This article was written by Philip Kennicott about the Corcoran Gallery of the Art’s War/Photography exhibition. In my vision of how war photographs often appear and feel, the author describes the photos as “wrenching”, while saying the exhibition as a whole is “dispassionate”. In class, we sometimes discuss the role of a caption and how it can either help or hinder in our interpretation of the photograph itself. In this document, the author states that the main purpose of the captions at the exhibit was to provide the audience with common background information of the image. And while I concur with that, my theory about captions alongside images is as follows: the caption should state facts, not express opinions; moreover, I believe, the sole job of the photographer is to make his or her audience emote a certain feeling when viewing it. In other words, the caption is a mere complementary aspect to the photograph and it is the picture that should do the true speaking. The article mentions the works of Robert Capa and Nick Ut’s that filled the gallery, with 300 others. Even photos from the 9/11 attacks are represented in the forum. There seems to be conflict in how the photos are showcased, with some believing that the aesthetic ought to be the focus. However others, usually the more popular opinion, think the focus of the photo should be the sociology of war. The one flaw the author notes about generic, background-oriented tropes is that they can distance the photograph from an audience. That is to say, we are less likely to be as emotionally invested and are more likely to only see the basic characteristics of suffering and hardships. If there’s one message that stuck with me from this entire passage it’s that “the arguments for and against the importation of beauty into images of war are endless, and unlikely ever to achieve closure.” I believe this can also be applied to any sensitive yet heavy matter (i.e. religion) as it pertains to photography. Ultimately though, I argue, as long as the photographer approaches the subject and his or her interpretation of the subject in a respectful and conscious manner, it is the creator’s choice on how to creatively produce a new vision--- be it “artistically beautiful” or not.
B. Thompson