© Robert Capa (Magnum)
In times when photojournalism is so sensitive about manipulation and staging, the polemic about the famous image by Robert Capa, “Falling Soldier”, continues. I understand the historic interest of the topic, but personally I don”t think that it changes a bit the significance of the image. The location of the shot, or even the fundamental question if the image captures a moment of the real battle, doesn”t change the symbolism, the emergent message that war is the ultimate disregard of the value of human life.
The Spanish culture minister declares in the article, “Art is always manipulation, from the moment you point a camera in one direction and not another”, indeed good photography is always a new viewpoint of a strong message.
From the New York Times:
After nearly three-quarters of a century Robert Capa’s “Falling Soldier” picture from the Spanish Civil War remains one of the most famous images of combat ever. It is also one of the most debated, with a long string of critics claiming that the photo, of a soldier seemingly at the moment of death, was faked. Now, a new book by a Spanish researcher asserts that the picture could not have been made where, when or how Capa’s admirers and heirs have claimed. – read more.
{ 5 } Comments
For the photo in question it doesn”t matter anymore, it has gone from being photojournalism into being art. But it”s a discussion that will always be valid for the present and future of journalism, and photojournalism in particular, as journalists have the greatest of powers: influence. A particular story or photo can change the course of history, and sometimes the distortion or invention of the “truth” can trigger a snowball of events, even if that initial seed wasn”t true.
We need to use commons sense and our own filters on what we receive from the media, but there is the need of trust in the people who make the news stories and images. Every faked or altered event erodes that trust when it”s discovered.
The significance of the image does not change a bit? Really!? I”m stupid but that is by far the dumbest thing on this subject that I have read, to date. Of course it changes everything about its significance. That is why we are all wasting time thinking and talking about it.
Pedro makes an interesting point when he says ”For the photo in question it doesn”t matter anymore, it has gone from being photojournalism into being art.” The question, then, also concerns the way in which temporal distance lessens / mitigates the (possible) duplicity. If the image was taken and published recently the discussion would perhaps be different. Witness the the recent discussions about the work of Edgar Martins, for instance.
Good points.
This image became a symbol of war and death during the spanish civil war. If the image was not taken during the heat of the battle but during practices or any other activity, in my mind does not change the understanding of the message. Capa did not have intention to mislead.
Certainly it is a hot topic …Miguel
Miguel,
I”m not saying that people shouldn”t fake or distort images or stories to achieve certain goals – but when you do that, you start having an agenda, and stop being a journalist. You become part of the story.
Post a Comment