| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2006 01:23:19 PM · #1 |
I understand that there are many in the US (and the World) with polarized views on the War in Iraq. This Forum is not intended to Debate the War.
I was asked last summer to help a friend that had been assigned to cover a concert at the War Protest in DC. Since she had a good location in the front row to shoot the musicians she asked me to wander around and catch images of the people in the crowd. The image below presented itself to me and I clicked the shutter. It was not staged by myself in anyway. I just captured the moment. When reviewing the images from the day this one seemed to strike an emotional chord. I titled the image based on that. I called it "True Cost of War". I thought the title described the scene accurately. War isn't measured by the billions of dollars spent but by the loss of human life. In the wake of each loss is a family left in grief. Each trying to find a way to process that grief and the emotional toll paid by their family.
This image has been a part of my portfolio since because I feel it provokes a powerful, emotional response. I added it to my DPC Portfolio on January 6, 2006 and placed it in the Political and Photojournalist Galleries. I specifically chose not to put it in Military because I did not feel it was appropriate.
So here is the controversy...
Yesterday I received 3 comments. I will leave the names of those who sent them out of this post because I am not trying to start anything and welcome all comments negative and positive. These are the only comments received for this photo.
Comment #1
02/14/2006 05:08:26 PM
Lame statement!!!
Comment #2
02/14/2006 05:37:47 PM
last time I checked, the armed forces were voluntary....
last time I checked, dying for the cause of the less fortunate and your countrymen is considered honorable...
Comment #3
02/14/2006 07:49:55 PM
I agree with (Previous Comment / Name Deleted in this Post)
My Question to the DPC community is this....
Do you think these comments are directed at me, the photographer or the subject in Photo and the statement they were trying to make about the War? How do you interpret them?
 |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 01:52:42 PM · #2 |
| I would only interpret the comments as expressing their views - just like the guy you photographed. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:02:12 PM · #3 |
I read those comments as disagreeing with the statement being made by the subject, not you or your image per se.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:06:20 PM · #4 |
I never interpret ANYTHING said in comments as being directed at me personally, unless the commenter singles me out and makes it obvious: "Bear, you're full of BS!", whatever. These comments seem to me a comment on the image, or more specifically the message conveyed by the image. The commenters don't agree with it. You're transparent in this sense, you are not your image here, you are the recorder of somebody else's statement.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:11:45 PM · #5 |
| I too think that the comments were about the image (statement), not about you personally. And regarding the image, I guess you can't really feel someone else's pain of losing a loved one. I am sure the guy hates Bush for sending in so many soldiers and invading a country which posed no real threat to USA, for something that wasn't there at all, and getting so many soldiers and civilians killed for no good reason. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:15:47 PM · #6 |
| The true cost of war is some guy accusing bush of murder? You have a bad title. If you want to remain neutral be very general with your title. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:25:03 PM · #7 |
| Your image has evoked emotion. To me it means it̢۪s a good shot and the comments should be taken as a compliment. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:41:20 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:52:47 PM · #9 |
"even thoug composition is fine, and it's a well captured image, it's the second most boring subject in this challenge, sercond only to the american flag with lots of unreadable graffiti...
soldiers dying is not a sad thing, it's part of their job and it's also their choice !"
Always 1 thorn among the roses. <>
At least the poster found my image emotive--if also, somehow, boring.
=) |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 02:55:13 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Niten:
The true cost of war is some guy accusing bush of murder? You have a bad title. If you want to remain neutral be very general with your title. |
'The Cost of War', IMO, would be an appropriate title. Any objections to it would only reflect what the image does already.
The comments are a little 'lame' themselves, except one (which was elicited by this thread), when we consider the genre. It doesn't, in my view, really matter what their intended target was: they have no useable purpose.
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 14:55:41. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 03:07:18 PM · #11 |
No matter what your politics are, no matter what your religion or beliefs, the cost of war is always the death of children, on all sides, and far too many.
It's never a proud or happy moment for a parent to lose a child.
It's the ones who are left behind who feel the pain.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2006 03:17:16 PM · #12 |
maybe putting a statement like you did for opening this thread, where you were, what it was for etc. the context of this picture might make more sence to some people.
edit: With no context people might take it as YOUR statment and react that way.
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 15:18:11. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 03:35:26 PM · #13 |
| All images we present carry a statement. The artist often combines image and title to complete the message. Some messages have a strong delivery and those that depict social, religious or war time topics will always rub some people the wrong way. I always avoid such messages in my images because of the zealots on both sides. However, comments are more to the image and what it conveys or fails to convey. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 06:25:58 PM · #14 |
Shouldn't comments left in our galleries be about the quality of the photo, and not about the political statement of the photo? I used to do some interpreting, and I often had to sign things that I didn't believe or agree with. I was just doing my job. Yet, I often found myself being screamed at for what, in fact, the deaf person said. The photographer was just doing their job. He/She doesn't neccessarily agree with the statement being made by the subject, but people are still yelling at him/her for it.
BTW, I would view the death of any young person as sad/tragic soldier or not.
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 18:28:40. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 06:49:36 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
"even thoug composition is fine, and it's a well captured image, it's the second most boring subject in this challenge, sercond only to the american flag with lots of unreadable graffiti...
soldiers dying is not a sad thing, it's part of their job and it's also their choice !"
Always 1 thorn among the roses. <>
At least the poster found my image emotive--if also, somehow, boring.
=) |
It is always a sad thing when a soldier dies, but it is also a dutiful thing. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 08:07:31 PM · #16 |
I posted a comment on the photo.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2006 08:08:54 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I never interpret ANYTHING said in comments as being directed at me personally, unless the commenter singles me out and makes it obvious: "Bear, you're full of BS!", whatever. These comments seem to me a comment on the image, or more specifically the message conveyed by the image. The commenters don't agree with it. You're transparent in this sense, you are not your image here, you are the recorder of somebody else's statement.
R. |
What he said!!! |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 08:16:47 PM · #18 |
i think thats a great picture and that the title is more than apropriate (however badly i spelled it). in the title you didn't mention your own opinion on the war itself.
i lost an uncle in vietnam. how i felt about the war is insignificant. it cost me an uncle.
i think the shot is great and the title is fine. |
|
|
|
02/15/2006 08:17:09 PM · #19 |
[quote=KaDi] soldiers dying is not a sad thing, it's part of their job and it's also their choice !"
Dying is not part of a soldiers job anymore then it is part of a police officers, coal miners, bridge builders or any other persons job. Last week 7 postal workers died on the job and I would bet that it was no where in theri job description.
The statement should read that their job is very dangerous and sometimes they die while performing their duties and protecting us. There are over 3 million men and women in the United States armed Services and sadly we have lost several thousand in the past 3, almost 4 years. But it is in no way a "part of their job".
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 05:58:39 PM EDT.
