CCC Forum

Eduardo Martins, a "Brazilian war photographer", has recently been exposed as a fake. At The Online Photographer blog, Mike Johnston decided to dedicate his daily article to the story. By any standards, not least his own, Johnston's write-up is lightweight. A fluff piece. It contains no original thought and must have taken, oh I don't know, all of five nanoseconds to write. Johnston earns his living from his website, so it is good to know he spends his time so productively.

Much, much better is the response it provoked from author John Camp. His argument is that nowadays there is no great war photography and it is certainly not worth the risks taken to which those who engage in it expose themselves. Most people who have the misfortune to be caught up in conflicts often have mobile phones and are able to document events. Leaving aside the issue of provenance, even if that is not the case, the world knows what is happening. Wars and atrocities do not go unreported. It is often the limited inability to intervene when those involved are determined to slug it out to the end which is the issue and no amount of reporting, photographic or otherwise, will change that.

That has not always been the case and historically there has been war photography which has occasionally had a bearing the outcome. I am thinking of people like Nick Ut, cited by Camp. Ut's classic shot during the Vietnam war of a naked girl burned by napalm running away from the scene definitely contributed to influencing public opinion and the end of US involvement. I am also thinking of those such as Don McCullin and Robert Capa who produced memorable images which, arguably, justified the risks those photographers took to obtain them. That, though, is in the past. I agree with John Camp when he says that is no longer the case today.

There are probably any number of reasons for that. Maybe one is that it is an example of how the ubiquity of photography is contributing to its devaluation as a medium?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... fraud.html

John Camp raises a valid argument but fails to qualify his meaning of 'war photography'. If as suspected he is referring to a photographer embedded within the military as has occurred since the first world war he probably has a point. I would argue however that even if pictures are taken on a mobile phone by those caught up in a conflict such as events in Syria have shown over the past couple of weeks, then that is still 'war photography', albeit by an amateur.

I suspect this tread might run, so thanks for the post.

Tom

War photographers undertake their activities in several different ways. Embedded is certainly one option, which the military especially favour. Given that any form of conflict is inevitably a nasty, brutal and horrific business which will shock the sensitivities of those unused to it, embedding allows significant control over what gets published. Photographers (and journalists) benefit as it usually improves access and reduces risk, albeit inevitably with limitations on what can be shown and said. Some photographers simply just go to war zones, often independently. There are less restrictions on where they can go and what they can report, although it usually means relying on locals for support. Who do you trust?

Output from those caught up in the fighting is an option, whether as active participants or innocent bystanders, but usually those responsible for producing it are understandably partisan. News organisations are cautious about using such material and will say if they are unable to ascertain its veracity.