| |
|
Normally, I'm a lurker, not a poster. But I finally folded and clicked on the link to see the photo.
Ok, my problem with this photo is two-fold.
1. The photographer's first instinct was to take a picture instead of do something to help this woman. That is the unspoken message that this photo communicates to the observer. While Urban may claim that "it happened too quickly" for him to do anything, the fact is that it wasn't over before he caught it on film. AFTER he took the picture, the "sea of people" cleared and there was nothing he could do. Too bad he wasted his time. Apparently, photographing a human rights violation is more important than stopping it OR standing up against it to try to stop it.
I think this point is especially relevant because he (Urban) is a white male and this award was being presented in a patriarchal and racist society. Had the NPPA been chaired by a group of feminists, there is no doubt that a photo like this would not have won because, on the chance that it could have portrayed this situation in a positive or exploitative light, it would have been seen as a prime opportunity for mysogynistic and racist fodder. Instead, any chance that this photo/award might not have the intended effect ("to bring awareness to the event") was not taken seriously and was underplayed--as we would expect from a WASP environment. Which brings me to my second point:
2. I think photography like this, especially when taken out of context and not specifically used in a feminist or anti-mysogynistic forum, is dangerous. Taken IN the context of our present society, pop culture has weaned its children on action-adventure movies and practically R-rated television. We have trained most youth to disassociate themselves from violent or overtly racist/sexist/classist imagery by desensitizing them with an outrageous amount of programming and advertising that downplays the very real consequences of behavior like that is shown in this photo. Its about time we started to assume that most youth that view a photo like this are not going to start a post-feminist discussion with their friends.
This photo was never printed in the Post-Intelligencer with a correlated story, and the NPPA statement from the ethics chair, Maria Mann blithely glosses over the specific ethical reason why they chose this photo or even why "intense" discussions were necessary. The statement by Clyde Mueller mentions only ONCE what the result of those discussions was, "The decision to publish this powerful and thought provoking image is based on the basis to bring awareness to the event and to protect the identity of the female victim." But what KIND of awareness were they trying to bring? It seems like they are SO sensitive to the patriarchal nature of our society that they don't dare say that they thought this photo might be useful in trying to actualize sexual assault and human rights violations amoung US citizens--but we're left to make the assumption that their message is to encourage people to stop these kinds of violations from happening even though the photographer himself seems to be exempt from this moral order. And, what good does it do, exactly, to qualify the nature of this photo without really discussing the subject at hand? The editor's note more effectively communicates the subject matter than the NPPA ever does.
I think this photo, ultimately, shows a lack of personal integrity on the part of the photojournalist AND a lack of integrity on the part of the people giving the award. Ultimately, I have to agree with shortfatdyke: "sitting back and taking notes instead of stopping the incident is unforgivable in my book". And so is awarding people who do so. Its one small step for mysogyny and racism and one giant step for patriarch-kind. |
|
|
