The essay I picked was David Friend’s piece on how we experience history. This piece uses the 9/11 tragedies as an example of how our perception of historical events will change. Friend talks about how there were so many cameras at different angles pointed towards the World Trade Center Towers on the morning of 9/11 and how this creates a much more infallible historical record of the attacks that will not get muddled by time or historical interpretation. He states that 2 billion people, or close to a third of the human population, saw some sort of coverage on the event thus making it a huge part of civilization’s consciousness. This revolutionizes the way events are captured and viewed in the world.

I think this new era of camera access for all is a great thing for society. The 9/11 tragedies were a horrible act of mass murder and it is important for the United States as well as the rest of the world to remember exactly what happened. This is made possible by the existence of the raw footage from the morning of September 11 2001. This revolution has implications for future events as well. It means that many more people all over the world will be able to experience significant historical events. Also it now means that many future events will be remembered more accurately and it will be much harder for people to cover up or fabricate major historical events.

Let Photography be Your Friend

In his article, “Photography Changes How We Experience History,” David Friend emphasizes the impact that photography had during the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, as well as the impact that 9/11 photography has had in the years following the attacks. Friend comes to the conclusion that the images are significant as a means of historical record, as evidence, and as a visual reference that can help people as they struggle to understand an incomprehensible act of violence.

What I find most interesting about photographic evidence of 9/11, and this is something that Friend also highlights, is the amount of images that people captured of the event as it unfolded. There were cases, such as Wolfgang Staehle’s “2001” project, that captured the event coincidentally, but thousands of other people were compelled to take a picture of what they were seeing as it happened. It seems that it some cases, this instinct to take a snapshot overcame the instinct to flee to safety. Even with an event as inconceivable and chaotic as 9/11, people still felt compelled to get out their camera and take a picture. Perhaps it was people’s inability to comprehend what they were seeing that led them to taking a picture in the first place, so that they could look at it later and try to rationalize what had happened. Perhaps people find comfort in looking at the world through a camera’s lens in a situation of chaos, to reduce the scope of the situation to a more manageable proportion, using the camera as a shield from reality. There is also the psychological comfort that comes from taking a picture in a chaotic, life or death situation; it implies that one will be able to look at the image after the event has ended, that one will live through the chaos.

Photography Changes the Face of Terrorism - Bruce Hoffman

Bruce Hoffman writes an essay briefly describing the effect that photography has had in shaping the public view of terrorists – specifically how we picture a “terrorist” when the word comes to mind. He begins by describing the iconic image of a man in a faceless mask, looking sinister and antagonizing, that came as a result of the terrorist attacks during the Olympics in 1972. Indeed, this image was so effective that it came to be the image of the 20^th century terrorist – one that is anonymous and perhaps even dehumanized, void of the facial features that so often indicate emotion and humanity.

Hoffman continues to describe how photography changed this image with the transition into the 21^st century, particularly with the terrorist events that occurred in the London Underground subway system. Due to surveillance photography and things like closed circuit television, the image of these terrorists was widely seen – and it was a strikingly and disturbingly normal and ordinary image. The terrorists were not wearing anything particularly unique as before, but rather were dressed in very typical gym shoes, baseball caps, etc. What this did for the public view, Hoffman said, was that it portrayed the terrorist as an enemy who is not alien but could be of the same appearance as a neighbor.

Now, I agree with Hoffman in his assertion and evidence on how the media, and particularly photography, play a large role in the portrayal of terrorists and the images associated with them. Yet, I wonder if he is writing specifically in the context of Europe, as the image of a terrorist in the United States seems to be something far different. I recently saw the film Reel Bad Arabs, and one of the particularly interesting and disturbing examples of the “Arab terrorist” stereotype came with the media coverage immediately following the Oklahoma City bombing, when coverage was very quick to assume that men of Middle Eastern descent were responsible for the event. Of course, as it turned out, the responsible man was not this, but that image was still very important. With the later events of September 11^th, I think that this image has been significantly reinforced, and one must only look at the “random” selections in airport security to see the consequences of this iconic image of a “Middle Eastern terrorist” in the United States. So, while Hoffman does highlight very well the effect of media and photography on the public interpretation and stereotype of terrorists, I think that a very significant image is ignored in the existing stereotype in the U.S.

Photography Changes What We Do - Fred Ritchin

Much of the photojournalism of the last several years has been done by amateurs and has become critical in understanding what is going on (especially in understanding the political situation in Iran where professional journalists have been banned).    People are beginning to prefer diverse sources of news.  We should expect to see hundred of images from amateurs posted online rather than just a few images by professionals.  This change gives the public the task of sorting through these hundreds of unedited photographs to try and make sense of what it is really saying.  We will be less likely to be presented with iconic photographs, but rather images that are made by amateurs who are just capturing information, not creating symbolic images.  The result of all of this is that news and photo editors who have to sort through these hundreds of images to find just one that sums it all up is simplifying and distorting the news on what is going on.  As viewers, we will benefit from having the access to such extensive photographs that have explored the past and can give us context for understanding the present.  There is a need for professional photo-essayists with deep understandings of specific cultures.  Their work will help contextualize the amateur photographs. 

