Disgusting People


Nothing more laughable than an artists justification for what they do. Nachtwey says something like: "I use the camera to channel all my emotions of what I am seeing", or something to that effect. Well of course he does, but at the expense of his subjects. Although at this point he certainly has become desensitized to the situations he is capturing.
Anyone who has spent a lot of time behind the camera, video or still, realizes that the equipment creates a comfortable mental buffer between you and the subject. It's why camera guys keep rolling when it might be a good idea to help out instead.
Case in point: "The Bridge". Documentary about people jumping off the Golden Gate bridge. I'll spare you the full context, but at one point a still photog starts taking up close pictures of a women on the rail getting ready to leap. In an interview, he describes what he was doing, but than the realization of what he was seeing hit him. He put down the camera and coaxed the girl off the rail. Now, should he have waited and captured the ultimate human emotion?
To my point. Nachtwey is not helping anyone. Only himself. I'll spare you my opinion of the magazine. Those "gentleman" have truly lost touch in the interest of their product.
There is the argument that says he is telling the story so the world can know. Really?? Know what? I am quite certain he could go on a cadaver hunt and shoot some wreckage without sticking a camera in the face of an individual grieving. If he gets tired of his craft, he'll have a future in local news.
Nachtwey is not a voice, channel, or anything for his subjects. Human misery is not art, it is sadistic and exploitive. Take a good luck at what he is doing and try to put yourself in the subject's position. If you are truly being honest you may see what I see.

reply

You elevate him to the level of a politician who is responsible for the misery itself. As for "letting the world know" you assume that the large media outlets cover all world issues and they do not. Western media only covers what they wish to cover so many stories go right under their radar or they are considered "old new" so the don't get covered.
As for "doing something" what is he suppose to do exactly? Run in front of the bullet or take the blows?
As for your comments about The Bridge, what are the film makers suppose to do? When someone wants to kill themselves, they have thought about it for a long time and it is difficult to get them to stop. You can pull them off the bridge but down the road will you be there to pull their head out of the oven?

reply

Consider this: If photographers hadn't documented and thus informed the world of the concentration camps in Bosnia during the Balkan conflict of the early 1990's, how much longer would the atrocities have continued? If no one knows what is happening then no one can do anything to stop such heinous acts from occurring.

reply

I felt the exposition at the end was not right. I felt like you can't take non-fictional`misery and make it art. But: If guys like Nachtwey didn't make powerful and strong pictures there would be a lot less attention for the tragedy in this world. People need horrifying and dramatic pictures, they have no imagination. They can't feel what it's like to be in a war, they need pictures, close from the subject, to understand it a bit and from that understanding comes action.

I think you are a bit quick to judge him. He is trying to make this world a better place, what have you done to make this world a better place?

reply

its a classic debate of to what extent a photographer should stop being an observer and get involved with the situation instead.

But calling a war photographer disgusting is such a disgrace. A war is not the same as saving one person leaping off a bridge. A documentary maker contributes by making the whole world to be aware of the true situation so the world can help.

reply

Prove me wrong.

reply