Esquire is Esquire. Here's a follow-up, answering many issues raised.
Tom Junod's article deals with people forced with a brute decision; there's a world of a difference between choosing to leap off collapsing Twin Towers and jumping off a Kensington hotel. The newspaper columnist belows answers some of the points raised here.
\tmeh... maybe you should "think different"...
Am thinking different laaah.
Again you miss the point: art(ifice) depicting and interpreting suicide as a human phenomenon: not specifically a person.
If this was a photograph of a woman leaping to her death - your mother - and you saw a photograph of her jumping to her death on the national papers, how would it make you feel? If it was your wife? Your girlfriend? Would you really be so cold and detached, arguing for liberty of the press, responsibility of the individual to filter his own news stories?
Would you be glorifying the :
Why must we censor everything?
attitude then? It's uncanny how people jump to defensive libertine dogma, with a question which presupposes knowledge about everything and censoring. Go on and demonstrate: just how is everything censored?
There were over 30+ reported complaints written into the paper on the last count - all arguing against the indecency of the press with respect to human dignity. Trying to explain human dignity to someone who doesn't grasp it.....
Perhaps there is a cultural difference. In the States, what is there that isn't censored? In the UK, when a princess dies, British people have a reaction to the baseness of the press. That evoked a censor: royalty has privileges.
You can call it lack of taste or offensive, but people have the right to bad taste and to be offensive for christ's sake.
No kidding. And the logic follows, that people with bad taste can expect to be blasted to high hell when they pass such bad taste as journalism. Furthermore, the right to speak up against bad taste is on a par with the right to own bad taste, but don't think for one moment that anyone with bad taste is going to get away with pretending it isn't bad taste. Not for Christ's sake, but for your very own.
\tI, for one, think that it is important that we not use available technologies to record thingsespecially things that are interesting or potentially momentous.
That's interesting.... in courtrooms, there are rules as to what material is recorded. I quite enjoy seeing the sketches by artists of the criminals, often shown in t.v. The same argument about watching executions; the electric chair, hangings and public executions. It says a lot about a nation which parades death in this manner.
Would you have pressed the shutter to take a photograph? Would you really have done that, where you there?
Then people point to war photographers: they take photographs of dead soldiers and civilians. But we do get tired of people debasing Robert Capa or Don McCullin - denigrating either to a comparison to contemporary opportunists who take a snap photograph without any shred of their own humanity in the image.
This is the follow-up article - I thought I'd post it a day late for y'all. It's good reading too.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...971625,00.html