When Skyping with Kevin Salwen last week in class, he discussed more in depth his trip to Ghana. He stressed the necessity and importance of helping the African people in an indirect, behind-the-scenes way, despite the desire to take a more hands-on approach. While he was talking to us, I recalled a story I had heard a few years ago about a photographer named Kevin Carter. In 1993, Kevin went to South Sudan, took a picture that would later win a Pulitzer Prize, and committed suicide shorty after. You can see Kevin's photo and learn more about his story here: http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/.
I used to agree with the media, wondering how on earth a man could watch for twenty minutes as a starving girl was being preyed upon by a vulture, and how he could then simply walk away without doing anything. However, in taking this class and talking to Kevin Salwen, I began to realize that maybe Kevin Carter didn't walk away without doing anything; maybe he was supporting the African people in his own way, a way that would have more of an effect than saving one child.
As hard as it is to think about, if Kevin Carter had seen the girl and scooped her up and away from the vulture, maybe he wouldn't be doing a task as helpful to the African people as taking an award winning photograph that would reach millions of people and forever instill a sense of urgency to help the dire situation in Africa. Even if he did take the child away, he would only be bringing her to momentary safety. He could have fed her some of his food and water, but after he left, her and her family would be in the same situation they were in before Kevin arrived: hungry, destitute, and living in extreme poverty.
Whether it was his intention or not, instead of choosing to save one life, Kevin Carter could have,with his photograph, indirectly saved hundreds of lives by evoking an awareness of how much help is needed in Africa, and possibly inspiring more people to donate their money or time to bettering the overall situation. Theses people otherwise might not have realized the desperation of a nation so far away, and the struggles of the African people may have stayed in the shadows.
I'm curious to see what you guys think of this interpretation of the actions and live of Kevin Carter. What are your views? Do you see him as a bad person for not helping the little girl? Do you think his actions had an impact on the world?
I want to begin by saying how interesting it is that photographs only receive this fame when they are controversial. In this case, the article stated that “practically overnight” people were inquiring about the little girl’s fate and stirring up a whirlwind of criticism towards Carter.
ReplyDeleteOne would think this initial reaction is good, however, I want to approach it from a different light. When looking at the first harsh responses, it is almost like we are using the picture as a war ground to debate about ourselves, Americans. The photograph quickly became about the photographer and not the most important thing, the child. The initial thought of the audience was to label Carter as a kind of “predator.” It baffles me how drawn humans are to discredit and undermine others. Our own negativity towards the man behind the lens stifled its purpose, to bring about awareness.
In an ideal world we would look at this picture and immediately unite towards a common goal. If we had just expended the energy we used debating Carter’s intentions right off the bat, more good could have been done and Carter’s life could have also been saved.
Since I found your blog post about photographs and their effect in society intriguing, I did a little research. I looked up “the ten most famous photographs.” This was the first link that popped up (http://wickedreport.com/top-10-world-most-famous-photos-ever/) I found an overwhelming theme, majority of the pictures depicted human tragedy. It is interesting how photographs are becoming a tool to alleviate human suffering and are also grounds for lively disagreement.
I agree with your main point that Carter (and all of these other famous photographs) had good intentions and that his picture brought attention to an important issue. The long-term, indirect impact is what was important. What bothers me is our violent reaction towards Carter. Sometimes I wonder about human intentions and why we are drawn to such reactions. Do we really want to help a good cause or do we want to just want to debate so we feel like we were involved? Are we getting a true meaningful dose of reality or another opportunity to criticize?
I really enjoyed reading your response and you gave me some interesting points to consider that I hadn't thought about before, so thank you! It really is bizarre, and slightly sad, that all the attention went to the photographer instead of the girl. This says a lot about the society we live in, especially when it is corroborated the evidence from the top ten most famous photographs. I'm really glad you raised this point.
DeleteI think that without knowing the complete background story of this photograph that it is easy to condemn the photographer. From a pure moral point of view, it is terrible to watch a vulture stalk a emaciated girl for 20 minutes. However, under the link that Dina it says that journalists were not supposed to touch the locals due to the risk of spreading disease. Considering how undernourished this girl was, her immune system could not have been that strong. Imagine if Kevin had given her a disease and her village was equally as weak as she was. A foreign disease could have wiped out the entire village and spread throughout Southern Sudan. Is it a long shot? Perhaps, but Kevin may have saved the area from an epidemic.
