Thought-provoking pictures

[Mugshot]

One persons 'tragedy-porn images'are another persons world-renowned and Pulitzer winning pieces of photojournalism.

?

 

[TheDoctor]

It's a reply to a since-deleted post. Maybe it doesn't quite stand up as a post on its own.

 

[Mugshot]

It's a reply to a since-deleted post. Maybe it doesn't quite stand up as a post on its own.

Ah, I see, no it doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense on it's own, certainly not with the quote. Shouldn't it be deleted if it's referencing a deleted post?

 

[stephec]

Ah, I see, no it doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense on it's own, certainly not with the quote. Shouldn't it be deleted if it's referencing a deleted post?

If it's been deleted by a mod then surely you're not openly questioning that desicion?

 

[Mugshot]

If it's been deleted by a mod then surely you're not openly questioning that desicion?

Heavens above no!! I was assuming it was an oversight, I thought it was kind of an automatic thing that posts that referenced deleted posts also got deleted, maybe that's only the case if it actually contains the offending quote, I dunno. Maybe the doctor has found a clever work around

 

[TheDoctor]

No, it's not automatic - the software isn't that clever!
If I was to quote your post, then I (or someone else) deleted your original post, my quote of it would still be there. I'd have to delete that separately.
Usually us Mods delete actual quotes of deleted posts, but a reference to one can be left if it makes sense by itself. Bit of a judgement call.
Personally, I'd probably have deleted my original post, but no great harm done either way, and the thread has moved on. Mostly!

 

[stephec]

Heavens above no!! I was assuming it was an oversight, I thought it was kind of an automatic thing that posts that referenced deleted posts also got deleted, maybe that's only the case if it actually contains the offending quote, I dunno. Maybe the doctor has found a clever work around

He must've used his sonic screwdriver.

 

[srw]

Isn't it time that you showed the parishioners an example of the sort of pictures that might be acceptable?

Here's an image that is thought provoking at first glance without knowing more, that when you find out more turns out to be a Holocaust memorial in Berlin, which in turn prompts more thoughts about how Germany has had the courage to learn from its past in a way more many of the British people have but British officialdom hasn't, and doesn't make me look like a sick fark for posting it uncontextualised.

One persons 'tragedy-porn images'are another persons world-renowned and Pulitzer winning pieces of photojournalism.

It's all about context. A picture of a dead child is a picture of a dead child (pages 4 and 5 for starters) without the newspaper articles that tell the story and make them Pulitzer prize winners. Newspaper articles which, when combined with an arresting and challenging photo, changed the world.

 

[rich p]

The @rich p of his time

More pickled than preserved in my case...

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

It's a fair point that shocking pictures on their own can be just that, shocking. But sometimes an image needs no contextualising or commentary - the famous one of a vulture loitering near an emaciated child in Africa for instance. Sometimes it's an image from recent history that's fresh enough to need no repeat of the back story - the dead Syrian child on a beach is an example.

The Lennon pic is a crossover. To many (most?) here he's a celluloid figure, not real and not in immediate memory. His murder is a line from history, something that shocked another generation but is now just a footnote. The glasses for me bring this man to life in a way that the music doesn't. Similarly, we've all seen many pictures of Holocaust victims but for me the most powerful images aren't the obvious ones, but the piles of shoes or glasses taken off the victims and stored.

Shocking pictures can be thought provoking but thought provoking pictures needn't be shocking and a great many of the pictures posted here fit that description.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to turn yet another thread into personal attacks and bitchiness. Not every thread has to be read.

 

[slowmotion]

Here's an image that is thought provoking at first glance without knowing more, that when you find out more turns out to be a Holocaust memorial in Berlin, which in turn prompts more thoughts about how Germany has had the courage to learn from its past in a way more many of the British people have but British officialdom hasn't, and doesn't make me look like a sick fark for posting it uncontextualised.
View attachment 430680


It's all about context. A picture of a dead child is a picture of a dead child (pages 4 and 5 for starters) without the newspaper articles that tell the story and make them Pulitzer prize winners. Newspaper articles which, when combined with an arresting and challenging photo, changed the world.

This the photo thread, not the "I read a nifty article in the Guardian" one.

 

[Mugshot]

No, it's not automatic - the software isn't that clever!
If I was to quote your post, then I (or someone else) deleted your original post, my quote of it would still be there. I'd have to delete that separately.

Well, yes, I realise that. I may be stupid, but I'm not bloody stupid.

 

[swee'pea99]

Good job this is a cycling forum, nice back pedal.

There may be a fine line between gratuitous and thought provoking imagery, but IMO there is a lot of the former in here.

For example...?

There may be one or two, but I think the vast majority of the images on this thread deliver on the subject line - thought provoking and anything but gratuitous.

I think it's worth remembering, too, that in an age before the internet - which is to say instant unmediated access to pretty much anything that's going on in the world - photojournalism was one of the few ways that important issues reached the public consciousness - and conscience. For just one example

is widely credited with having played a major role in ending the Vietnam War. Of course we don't need images to tell us that 'war is bad' - we knew that all along. But that 'knowledge' didn't impede the American assault on a peasant nation; a single image that made it a visceral reality to millions - many of whom don't read contexts, or anything much else - did.

Flailing accusations of 'tragedy-porn', IMHO, also display a rather shabby dismissal of the work of a body of men - and some women - who overwhelmingly did an important job for all the right reasons, 135 of whom lost their lives in Indochina doing it.

 

[swansonj]

For example...?

There may be one or two, but I think the vast majority of the images on this thread deliver on the subject line - thought provoking and anything but gratuitous.
..,,.

Smeggers has beat me to it.

The majority of images in this thread could be legitimately thought provoking in a context where they make a contribution to challenging cosy assumptions and prompting a constructive reaction.

Is this thread that context? The concern that some of us feel is that the images are largely divorced from any such context. Instead, part of the context becomes “who can come up with an image at least as shocking as the last one”. I think the comparison to pornography is a very valid commentary - with sexual images, as with violent and shocking images, context is everything.

 

[Chris S]