Don McCullin is quite the accomplished war photographer, having won a significant awards such as World Press Photo Award, Warsaw Gold Medal, Cornell Capa Award, and being the first photojournalist to win the CBE award. Born in 1935 in northern London, his career began as an aerial photographer, but after having a photo of a London gang published in the Observer his career exploded with work that spans across the world. McCullin has captured a variety of events in Cyprus, the Congo, Biafra, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Middle East. He has become well known for his war photos, and ones that depict living conditions of people in lower class society.
Before reading Regarding the Pain of Others I had no knowledge of Don McCullin or the plethora of aspects that go into war photography. From looking at three of McCullin’s photos I get a glimpse at the power of candid shots, how retouching a photo can ruin the meaning, and the toll of war on the soldiers. I have also a correlation between war photography and street photography.
This photo at a glance seems like a basic portrait of a soldier. When examining the soldier’s: scuffed up jacket, scratchy beard, and dirty hands the viewer can infer he has been through a couple battles. His face shows neither pride nor promise, two important qualities a soldier should portray. From his blank stair that stretches for miles, straight mouth that does not frown or smile, and hands grasping the barrel of his gun, and shrugged shoulders all express complete and utter trauma. The this soldier was captured creates an incredible depth of shock he is in.The title of this picture is Shell Shock, despite the name being self explanatory of whats wrong with him, the viewer could have concluded that from the visuals.
“It used to be thought, when the candid images were not common, that showing something that needed to be seen, bringing a painful reality closer, was bound to goad viewers to feel more”(page 259) here Sontag talks about how candid shots show what is needed to be seen. The idea of a candid shot is very important to war photography. It captures the subject in an organic state, by giving no pre requisite that the picture is going to be taken. leaving the subject with no time to pose or change their appearance. From this photo it clear that this is a candid shot. I can see the lack of knowledge that the soldier had because the trauma of what just happened or shock her has put in has disconnected him from reality.
Don was quite known for his pictures from the Vietnam War, such as the image here. The picture is a group of soldiers on top of a tank or some kind of moving vehicle. From a glance the unharmed soldiers are caring for the wounded, such as the guy holding the i.v. for the man with no shirt on, as well as the one with bandages over his face. What we can tell from this picture is that the soldiers definitely have been through a battle.
Looking away, and then looking back at the picture, it is quite clear the soldier with the silhouette from his helmet that conceals half of his face is the subject. Every time when viewing the photo, that one soldier is the first thing That catches my eye. Once seeing the mysterious soldier my eyes began to move in a counter clockwise motions viewing the man with no shirt, then the other wounded soldiers. Besides the soldier that catches my eyes, most of the other soldier’s faces are shrouded in the shadows of their helmets as well, which gives the photo of a darker presence, and the sense all is not well.
The atmosphere McCullin has created though this darker look might not look good in typical photography because it would be considered under exposed, but quoting Susan Sontag In Regarding The Pain Of Others “Uglifying, showing something at it’s worst, is a more modern function: didactic, it invites an active response”(page 60), meaning when a picture has negative qualities it can bring the viewer to a more engaging stance. Putting myself in the shoes of the viewer I would look at this picture and wonder why are they all so huddled close together in fear, what happened to the two soldier with his shirt, or what happened to the soldier with the bandages over his eye? I would also infer that the conditions were brutal because they are all so close together in helpless fear.
In both pictures shell shock and soldiers, they both capture the true suffering of war. Just by looking at pictures: trauma, turmoil, pain, and more are feelings expressed. These pictures both leave us with responses of why are things like this. When Susan Sontag talks about analyzing the dead woman being kicked in the head she says “In fact, the photographer tells us very little-except that war is hell, and that graceful young men with guns are capable of kicking overweight older women lying helpless, or already killed in the head”(page 263), Sontag tries to explain why we shouldn’t create stories from photos only infer. I have to disagree with Susan Sontag because the pictures are quite powerful and with the questions that are left to the viewers, they can tend to create there own stories, to answer there question as do I.
The Last picture I chose from Don, Is one of a US marine throwing a grenade. Apose to the other picture this is different because it doesn't show as much human suffering as the others. The picture becomes more once you pull your eye off the soldier, and begin to explore around looking, and realize that village has been destroyed. It give a glimpse of how bad the conditions were during the war.
Sontag explains how the camera can have a beautifying effect, but in war photography that it can distort the response trying to be achieved. She goes on to say when something is at its worst it is far better than if were ever mad to look good. When I looked at this picture I thought that this isn’t that astounding, but after Regarding The Pain Of Others the gritty feel the picture has an effect on expressing visually how terrible conditions were. This picture also becomes more of a landscape photo, Susan mentions that a “landscape of devastation is still a land scape. there are beauty in ruins”(page257). From this I pull away that this may be just ruble, but it also has an artistic manner to it, which creates beauty from it.
In my personal life I enjoy photography as a hobby, and something that is prevalent in my life. When I read the part about candid photos in Sontag’s essay I immediately thought of street photography. One of my favorite genre of photography is street photography. One of the most important aspects of street photography are candid shots, the objective is to capture your subject with no realization that the photo is going to be taken. By doing this you capture the subjects raw state of thought that they are lost in, which cant be be replicated if asked to pose.
After reading the essay I looked at photos from one of my favorite artists Eric Kim, who is a International Street Photographer. A lot of the subjects harley ever look at the camera. When looking back at the picture of the soldier with shell shock their facial expressions were almost identical. One more thing that caught my eye was the grittiness of Kim’s photos which actually adds a certain aura , even though it is not war photography.
Overall the Don McCullin truly capture what war really is, something that has a terrible impact on both soldiers, and everything around it. Don conveys these ideas through his style of candid shots, as well as leaving the photo in a raw form, meaning he didn’t change the way it looks to make it more visually appealing. In turn allows the viewer to really depict how war really is. By reading "Regarding The Pain Of Others" I have also reflected on my personal interests.

Photo Credits
Shell Shock- http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2010/2/4/1265294749362/Shellshocked-soldier-006.jpg
US Marine- http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2010/2/11/1265883783927/Don-McCullin-US-Marine-hu-005.jpg
Soldiers- http://images.artnet.com/WebServices/picture.aspx?date=20041118&catalog=69952&gallery=111548&lot=00157&filetype=2

Posted by Shaz at 2:36 PM