I chose this particular essay because I thought it could help with my final paper, which will be looking at photojournalism of the 60’s and 70’s.  This essay really gave me a deeper understanding of how photojournalism has shifted form then to now.  I really had never considered any of the points that the author was making.  I am a strong believer in that the public should be given all information of all types, unedited.  I think that this allows us to interpret things for ourselves and not just believe what the government or media source is telling us.  However one point that the essay brought up that made me question my belief is that we are now at a time where we will be less likely to encounter iconic photographs of important events and instead have tons of amateur photos that are meant for just capturing information and with no intent for creating symbolic images.  Although my original thought was that we need these masses of photographs, it is hard to accept that the amazing iconic photographs taken from professional photojournalists in the past decades may not be something we will see much more of.  I think it just never crossed my mind that the iconic photographs from photojournalists were made with an artistic intent and not focused just on content.  I hope that professional photojournalists find a way to still create these images for our society even if they are not the images that we rely on for our information source.  

Photography changes how we experience history

In David Friend’s article Photography Changes how we experience history he examines the many ways that photography played a part in the aftermath of9/11. He first explains that the event was caught from many different angles from all kinds of photographers and videographers around the city. Before long it seemed that anyone that had a direct line of sight to the towers was snapping pictures of it. This resulted in the mass dissemination of photographs via the internet and news, the likes of which had never been seen previously. As a result the availability and diversity of these images created a sort of memory bank of the event that is telling in almost every possible way.

Throughout photographic history there have been famous photographs that have been associated with events or wars. Usually these photographs are particularly telling and symbolic of the event as a whole and are seen as a good visual reference for the event. In the case of 9/11 that was not the case, there was no single photograph that stands above the rest when it comes to our memory of 9/11 no specific symbolic symbol that we have attached to it. Though there have been famous and widely used 9/11 photos there are none that particularly stand out. This is because there were so many people that were recording the event and who put it out onto the internet. This availability of photographic evidence has resulted in the association of 9/11 not with one photograph but rather the aggregate reactions to those photographs and the collection of memories that were influenced by the photographs that were seen. Thus, 9/11 is different from most past events chronicled by photographs in that the photographs are not only huge in number and mostly amateur but they also allow a person to see that event from a number of different lenses (literally) and angles.

Citizens as Photographers

Fred Ritchin discusses the topic of “citizen Journalism” vs. professional photography. Ritchin defines “citizen journalism” as ordinary people taking photographs of historic and world changing events. Professionals are hired to photograph historic/world changing events and select a “poster” image for the world to view. Ritchin touches on the controversial issue of mixing the two types of photography for not only the photographer but for the viewer as well. The dilemma between the two types of photography is such that when citizens are taking photographs it becomes much more difficult for professionals to take photographs for money. One other conflict Ritchin discusses is the difficulty “citizen journal” photographs have depicting the content of different photographs. Professional photographs are given specific contextual meanings by the photographers themselves or a team of media specialists directed to do so. Sharing the digital media world with two different types of photographers may be challenging but all in all I think it is important.

I think it is important to have both types of photographs attainable by human beings. I think the photographs taken by professionals should be used for media or propaganda issues. For example the cover of magazines or the front pages of newspapers. This shows the importance of the image and its significance to the historical event at hand. On the other hand, the myriad of images displayed on the internet and other social sites gives people more opportunities to view different images. It may be the case that with only a few specific images from professional photographers the world is only shown what the media wants us to see. With “citizen journalism” there is no way to hide the “truth” and realness of the historical events, or any event, taking place in the world. Because of this there may not be a need for filters or decisions to only show the world what the photographer wants. This leaves little room for interpretation to be made by society and culture rather than a specific group of people. I don’t think it is the case that one type of photograph diminishes the other.

Photography Changes the Face of Terrorism

In Photography Changes the Face of Terrorism, Bruce Hoffman discusses the way CCTV cameras change our perception of terrorist attacks. He contrasts our perceptions of the terrorist standing on the balcony in the Olympic Village in Munich in 1972 to our perceptions of the terrorists from the London bombings in July 2005. Technology and the use of CCTV cameras transform our ideas about terrorists today. Terrorists were once mysterious and impossible to locate but today they are real people from our neighborhoods.

CCTV cameras have the capability to give us greater knowledge. In regards to terrorists, we often think what kind of person could do that? It was not too long ago that we had no idea. With the assistance of video surveillance, police are able to unravel this mystery. It becomes scary because terrorists are closer to us that we think. All of the terrorists from the July bombings were British citizens and lived permanently in England. One was even a schoolteacher. These details are alarming because we were under attack by people we welcomed into our country and even into our schools.

CCTV cameras are very controversial because many think they are an invasion of privacy. In central London, there is practically no place that you are not on camera. Every movement is being recorded in the hope of creating a safer city. While CCTV was not able to prevent the July bombings, their identities likely brought connections to other extremists who might have followed in their footsteps. In the London riots over the summer, the police were out numbered and could not control the looting. However, thousands of people were arrested the following days from CCTV photographs. The cameras are able to see what the police cannot and sometimes can act as a deterrent for criminals. Having grown up with heavy use of video surveillance, I find it to be just a part of life. So many criminals have been caught as a result that I personally feel a lot safer knowing they are there.