RE: Re: Rob A questions
Sep 23, 2003 17:48 PDT
| || After looking at all the Iraq combat/invasion|
photographs I've seen, not one came remotely close to Smith.
This is not being maudlin for the old days. Where is that
level of passion ? Whose pictures emphasized the suffering
of the Iraquis ? Where is the indignation against war, not
this one war, but all wars ? Maybe the millions who marched
against the war aroundthe world would not buy a magazine with
those pictures in them ? Imagine how Smith would have loved
Smith's surge of photos came at a time (mid-coflict) when the editors
were suddenly allowed to publish them (many of his pics had previously
never made it past Pearl Harbor). Audiences hadn't really seen this, and
it made a huge impression to see photos like the Leyte hospital
(Americans, not Japanese, in the beds) and the Smith WW2 photo that
burns the most for me, the baby dying in the GI's hands.
It's hard, though, not to see some of Smith's passion as a mask for his
own egotistical sense of artisitic entitlement -- that *he* was to be
the tool of some Great Message. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.
Years later, we've been I fear jaded by the coverage of Korea, of
Vietnam, of Bosnia, etc -- even as editors would rather sell Salma Hayek
than the siege of Grozny. Real war takes too long -- they want to sell
ad space TODAY.
Do you read the World Press Photo Annuals? The photos are out there, but
little-seen in the U.S.
As an extra treat, visit http://growbag.net too -- do it quick, as of
today they've announced their closure :(