
What concerns me isn't whether the story is true or not - I guess its the ethical dilemna of where journalism begins and humanity ends. What is the responsibility of the "war correspondent / political journo / news reader" ? Is it to report facts and take photos from an objective and remote perspective or is it to the human touch so that we feel more connected with the world at large ?
Could this child now be alive if the photographer had taken this child to the food camp instead of taking a photograph ? And why isn't this considered to be "snuff" if the end result is death when it might have been prevented ?
Have we gotten so cold and unfeeling ? and if so - when ?
We laugh at the joke that asks us to decide between colour fim vs black and white when watching George W Bush cascading down a river....but really, how many of us would jump in and save him ?
I guess the question is - where does the line between helping out and intruding on someone's privacy begin ?
Its not so much the creepy "take photos of strangers and then publish on the internet" thing that I like so much but the fact that even halfway around the world and back again, it shows the people all over have the same kind of lives and do the same kinds of things - sleep, play, eat, love....i like that it demonstrates a solidarity and a uniformity to human behaviour which cannot be classed by colour, race, creed or nationality. I mean, if you didn't know that this was in the US, it could be in London, Paris, downtown Melbourne...or maybe not.
I'm also intrigued by whether or not these people know they are being photographed and if they know that they are on the web....I know that I'd feel pretty invaded if I saw a photo of myself on the web that was taken without permission and then launched in the world wide web. Which reminds me of a story that I heard recently of this image...
This photo is apparently the Pulitzer Prize winning image taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The image depicts an infant crawling towards a UN camp located a kilometre away while a vulture is watching him intently.The story goes is that no one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer who took the image, Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photo was taken.
Three months later, he was so depressed he committed suicide.
What concerns me isn't whether the story is true or not - I guess its the ethical dilemna of where journalism begins and humanity ends. What is the responsibility of the "war correspondent / political journo / news reader" ? Is it to report facts and take photos from an objective and remote perspective or is it to the human touch so that we feel more connected with the world at large ?
Could this child now be alive if the photographer had taken this child to the food camp instead of taking a photograph ? And why isn't this considered to be "snuff" if the end result is death when it might have been prevented ?
Have we gotten so cold and unfeeling ? and if so - when ?
We laugh at the joke that asks us to decide between colour fim vs black and white when watching George W Bush cascading down a river....but really, how many of us would jump in and save him ?
I guess the question is - where does the line between helping out and intruding on someone's privacy begin ?
posted by Anonymous at 12:32 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home