Last class we looked at a brief history of war photography with it's American beginnings of Mathew Brady and the documentation of the American Civi War (Article about Roger Fenton, most likely the first war phtogographer of all time is above.) Brady thought it would be a good idea to photograph the entire war and was sure the American government would later purchase his photos and he would at least make back the $100,000 or so he had invested in the project. While Brady hired roughly 20 photographers such as Alexander Gardner and Timothy O'Sullivan to work under him, part of the deal was that they could not attain any personal credit for their work and everything shot by them was to be signed as Mathew Brady. This of course did not suit some of the photographers and they went on to branch off and do their own work without the supervision of Brady, who actually didn't even shoot the actual war that much but was more in charge of the supervisions and organization of the project. The war had come to an end in 1865 and by 1873 Brady was far in debt, having to sell off his New York studio. He did, however, manage to finally get the gvt. to buy his project for a whopping $2840...for those of you with minimal math skills that's a loss of $97,160.
Mathew Brady, General Ulysses S. Grant, Cold Harbor, Virginia, 1864.
Many of the photographers hired by Brady, such as Gardner were unhappy with not being able to take credit for their work and went on to quit. Gardner had opened up his own studio in D.C. and kept working on the Civil War project without the assistance of Brady and actually had the Photographic Sketch Book of the Civil War, a two-volume collection of 100 original prints, published in 1866.
When Daguerre exclaimed that photography was "an absolute truth, infinitely more accurate than any painting by the human hand," he probably wasn't thinking of how photographers would be using this public perception to not only push their agenda but just as simply fool the public. While the war photographers of the time were not necessarily trying to do either, the facts are simple: photographing action in the 1860s was really hard, photos were staged, war scenes were tampered with for the sake of better photos. Is this acceptable? Does the photographer have a right to do such a thing? Does it matter if the photograph is an absolute truth if it serves a greater purpose like changing people's perception of the world for a greater truth or is that too close to propaganda?
The Library of Congress has some great information about photographing the Civil War if you want to keep looking at that subject matter.
Moving on; we went on to talk about the importance and brutal reality of War Photography, how we've become desensitized to any sort of shock value that used to exist, and how one single photograph can actually change the way we think (and you usually don't have to move a dead body do that anymore!) Without further ado, here are some photographers we looked at. This is not by any means a definitive list, but it's a good start, and like I said, a lot of these folks happen to be Magnum photographers, so you should really just go to their site and start clicking on names; it will be a great way for all of you to find at least 1 new artist you'll like.
The (self proclaimed) greatest war photographer of all time Robert Capa "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."
Micha Bar Am
Eugene Smith
Gilles Peres
Eddie Adams
Nick Ut
Robbie Hodierne
www.vietnamphotography.com
Peter Agtmael did an interview with the Smithsonian.com recently.
Two current artists who are approaching document war in a different way than you may be used to.
photo of Suzanne Opton billboard.
What a coincidence, Nina Berman, currently has a show at Jen Bekman Gallery at 6 Spring St.
Brighton Photo Biennial: the war of images and images of war: Interesting website to take a look at.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment