Step back. Think about the visual stimulants which overwhelm every second of the day. Really consider the vast mass of photographs, videos, and music which swamp the lives of Americans. After this step back to reflect, it is safe to say that we live in a media-enriched society--or maybe media-dependent is more suitable.
Now concentrate on one of these stimulants. The photograph. In this media-dependent society, photographs play the lead role. I can personally attest to the fact that the majority of students my age check the photographs on Facebook roughly ten times a day. We see photographs on the internet, photographs in our textbooks, on billboards, in stores, the pages of magazines are littered with photos; the list is endless. The power of these photographs are endless as well. In Susan Sontag’s essay “Regarding the Pain of Others” she discusses photography’s power to transform. Focusing on war photography, Sontag proves that the repulsive can be photographed and transformed in a beautiful document.
Sontag states that, “In a world in which photography is brilliantly at the service of consumerist manipulations, no effect of a photograph of a doleful scene can be taken for granted” (1). Here she argues that in today’s society, every picture can influence the public. Even “doleful” photos have a great power to provoke emotions in the viewer. The emotions which then become associated with the photograph transform them into beautiful pictures in the viewer’s mind. Sontag continues on to focus on war photography and the corresponding sentiments and feelings (1). She acknowledges the presence of emotions such as, “pity, compassion, [and] indignation” (1), which cause the viewer to feel sympathy. Agreeing with Sontag, I can attest to the fact that sympathy forces the viewer to appreciate the photograph they are viewing. Feelings have a significant role in how you perceive a photograph.
Think back to September 11, 2001. This day sends shivers down the spines of Americans. I can remember sitting in my third grade classroom when suddenly the telephone of my teacher, Mrs. Lynn, began to ring. She answered. Then I saw tears. The woman who I looked up to was suddenly crying in the middle of class and we students had no idea what provoked this unexpected sadness. After this phone call was terminated, another series of ring-rings echoed through our classroom. And then again. Multiple students were being dismissed from school early. And then it was my turn. I was called down to the office to see my mother standing there with fear in her eyes. She hugged me for the longest time and took me home. Immediately upon our arrival, she turned on the television to show and explain that the Twin Towers in New York City had been hit by terrorists. The video reel of the plane crashing into the identical skyscrapers played on repeat on every news station. It is unforgettable.
Although a disaster at the time, one positive consequence of September 11th is that it brought the nation together as a unit. Schools, towns, and communities across the nation joined together in 9/11 relief foundations or fundraising. Looking back on that year, even though I personally was too young to fully comprehend the severity, I can remember our school hosting various assemblies to explain the situation and plan strategies to do our part in the relief efforts. When discussing this infamous date, individual memories are extremely vivid. Everyone can remember where they were, who they were with, and what happened when they heard the news of that tragic day. However, individual memories are not all that we remember. As a country, we use collective memory to piece together the events of this period in time. Sontag discusses collective memory claiming that, “[it] is not a remembering but a stipulating: that this is important, and this is the story about how it happened, with the pictures that lock the story in our minds. Ideologies create substantiating archives of images, representative images, which encapsulate common ideas of significance and trigger predictable thoughts, feelings” (1). By “stipulating” or piecing together a collective memory using the perspective of others and ourselves, we came together as a nation because it was no longer “our story” but it was a nationwide memory. Sontag adds that the photographs of that day also contribute to the collective memory because photographs have the ability to take a still-shot and “lock the story in our minds” (1).
Reflect on the photographs of the infamous day. It was horrifying to see the damage and destruction. The dead bodies, the debris, the smoke, the rescue teams. People could only describe the photographs as “surreal” (1). Yet despite the surreal-ness of these images, the photographs are beautiful. It seems uncanny to describe a “graveyard” as beautiful however, as Sontag explains, “[t]here is beauty in ruins” (1). Photographs have the power to transform an ugly thing such as the ruins of 9/11 into beautiful memories. Even though capturing a horrifying moment in time, I still can see the beauty in the photographs of Ground Zero. Photographers who concentrated on the aftermath of September 11th created collections of beautiful photographs of such an ugly time in American history.
Examine the photographs of expert photographer Joel Meyerowitz. With extreme perseverance, Joel Meyerowitz became the only official photographer allowed to document the ruins of the World Trade Center for a nine month span after September 11th. He displays these photographs in a collection of over eight hundred, called “Aftermath”.
*PHOTOGRAPH #1*
Study this image and visualize the event occurring before your own eyes. Flying over Ground Zero, which is a zone of death, is a flock of birds that are lively. The contradiction in this photograph transforms the land of hopelessness into land of the hopeful. Life is flying above the destruction below, symbolizing that Ground Zero will recover from the horrible past. Meyerowitz accompanies the photo with a personal quote, “I don't know whether it was the crack of the cables snapping that disturbed them, or pure chance that they were passing overhead, but for a few minutes the sky was full of birds wheeling through the sunlight and smoke, their calls and whistles bringing a touch of nature, momentarily, back to the zone” (2). Meyerowitz describes how the simple presence of birds flying over the destruction zone below transforms the photograph into that of nature and life. This photograph reminds me of a section of Sontag’s essay where she acknowledges the authenticity of war photographs when they resemble a paused scene in a war movie (1). She refers to the “cinematic effect” which I think relates to this particular photograph because directors use birds to symbolize peace and hope in a plethora of films. The release of a flock of birds over a dead war zone subliminally shows the viewer that there will be an improvement. The Meyerowitz photograph captures a moment that resembles that of a movie, which transforms this photo into a authentic and beautiful war photograph.
*PHOTOGRAPH #2*
Inspect the foreground and background of this Meyerowitz photograph. The foreground captures the machines hauling off debris and cleaning the damaged ground. While simultaneously the background displays the sunlight highlighting the buildings surrounding the area. Meyerowitz describes, “As I stood there on the November evening, watching the light play and fade on the buildings as the dinosaurs beneath them danced their mad to-and-fro, it all looked wondrous” (3). This photograph and description by Meyerowitz remind me of Susan Sontag’s idea from “Regarding the Pain of Others” which states that, “...the landscape of devastation is still a landscape” (1). The foreground of this photograph displays the devastation being cleared away, a description that does not sound beautiful. However, the total photo, with the light in the background and the haze of smoke, the shot creates a beautiful landscape. The contradiction in this photograph, the part which I believe makes the photograph most beautiful, also reminds me of Sontag’s essay. It “gives mixed signals. Stop this it urges. But it also exclaims, What a spectacle!” (1). The mixed signals in this particular photograph are that the light above shining on the surrounding buildings are the “spectacle” while the machines below in the darkness create an opposite effect. Looking on the photograph as a whole, with the devastated landscape and contradictions, it is stunning.
*PHOTOGRAPH #3*
Observe the sparks flying through the air. The sparks illuminate the sky behind the last column, which brings light to such a dark place. Meyerowitz captured a prominent moment in the World Trade Center cleanup as a welder cuts down what was referred to as the “last column”. When first glancing at the photograph, the sparks resemble Christmas lights, which symbolizes joy. The moment of cutting down the last column standing of the buildings which were brutally attacked, was captured beautifully. Sontag states in her essay, “And photographs are a species of alchemy, for all that they are prized as a transparent account of reality” (1). Alchemy refers most commonly to the transformation of base metals into gold. This definition is appropriate because the bland and destroyed landscape of Ground Zero alludes to the base metals. However, the outcome, the beautiful photographs by Joel Meyerowitz, are gold. Altering such a morbid scene into something beautiful is quite a challenge; however, after careful analysis of his photographs, I believe that Joel Meyerowitz overcomes this challenge.
Step back into reality. The photographs will continue to fly by your eyes with minimal analysis as to the message or why the photographer captured that moment. But, maybe after reflecting on a disaster such as 9/11 and the resulting, beautiful photographs, you can think again about the true meaning. Art is everywhere and it is hard to ignore the beauty. Photographs make time stand still. They have the power to transform an ugly situation into something spectacular. Susan Sontag highlights this power and applies it to the infamous day of September 11, 2011. Thinking back, I now can appreciate the once appalling photographs of the rubble as beautiful documents that generate beauty out of the wreckage.

