A picture is worth a hundred books, they say. Indeed it is, but in multiple ways and senses. In our blog today, given the World Photography Day, let us explore some of these many facets.
Apparently, a pic can conscientise the entire world wordlessly. The best example of this truth, verified at that, would be the photograph of Ailan Kurdi's dead body that transformed the very outlook towards the migrants, given the plight of the innocent children, more victimised than even women, as they had no say, zilch control over the large scale issues that 'object'ified them.
Yet are pictures objective? Are they clean and innocent? Yes, and no! Actually, mostly no! Let us remember two famous pics that 'shook' the world. The first one is that of the 'Third World Mona Lisa'. Read up the entire history to understand how actually it is 'his'story, how an 'ace', much 'advertised' before and after, photographer treats an ethnic immigrant for a great shot.
Sure he violates her personal space. He 'touches up' the pic as well. He is 'advertised' into greatness, gets a lifetime of celebrity status, while her difficult life becomes more impossible due to the falsified truth in that 'pic'!
Extremely sensitive and ethical issues are involved in a pic. And, oh, yes, I am indeed happy that such a feel dominated my analysis of the Manipur video in my blog, dated July 23, and entitled "Truly disturbing".
Let me explain the concept a little. In "Cultural Studies", "Liberal Arts" kind of syllabi, often there is this debate about "visual history". My submission, to begin with, is that this 'vision' is indeed problematic because pics are 'touched' up, or are 'photoshopped' to use the current lingo.
Next, they inevitably reflect, and immortalise, a certain 'politics', (set a narrative, to use the pop term today!) that is, the entire, and absolutely not innocent, chain of 'who' chooses 'what' to shoot, 'why', from 'which' angle, 'when', and 'where', and finally 'who' publishes it 'when' 'how' 'where', or never!
Each of these terms is hugely loaded, and has tremendous repercussions. In my opinion, here a book, even a short story, would be far 'truer' and authentic because the sight of literature, both denotatively and connotatively, is never narrow, unlike the camera lens!
Much worse in my opinion is the photo-genetic(!) effect on the photographer, and in the last analysis, on the viewership. This issue was what I referred to in my blog on July 23. How can anyone calmly continue to shoot/store/share a pic/a video while an atrocity is actually taking place right in front of one's eyes? The videographer/photographer has to be as satanic as, if not 'knowingly' more than, the perpetrators!
Much worse, such pics (a parallel would be people making camera reels of an accident victim dying, instead of using that very mobile to call an ambulance) make the whole society in to unconcerned witnesses who are disgusting alibi to a horror.
Such stony insensitivity, (though glorified then as commitment to the duty of 'reporting'), earlier visible in war photography such as the 1972 Napalm Girl pic shows, has now sipped in to most citizens, and that is the real tragedy.
How to solve this problem? May be, there could be from higher secondary school onwards, such discussions in schools. May be, parents let children know that conscious cruelty is not a joke, not laugh-worthy, but heinous. Otherwise, slowly but surely, in the as of now unruly, AI days, sensitivity and truth would die thousand deaths every second!
Pratima@The worst crime is to stand by (and create history with camera) when an atrocity of any intensity/magnitude takes place. No punishment is enough for it as it objectifies reality to dehumanise everything!
No comments:
Post a Comment