ReplyDeletePhotographs are powerful and they stay in the back of people's minds for a long time. I loved the link that Kaitlin posted and I was able to recognize a lot of the photographs. I agree with Kaitlin that a lot of the times the most controversial and powerful photos deal with human tragedy. There are always the questions of "what if" and "why." These photos appeal to our sense of empathy and force us to evaluate the situation at hand. This makes us want to help.
In high school I was a photo student, so a majority of the time I sympathize with the photographer and reject the torrent of angry criticism that comes their way following them capturing a moment like this. Photographers have a difficult job; they have to be in the right place at the right second to capture an imagine that becomes iconic. Photojournalists jobs are to bring awareness to issues that are human tragedies and injustices in the world, which is why I one hundred percent agree with Kaitlin when she criticized the negative reaction towards the photo. A lot of the time photojournalists follow Peter Singer's logic and sacrifice one life for thousands.
As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. I believe that photos are more powerful than most media and that the photographer is bringing a different kind of awareness to the issue that they are capturing. As a result, they have a huge indirect impact and can lead to endless positive impacts.
I think that the Kevin Carter incident is part of a larger phenomenon today: the media rushing to find someone to blame whenever there's a story. Instead of intelligently discussing an issue, they jump straight to whose fault it is.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Kevin Carter, Kaitlin already pointed out that people criticized him for his actions, while ignoring the larger issue he was trying to bring to light: the massive problem of hunger in Africa. This is a perfect example of the problem. As Kaitlin said, it is the long-term impact that matters most; if people had spent less time when the photograph came out criticizing Carter and more time looking into the problem he highlighted, more progress could have been made towards eradicating hunger.
Just last Wednesday, Peter Baker wrote an article in the New York Times titled "Debate over Who, in U.S., is to blame for Ukraine." Baker is a member of the media, and is contributing to the problem by writing a whole article about blame rather than focusing on the issue itself. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/debate-over-who-in-us-is-to-blame-for-ukraine.html?_r=0). Today more than ever, the 24/7 nature of media leads news outlets looking for 'blame stories' to generate buzz.
I don't want to become part of the problem myself, so let's look a litter harder at this issue. The media doesn't shove these stories down peoples' throats. Instead, people keep tuning in or reading these stories, so the media responds to demand by continuing to feature them. This is part of a larger issue: do we have an educated populace, or do we just accept whatever the media tells us? This is important in the world of philanthropy, because as we have discovered, choosing a cause can be the hardest part of the giving process. If we don't think critically about all sides of an issue, how can we pick good causes to support?
I think that it is ok to discuss who is at fault for important issues, but that it should be in the context of a full, well-rounded discussion of the issue. It will be important for our class to debate the problems of Broome County without being so reactionary and eager to place fault.
I would like to begin by agreeing with you about Kevin Carter’s action. His position in Sudan was to capture the extreme poverty in that area, he was not there to pick up destitute children and feed them and give them water. He was told that he could transmit a disease if he had picked up the child, so as sad as it is, it was in his best interest to let her be. He would not be able to fix her situation anyways.
ReplyDeleteI am in shock at the reactions that Kevin received due to his photograph. He acted positively by spreading knowledge about the millions of people in dire situations in Africa. I agree that this photograph was a way to help the people in Africa; he created a reaction in people. They were angry, upset, but most importantly, aware. I do not think that he acted wrongly by not helping the little girl because he impacted the world positively by educating everyone on the little girl. Hopefully this photograph caused people to take action.
I also agree with Jesse’s response that Kevin Carter’s incident is part of a larger phenomenon today: that the media rushes to find someone to blame whenever there is a story. There have been millions of photographs that acclaimed photographers have taken of impoverished individuals, and I’m sure some of them have gotten criticized also. But that is not the point of their work, they are not there to negatively influence the world, they are there to show people the horrors of poverty and make people aware. People need to funnel their energy in a more positive way instead of criticizing those that have nothing to do with the larger issue.
It is also interesting that he photographer could not cope with the criticism so he killed himself. Therefore, not only are people not helping by bashing the photographer, later causing him to kill himself, but also they are also not helping what is happening in Africa. They should be ashamed of themselves.