What does this picture tell you? Can it tell a lie?
In a review of Louis P. Masur's The Soiling of Old Glory by Andy Grundberg in The American Scholar titled "A Dangerous Weapon, the reader learns that technology (in this case the camera) can't control what we believe and perceive. We only have ourselves to blame if we deliberately misappropriate a picture for our own personal, selfish motives.
The article does a great service in methodically and artistically explaining the "snap shot in time" above. What seems to be a white man ready to impale a well-dressed black person while he's restrained by another white person is really just only part of the story.
But for opportunists and a media with a short-attention span, it was a divisive racial story pret-a-porter!
After all, pictures don't lie... or can they? If stats lie why can't images?
Here's how Grundberg unfolds the image to add a human perspective to the event. It's interesting to note how Michael Moore chose to take the picture at face value without providing viewers with a contextualized version of the event when he said "that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator thrusting a large flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered" soon after 9/11.
The man in the picture is Joseph Rakes, who was 17 at the time. He never touched Theodore Landsmark - the black man. Examining the negatives of all the photos leading up to the famous one posted above and interviewing witnesses by Masur, we get a better picture of what went on.
"(Landsmark) was just getting up after being punched to his knees by other teenagers. What looks like an attempt to spear him was in reality a split second in an arc in which Rakes swung the flag in front of the victim. The man behind Landsmark, who seems to be restraining him so more blows can be landed, was helping him to his feet and, in (Stanley) Forman's (photographer) next frame, can be seen trying to stop any further carnage. But the contextual frames from Forman's motor-driven camera were deemed less dramatic and thus never entered the maw of spot-news journalism."
It seems to be that a guy like Moore (I shudder at the notion that this person is an award winning "dissident") who claims to be able to access important documents in search of the truth should have dug a little and done his homework in order to preserve and expose the truth. Alas, he was more interested in trimming and tailoring events to fit his version of the truth.
This is just another example about how crucial it is to treat historical records and artifacts with extreme care.
Maybe we should view a picture and always ask, "What really went on?"
Regardless of the events that "actually" took place that day...the image represent "actual" feelings, actions and emotions of the time. It's disturbing from any point of view...or we hope it would be. I'm a patriot, a conservative, a veteran, a woman, a black...and the picture hurts my heart.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a political impetus to wilfully misconstrue actions or photos, then history is always re-written by vested interests .
ReplyDelete11 years of New Labour spin in the UK have taught all of us over here not to believe anything .
Don't always agree with all your views but your blog is always invigorating and thought provoking . All the best .
There is a famous American Civil War photograph that depicts dead soldiers on the battlefield. For a long time people thought these were TRUE pictures of the destruction of war.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that what no one noticed initially is that there was no blood on any of the bodies littering the battlefield. The truth finally came out that the photo had been staged by the photographer, who had asked the soldiers to lay down on the field and look like dead people.
Always question evidence.
Thank you all for your comments and kind words. It makes working at it all the more enjoyable! I try to let stories speak for themselves but hey, I must offer some thoughts, right?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: It's a wonderful point you make that should be kept in mind: the people protesting were not there for a good reason.
Jim: I feel the same way about your stimulating blog! Cynicism is such a dark art I'm both attracted and repulsed at it. It's also great to learn more about the UK.
DC: Ant therein lies the point of the article. Sounds a bit like all those "Big Foot" hoaxes.
Actually, come to think of it repulsed may be a strong word. My friend is a natural cynic - let's just say sometimes frustrating. But always thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteThought provoking - and disturbing. The way the photo was taken (quick shutter, b/w) lends itself to a quick, disturbing reaction to the event recorded. I had to look at it closely to see that the flag was flowing arc-like; but even so, the boy holding the flag doesn't appear to have his body in a way that supports that sort of motion.
ReplyDeleteSince the reing of Photoshop, I tend not to believe photos anyway. ;-)
This is a sharp bunch.
ReplyDeleteTheresa - very perceptive. The article actually begins to build its case discussing photoshop and its ability to produce Merlin-esque photos.
Doesn't it just drive you crazy when people leave dissenting comments as "anonymous?"
ReplyDeleteThanks for this excellent commentary. While it may have been true at one time that a picture was worth a thousand words - in today's technologically advanced world of digital photography - we really need to be wary of whatever images we see.
I like the fact you used an older photo with factual commentary to make this statement.
Excellent work!
Thank you Commentator for understanding the nature of my comment. Sorry to drive you "crazy" BOBO. Judging by your photo choice, you were already very close to arriving there.
ReplyDelete:O)