Photography as an instrument of terror

[George Kara]

Most of the time I think of photographers as people interested in the world surrounding them and attempting to memorialize our world. War journalism is essential to document and show us the destruction that men do to one another.

Then there are those who used silver to spread terror and dehumanize our fellow men and women.

witness: withoutsanctuary.org

How on earth could anyone have made postcards from such imagery. May God forgive them.

[Ash]

I don't see why those images are any less poignant than war photography.

They serve the same purpose as etchings did pre-photographic.

[jb7]

While it does seem abhorrent that these pictures could be taken, displayed, copyrighted even,
and it also seems that the photographers, in the whole, were complicit in these acts,
I think its probably better that the pictures were made-
lest we forget, or were never to have known-

I haven't visited their forum, and there are bound to be more informed views there-
but the power of these pictures is far greater in their immediacy, than any amount of words hidden in books-

May they all rest in peace-
words are wholly inadequate-

joseph

[George Kara]

Ash

Perhaps you don't understand. These are all postcards. Like you would send to your mother. "Hi Mom - having a great time lynching some slaves in Biloxi. Here is a photo of one that we just hung. He tried to run free. Hope all is well Your son. "

[Ash]

George I understand perfectly. My point is more along Joseph's lines.

I think, like many upsetting/disgraceful/unthinkable/etc acts, it is better to have a visual record to discuss and never repeat, than to ignore. Your OP ends with a question, and my response would be "because if they didn't, someone else probably did".

[claudiocambon]

Ash-

I think what is abhorrent is the implication that the photographer was implicit in the action, at least morally. "OK, smile everybody!" War photographs are in most cases made with the ultimate wish that what is being witnessed might some day stop happening altogether (one hopes). Here, there is someone who, again, to some unquantified degree, participated, and now makes a retail business out of it, but the tenor of the pictures, and their use show none of the protest we consider inherent to war photography.

That these pictures should exist is not really the issue. Of course they should, for the reasons you cited and more. What George is talking about is what appear to be the reasons for making the pictures, which, again, seem millions of moral miles away from why a war photographer does what he/she does. It's the motivations one perceives and senses that are so abhorrent.

I saw this book when it came out, and I have to say that it was as mortifying as seeing pictures of Nazi concentration camp victims. Incredible shock. It's an amazing book, and as such I recommend it, but it's definitely hard to take.

[Ash]

Claudio the comparison I was going to draw was with Nazism.

I believe there were a number of photographs by members of the KKK. Isn't this one and the same?

Then again you don't know the true intentions of the (now deceased, and often anonymous) photographers. It would be unwise to say that all photographs were taken with the same behaviour or views as the people they depict. However some might also argue that unless the people were taught any different, how would they know what they were doing was wrong? These images are of an era of extreme racism, antisemitism, etc. I don't condone the images at all, but it would be false to assume all these people, photographer included, knew better.

Traditionally hangings were public displays, it was a form of entertainment for many, and a deterrent for the rest.

[claudiocambon]

I agree that we shouldn't imagine the motives too much, because we will probably never know, but these people made some living selling the pictures, and I doubt their clients bought them out of outrage. That's what complicates it for me. War photographers sell their pictures, but hardly ever, I would hope, in an environment that encourages, or approves of the violence depicted.

[Ash]

Each person needs to make a living. If a person is sick to the stomach by their job, but must do it to earn money to feed their family, what would they choose? Once again the moral question of "what would you do to protect your family?". There are too many fantasies you could imagine for why the photographer was chosen to take the photo's, or why the photographer chose to take them.

[claudiocambon]

Each person needs to make a living. If a person is sick to the stomach by their job, but must do it to earn money to feed their family, what would they choose? Once again the moral question of "what would you do to protect your family?". There are too many fantasies you could imagine for why the photographer was chosen to take the photo's, or why the photographer chose to take them.

That's a dangerous moral relativism. So, if the only job in your town is working at a concentration camp, you do it?

White racists in the South knew that vigilantism was wrong and against the law, but they also knew they could get away with it, because these killers were hardly ever prosecuted.

Again, it's horrible enough that people wanted to commemorate these events, and, if you choose to speculate on the motives, it IS likely that they were for the wrong reasons. I mean, you don't even think for a minute that a black person took ANY of these group shots and made them into postcards.

But what makes it worse is that these became a commodity, and that goes above and beyond the question of who took these and why. It's that people thought these were worth having as objects that makes this all so repulsive and shocking.