Works Cited
Sontag, Susan. "Regarding the Pain of Others." Other Words A Writer's Reader. (2009): 257-265. Print.

PHOTOGRAPH #1
"Joel Meyerowitz's World Trade Center Archive." Phaidon. Phaidon Press, 08 09 2011. Web. 19 Oct 2011. .

PHOTOGRAPH #2
"Joel Meyerowitz's World Trade Center Archive." Phaidon. Phaidon Press, 08 09 2011. Web. 19 Oct 2011. .

PHOTOGRAPH #3
"Joel Meyerowitz's World Trade Center Archive." Phaidon. Phaidon Press, 08 09 2011. Web. 19 Oct 2011. .

Posted by Shaz at 2:21 PM 0 comments  

Images can affect each person in a different way. Each image a person sees can do either good or bad for that specific person. That is the point of photography, to induce a reaction that people can either relate too, or shy away from. This is the thought process used by advertisers advertising against a certain product. The Canadians used horrible photographs of organs to try and prevent people from smoking and the author in the essay is a little skeptical.
In the essay “Regarding the Pain of Others” by Susan Sontag in the book Other Words, a section of the essay talks about a smoking problem in Canada. On each package of cigarettes was a warning that talked about the horrible side effects of cigarettes. They believed that this tactic wasn’t working so they decided to make things worse. Many people would agree that an image of something horrific is much more powerful than the description of something horrific. Not only is it more powerful, but it is much more likely to be seen by someone because images can catch ones eye much better than words can. They decided to change it. “Canada, where it had been estimated that smoking kills 45,000 per year, decided to supplement the warning printed on every pack of cigarettes with a shock-photograph --- of cancerous lungs, or a stroke-clotted brain, or a damaged heart, or a bloody mouth in acute periodontal distress.”These images were very gross and disgusting. Susan Sontag believes that over time these images can lose their effect on the people they are intended to effect. I however do not believe that that is the case.
While it is true that these types of pictures have an effect on everyone that is seeing them for the first time, this effect can linger even if the person doesn’t think it will. Sontag talks about how these pictures don’t always work, that there effect can be decreased over time. “But do people want to be horrified? Probably not.” Many people by themselves will see these images on the cigarette packs and a few of them will quit smoking because of it. Many of them will not quit and continue to smoke by themselves and in front of their friends. Now while these people are in front of their friends smoking, they are bound to pull out the pack in front of them. And from there at least one of the friends is going to see that image and point it out. If they are not a smoker themselves they are not going to be very conservative in their opinion of an image like that. An image like that sparks not only feelings of disgust, but questions on whether or not smoking is worth it. From there the other people would notice the pictures and would also be disgusted with smoking. They would then place pier pressure on the smoker and reactivate the original feeling seen by the picture in the first place. The pier pressure in itself could eventually make the smoker change his mind. All these points come down to the person’s mindset, and although peer pressure can effect it, it’s not everything.
Although the images that would be shown on these packs are very horrific and very much possible, they are only the worst case scenario. The Canadian Government intended to put the most powerful images on these cigarettes and those happened to be the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is most certainly not the majority and therefore you could call these photographs staged. Not staged in the sense that they are not real, but staged in the sense that they are only showing you the worst and not the usual or average result of smoking. The same could be said about war photographs. Many of the photographs taken in War were photos that were staged to make the battles look more bloody, to rally the country behind the cause and the reasons why this war was taking place. “Not surprisingly many of the canonical images of early war photography turn out to have been staged, or to have their subjects tampered with.” Specifically there are two photos both taken by Roger Fenton, a photographer a British war photographer considered one of the first of his kind, of the Valley of the Shadow of Death. These photos are of the same road, but one picture has cannonballs in the road and the other one has the cannonballs in a ditch on the side of the road. Susan Sontag believes that in the second photo Fenton oversaw the moving of the cannonballs from the ditch on the side, to being scattered across the road. There is obviously no evidence that this happened but she proposes an interesting idea regarding staged photos. These photos can paint a picture that is so much stronger than what actually happened in that situation. For that reason is why they are so controversial. There are people on both sides of the issue, whether they are good in trying to help rally people behind a cause, or that they are not true so they ruin an entire point. The fact of the matter is, many photos taken during wars were staged and photographers wanted the images of the war to be more powerful than what they were seeing on many occasions.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/
