Joerg Colberg over at conscientious, is pondering the issue of imagery made of disasters which is then paraded as Art in Galleries.
Robert Adams has an answer or two here, in an essay about Frank Gohlke's photographs of the storm that swept Wichita Falls, on April 10 1979, that ranked 4 on the Fujita Scale, he talks about form and meaning, and of metaphor.
“ His composition implies a belief in the endurance of meaning within an apocalyspe.”1
In the same book he also writes a lengthy article on “ Photographing Evil”, which I'll quote here, in an effort to offer some explanation as to why Photographers need to do this kind of work.
“ The point of art has never been to make something synonymous with life, however, but to make something of reduced complexity that is nonetheless analogous to life and thereby clarify it.”2
Not being the articulate writer that Mr Adams is I am unable to argue at length about the ideas being discussed in his books or offer much but to offer these couple of small snippets of hope for Joerg. Not to mention that I am not one to have the balls or temerity to go to the kinds of places such as war zones or sites of disaster and make images.
1 pg 100 Beauty in Photography, Essays in Defence of Traditional Values,pub. Aperture 1981
ISBN 0893810800
2ibid page 68
» barb, thanks for the comment, as you know I've been a little busy of late, so I missed your intial comment, yes that image is very poignant, I don't envy the photographer who took it, it's the kind of image that could make or break your career, I doubt that I would have the mettle to even have pressed the shutter.
» Thanks Joerg for taking the time to respond.
Can I ask you this, will the images of the Hurricane still be a cliche in 20 plus years time?
I have watched several trends in art photography come and go here in Australia; "documentary", "installation", the current 'trend' is large prints [digital prints of course] regardless of idea/s. Very few of the early photographers and images I encountered in my early days are still in the 'public arena' these days. Does the same apply in America? Surely the real timeless images will styand the test of time on their own merits alone?
I agree, however, that the wrong message could be being sent by the images of Hurricane Katrina, the issue of art photography and message is a long complex and convoluted one [far beyond my hackeneyed skills].
People will take what they want from any image they see, regardless of the photographer's intentions, and unless these images add something to the long growing history of photography they will ultmately fall away, out of the public's consciousnesses.
You're somewhat missing the point of my post. The issue that you address does exist and one could argue about it - one needs better examples than the work you mention, though, for example the photo of the dead Taleban.
But my main point is a bit different. What I am wondering is what kind of idea is being planted in people's heads about what Hurricane Katrina means when all they see are artsy photos? Or, to put it bluntly, is New Orleans now turning into a photographic cliche? And if so do we really want that?
remember the doco on tv about the 'falling man' photo about someone who fell off one of the twin towers sept 11?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
this picture captured a somewhat perverse sense of stillness within the madness of sept 11 which is probably why it's so remarkable.
for the outsider that is, anyone within the vincinity of Manhatten would probably be sickened.