Looking for a photographers name ...

Paddy@CIRL

Howdie folks,

I've just been having a chat with my lecturers in college and the talk turned to the social responsibility of documentary photographers. They couldn't remember the name but gave me this story from a couple of years ago about a Sunday papers supplement on a photographer who was travelling with Guerillas in some part of Africa where they came across a small boy. One of the Guerillas used his machete to repeatedly hack the young boy to death. The supplement then printed each shot, frame by frame of the death of this young boy.

Does anyone have any further information on this ? I just can't get my head around how someone could stand back and not do anything to help this boy and instead just take photographs of it.

sNarah

Havent heard this story myself. Did some googling around but no hits.

I presume one of the 'good' reasons could be that it was either shutting his mouth, documenting it and showing it to the world, or getting killed himself...That would be my idea... It's similar to that story of that little, almost death, black girl, sitting on the ground with a vulture looking at her

http://www.gafat.com/news/media/blogs/links/victims/vulture_famine_victim_photo_by_kevin_carter_1994_m.jpg

There s the photo, and in case anyone wonders, the photographer (Kevin Carter) took the photo and then walked of without helping this child. He won a pulitzer for it. But he commited suicide in 1994 and many believe that not helping this little child contributed to this drastic action.

His goodbye note (according to Wiki) went like this:
"I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners...I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky."[3]

challengemaster

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

I just can't get my head around how someone could stand back and not do anything to help this boy and instead just take photographs of it.

At a guess, if he tried to interfere he'd have ended up the same way. I really don't fancy standing in the way of angry people with machettes.

The way I'd see this situation - It was either a case of step back, be the photographer, and let the world know about these things, or be the second machette victim and the world is none the wiser about either of the deaths.
In a way by not doing anything, he really did do something. Either way, I'm sure it was a hard decision to make none the less.

Paddy@CIRL

Obviously enough, there is that other side to it, but I'd rather die with honour than live with that shame.

We were talking further about it and how some photographers become obscessed with this type of shot and how they go looking for the violence and the helplessness of others just to get 'that' shot. Sickens me to my stomach.

challengemaster

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

Obviously enough, there is that other side to it, but I'd rather die with honour than live with that shame.

Well, tbh I think, that if a college class is studying this guy and what he did, then obviously what he did made SOME impact. Makes ya think about things anyway

We were talking further about it and how some photographers become obscessed with this type of shot and how they go looking for the violence and the helplessness of others just to get 'that' shot. Sickens me to my stomach.

Some peoples photography is just what they do... Some people do macro, some do portrait, some do animals and some do cars. They go looking for subjects too.. I suppose the fact of the matter is, it's more socially acceptable to go looking for a car or a flower to take a picture of than violence of human beings. It's still just someone doing their style of photography though..

What lengths would you go to, to get "THAT" car shot? or flower shot? or whatever. It's all relative.

Paddy@CIRL

I'm not talking about war photographers in general, I'm talking about specific people who are after an image of a person being killed, purely for the rush of it. I have HUGE respect for combat zone photographers, it's probably up there as one of the most difficult jobs on the planet.

thedarkroom

Ask yourself - was the attack orchestrated for the benefit of the photographers, as has happened before, or would the attack have occurred regardless of whether or not the photographers were there.
If the photographer had walked away from the scene would it have happened anyway?
If this was the case, would the photographer have been better to record the horrors on the basis that if it was published then the impact might possibly have spurred (or be a part of) some sort of political drive to do something about the situation there.
If no one knows what is happening then there would be no outcry and no action. A picture speaks volumes where words on a page cold easily be flicked over unnoticed.
I'm not saying that I could take the photograph or that the photographer at the scene should or shouldn't, but there is a strong argument to be made on both sides. The photographer has to make that judgement call at the time and when you are in a situation such as that you cannot really say for sue how you will act, you just don't know. Chance are that if you wouldn't take a photograph like that then you would not be in that situation in the first place.
I presume, as part of your studies, that you have read some memoirs of photographers who have covered conflict zones. Look up Don McCullin - 'Sleeping With Ghosts' or Robert Capa - 'Slightly Out of Focus' or Susan Sonntag - 'Regarding the Pain of Others'.
It's not as easy a call to make when you are making moral judgments and decisions.

ThOnda

Have you already seen War Photographer? I can strongly recommend if you are interested in people's stories and how wars/labour/poverty affected their lives. There is also a lot of information about conflict photography too.