Bob, I'd have to agree with the direction you are going here. The only picture I think is a standout so far is Dan M.'s suggestion of the NASA picture of the earth rising from the moon. I believe the PICTURES themselves of our planet from space helped us visualize where we were and push the ecology movement.
Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Hi, > > if the criterion for inclusion is impact, 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, perhaps Mohammed Amin's photos of the 1984 famine in > Ethiopia, 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. > > 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. 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. Capa's photos > didn't really change anything on a global scale. > > 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.
