by Amy Weston/Wenn.com via NY Mag
To borrow a line from The Clash, “London’s burning”. And the photographs of the mayhem are stunning. The above shot here is by Amy Weston/WENN.com, as seen in NY Mag. (That image and a bunch more images from NY Mag here).
I’ve been been near riots of this magnitude on two occasions – Paris in 2005-6 and Seattle WTO riots – neither of which I photographed. I’ve also seen a guy get hit by a car and had my camera at the ready but did not shoot. And plenty of other things that I’ve not wanted to photograph. As a pure photographer, only-career-I’ve-ever-had guy, I’m not sure what’s in me that doesn’t pull me to want to shoot so many of these photos, even when I’ve had the chance (like this post). I’m deeply moved by such images -ala London riots, or trama, or the war in Afghanistan. Often times these images are so important to our culture, but at other times it’s shallow and cold to shoot them. I’m especially conflicted with the images coming out of London.
How about you… When do we shoot? When do we help or decide not to spread the horror?
UPDATE: Interview with the photographer (Amy Weston) that captured the stunning photograph in the earlier post below in an article over here at my Google+ page …offers some insights into what she was thinking and plays well with the ongoing discussion here on the blog and over at my Google+ page. (Add me to a circle if you’re G+ing so I can meet you too).
Boy that’s a great question Chase. I say it’s great because it has two sides to every coin. It is images like these that bring awareness to the global situations. Imagine if no one could relate to the starvation on the continent of Africa (Yes Sarah Palin, it is a continent, not a country), or the atrocities in Libya, Iran, California, and other places we read about. Sometimes you have to pull the trigger and use with caution. The other side of that coin is the suffering side, the thoughts of loved ones and families having to view the image again and again. The perception that we as photographers want our 5 minutes of fame in the lime light, or the worst, to be labelled “paparazzi”. I recall your story about the victim in the auto accident. Photo journalism requires a totally different kind of mentality. I know this because I recall taking out a camera in a war zone, and after miraculously making it out of that area, viewing the images and deleting every single one of them. Yet what I saw still plays in my mind from time to time. So I guess to answer your question, I say shoot, and then decide.
I absolutely would should these photographs if there’s a story to be told — in this particular case there is a very compelling story.
I think personally for me I would shoot because I would want to document what’s happening. These things will happen whether or not you take a photo or not.
The exception would be when you can actually do something to prevent a tragedy. For example, someone is about to be clubbed from behind and you see the assailant walk up with a weapon. Hopefully everyone would jump in and stop it, or at the very least, warn the would-be victim. I hope no one would sit back and “hope for something to happen so that they can get a dramatic Image”.
Very well said there Chase ”…it’s shallow and cold to shoot them”. I totally agree.. Unless it is your sole purpose to be their at that right moment, and there are others/professionals assisting the problem its every human beings ”must” to help others in need, at times of distress.
I do think sometime in cases like this as a photographer the human side takes over instead of the photographer reactions. But it’s really tuff to know if you would capture this or try to help people.