Hi, Bob, Comments interspersed with your text:
Bob Walkden wrote: > Hi, > > if the criterion for inclusion is impact That was what I chose for one of the criteria. I don't think that everyone else has to, and I didn't mean to imply that others have to - just a personal choice is all. There were other criteria involved as well, I just didn't articulate them. > , presumably meaning > world-changing impact, I suppose we'd have to be thinking about things > like Rosalind Franklin's photographs (are they photographs?) of the > structure of DNA, Did that change anything, or did it record/confirm what experiments told us that DNA would look like? > perhaps Mohammed Amin's photos of the 1984 famine in > Ethiopia, Absolutely. Those photos mobilized the world to gather relief for those famine victims, and raised awareness of conditions in third world countries. > the photos of the missile bases in Cuba in 1962, the Nazi > concentration camps. > > I'm not sure that individual photographs change things very much. I > think that in general change is the result of many photos and a great > deal of writing, and TV and so on. True, but some photos have more impact than others. The photo of Kim Phuc is an example. Did it turn the tide of American or possibly world opinion against America's involvement in Vietnam? On it's own, no. But it was more powerful than many other images, and more influential than many others, I think. > > > Photos of great events such as the Berlin Wall coming down didn't > change anything, they are just memorable records of an event that was > happening anyway. Agreed > The same is probably true of some of the others > listed here, such as the Kent State photo. It may have had a lot of > impact in the USA, but it doesn't mean much outside. It had a great deal of impact in the US, to be sure. I chose it, not only because of it's impact, but because I think it's a great photo. The anguished cry coming from the girl over her fallen fellow student is heartwrenching, no matter what situation gave rise to it. In fact, it did provide the anti-war movement with a great deal of public sympathy (and I make no comment as to whether that was a good or bad thing - the fact is that it did happen that way). > Capa's photos > didn't really change anything on a global scale. No more or less than another photo of a death during a war, I suppose (speaking of the Spanish Civil War photo). As a photo (and I realize that there is some controversy as to whether the shot is "real" or staged), I think that (assuming it to be a genuine photograph of the moment of death), I can think of few other photos that capture the "decisive moment" as this one does. I suppose the fact that we're still fighting wars, and people are still dying speaks to the fact that it's impact is/was fleeting at best. > > > I like the idea of including some of Bailey's photos, particularly of > say Twiggy or Jean Shrimpton because they really did change things, > despite their apparent superficiality. Which is why they should be in your three photos, I suppose. <vbg> regards, frank -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
