Photographic perversion: mid-suicide photograph

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...970806,00.html



(Jon Bushell's capture of this event for the newspapers elicits a personal reaction from those who have seen his image on the national English paper).



My thoughts and prayers to the relatives and friends of the deceased American. At the same time, a thought in anger at the failure of a photographer to censor his role for humanity's sake.

Comments

  • Reply 2 of 14
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Justin

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...970806,00.html



    (Jon Bushell's capture of this event for the newspapers elicits a personal reaction from those who have seen his image on the national English paper).



    My thoughts and prayers to the relatives and friends of the deceased American. At the same time, a thought in anger at the failure of a photographer to censor his role for humanity's sake.




    Cf. Junod, Tom. The Falling Man.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Why must we censor everything? The guy is entitled to photograph stuff clearly in the public realm. 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.



    Like it or not, it is incredibly jarring to see images of things like people taking their own lives and/or dieing. It makes us think and discuss. I understand most people would like to sanitize their lives to the point of never having to think about really heavy subjects, but that's too bad for them.



    I wouldn't go around posting these in kindergarten classes, but there's no reason adults can't ever see things like this and evaluate how what they are seeing makes them think and/or feel.



    And I've see 3 people die right before my eyes in my rather young life, all 3 horrifically. So I'm not removed from this type of imagery in any way.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    I, for one, think that it is important that we not use available technologies to record things?especially things that are interesting or potentially momentous.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    "Why must we censor everything? "



    This is a question of judgment, not censorship. If I were in position to capture someone jumping from a building and hitting the pavement, I would probably shoot like a maniac. After thinking about it, I hope that I would never let the images see the light of day. I would never tell you to do the same, but I hope that you would.

  • Reply 6 of 14
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    like a soldier who is trained to aim and shoot, a photographer will do the same.. out of pure training and instinct..





    not much to argue about..
  • Reply 7 of 14
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    So where's the actual image?
  • Reply 8 of 14
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Cf. Junod, Tom. The Falling Man.



    That was an excellent read. Thanks for posting it.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous

    Why must we censor everything? The guy is entitled to photograph stuff clearly in the public realm. 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.



    I agree. It is the responsibility of the individual, or for that matter the publication, to choose to view or not view these photos. The photographer is not to blame.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Remember Sniper Street in Sarajevo? Now THERE was something ro get upset about.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    That was an excellent read. Thanks for posting it.



    It is an amazing piece. I love Tom Junod's work for Esquire.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    justinjustin Posts: 403member
    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.





    Quote:

    \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 :



    Quote:

    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.



    Quote:

    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.





    Quote:

    \tI, for one, think that it is important that we not use available technologies to record things?especially 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.



    [QUOTE]



    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





    Good night
  • Reply 13 of 14
    Quote:

    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.



    And I'm sure there were 300+ people who found the photograph fascinating and liked the piece of photojournalism for what it was: a testimony of human frailty.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,278member
    Human dignity? What's that?
Sign In or Register to comment.