Roger Fenton was a very interesting man. He was born in Crimble Hall, Heap, Bury, Lancashire, on March 28, 1819 to a very rich family. He graduated from University College London with a “first class” Bachelor of Arts degree. He went to Paris to learn the waxed paper calotype process, most likely from his inventor and soon after that his photos were being displayed all over England. Then in 1855 he went to take photos of the Crimean War on assignment. This war was fought between the allied forces of the French, British and Ottoman Empire, along with a few other smaller sections, versus the Russians. The war was fought from October of 1853 to February of 1856 and ended in an Allied victory. Fenton returned from the war with over 350 negatives which later turned into an exhibition of 312 prints. He was sent as the first official war photographer by the insistence of Prince Albert to try and turn the British people’s opinion of an unpopular war and counteract the antiwar reporting in The Times. That right there is evidence to why many of the photos taken by him during the war could have been staged. If he is trying to turn the tide of the war in the minds of the British people, then why wouldn’t it make sense to try and take a photo of the most powerful image as possible?
It is also very clear to many people which photograph was taken first and which was taken second and therefore the staged one. One of the photos has all of the cannonballs in a ditch on the side of the road and none of them in the road at all. This is believed to be taken first as he first arrived on the sight. Many of the cannonballs fell into the dirt because of gravity and travel along the road. The second photo has cannonballs all over the road that were in the ditch in the first one. Now from there it gets tricky. Ulrich Keller the author of “The Ultimate Spectacle: A Visual History of the Crimean War” argues that the photo with the cannonballs in the road has to have been taken second. He believes that there is no psychological argument as to why Fenton would move the cannonballs that were already on the road because that is a great scene. He most likely wanted to increase the value of the image by adding the cannonballs to the road to make the quantity look bigger and show that the Russians were trying to kill many British soldiers. From there I do believe that these staged photos were very useful and powerful in displaying the images that were needed to help the cause in England.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsakNxs3pbLq3pdWgPsw36xzHcNfsMmWkiycyFbFWdOfkT9grwO5U6mq3Lj0CPe7vjuHP_b67erIg1qh16CwgnkWa-pxGZ68Xw_PHGm-djMPAp6uhzhpfi799GpGVbIpfi8J9ip9oEcCI/s1600/roger+fenton+4.jpg
Another photo taken by Roger during the war was a very gruesome picture of hillside that was attacked. In the photo there is at least one dead soldier who has not had a good time by the look of this. This photo probably was not staged because usually staged photos do not include dead bodies for obvious reasons. The reason why this photo is very powerful is obviously because of not just the dead soldier but also the destroyed landscape that he is in. This photo is in the special case of photos that wouldn’t need to be staged. The image doesn’t need any enhancing to be more powerful or have a stronger impact on people. However this photo is in the minority and most war photos of this time are not as powerful, because of the equipment and its limitations during that time. All three of these images are tied to Sontag’s essay in one simple way. They present powerful images than cannot dissipate in impact over time. None of these images will lose their effect on people as they see them more often.
The combination of powerful images and staged photos is a hard balance to create. The fact that powerful images catch the eye of people that are seeing them makes it a photographer want to go to great lengths so that people will see their work and enjoy their work. Some of those great lengths mean that they have to stage the photo and if it’s to prove a point then I agree with it.

Posted by Shaz at 2:33 PM 0 comments