The Photographer’s Insult
Here’s a question for you. I have posed this in full over at the Atlanta Metblog in a post called “Eye of the Gawker”, but I want your opinion, too. The gist of the question is simple—am I wrong about the following:
“It’s not a shameful thing to take a picture of someone else’s woe. It’s not crass to capture suffering on camera, because suffering is genuine and real and thus fair game for an honest medium. It happens, and so it can be recorded.”
Saturday, the morning of the Ides of March, as trees lay across roofs across Atlanta and powerlessness plagued houses without electricity and homes smashed to timbers, I began to rethink it. That afternoon, one-inch hail fell through holes in people’s homes, pelting beds and pinging off refrigerators. I’ve seen lots of photos of cars bent flat by fallen trees and streets strewn with glass, but I haven’t seen a single photo that reveals to me how those trees get pulled out of those houses.
(Photo by Elemess)
If it was a shameful thing to look for other’s pain, we wouldn’t love all the photographers chasing Britany or Princess Di the way we do. It was endearing to hear how some used their appearance at the scene as an opportunity to take pix instead of rendering aid to the dying Dianna. So, like all things, I guess it’s a matter of degree. It can be both shameful and instructive, ugly and inspiring.
If there was a clear answer we could have a measure of the worth of CNN et al.
If you don’t understand why it hurts to have people come and gawk at your pain you have clearly never been the victim of a disaster. Just the act of taking a picture doesn’t make it gawking. What makes it gawking is coming in, taking lots of dramatic pictures, not expressing any concern or sympathy, and not helping with the recovery. Disaster tourism is gawking.