When Colonel Gadafi was executed, I remember seeing scenes on the news & in the papers of his bloodied body being dragged through the streets. Despite the gravitas of that situation, I’m not sure the graphic nature of the images chosen to depict the event in the media can really be justified. Seeing that image plastered on the internet, across TV channels, and along the newsstand shelves at the local corner shop really shocked me and stuck in my mind. But then again, I suppose that was the idea...
After watching a documentary about war photographer Don McCullin, having heard him talk about the “darkness” in him, and his experiences having “left him with an untrustworthy outlook on humanity”, I can’t understand how someone could subject themselves to sights such as this without coming away mentally scarred. I personally couldn’t do it.
McCullin remarks on his days as a war photographer "I'm not what you'd call clean...there were moments when I was excited about it, which was totally wrong." Does this make him a voyeur?
Having said this, I have to admit that while reading this 2010 article from the Guardian (below), regarding the media's coverage of the stoning of a man in Somalia, I felt compelled to seek out the mentioned images for myself. This doesn’t, however, mean I enjoy viewing them. There is a certain thrill, an adrenaline rush, when you see something out of the ordinary. It is the same horror movies and roller coasters are so popular.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan
In
the long run, if you remove the camera from the situation, such as this brutal execution in Somalia, it isn’t
going to stop it. So, in one respect these images are merely bringing issues such
as war, execution etc into the light. They show viewers things they would not
know existed otherwise, who are then able to see the truth about the world and voice their opinions on such matters, but not, necessarily, be directly effected by them.
No comments:
Post a Comment