From: Andrew Epstein (aiepstein@earthlink.net)
Date: 02/28/03-12:28:12 PM Z
Two war related incidents come to mind, but they may not be exactly
what you're looking for.
1. Roger Fenton and the Crimean War (1854-1856). The Crimean war was
probably the first war to be covered by "war correspondents" and
photographers. Fenton (along with his converted wine-wagon darkroom)
was mobilized by England in response to the reporting of William H
Russell, a journalist working for The Times of London and considered
the world's first war correspondent. Russell was writing extremely
disturbing accounts of the conditions under which the British forces
were fighting. A vast majority of the fatalities were not from the
war itself, but from disease and freezing cold. When he began to
report about shabby medical facilities and the fact that British
soldiers, not having even been issued winter uniforms, were freezing
to death, public opinion in England began to sway against the war.
In 1855, in response to the criticism, Fenton was commissioned by the
British government to photograph the war and to record images
favorable to England's involvement. As a result, the vast majority of
the 350 or so images Fenton took made the war seem like a far away
picnic, including pictures of soldiers having tea, battleships,
portraits of stout soldiers in uniform, standing mounted cavalry, and
empty battlegrounds. The Charge of the Light Brigade, depicted in
Alfred Tennyson's poem in all its bloody realities, was depicted by
Fenton as a glorious event. The public eventually forgot about
Russell's reporting.
While this may not be an incident of censored photography per se, I
think it is one of the first incidents of photography being used as a
political propaganda tool which I believe to be a close sibling of
censorship.
2. World War I (1914-1919). Sorry for war theme; we've got enough of
it as it is. I wrote a high school course on War Correspondence.
Right from the outset, no journalists or photographers were allowed
anywhere near the front, not even civilian photographers, nor were
soldiers allowed to bring cameras, which by this time were quite
portable. Apparently the penalty for taking pictures was death!
Officially, only sanctioned military personnel were used to document
the war, and all information was heavily controlled by governments.
Laws were passed in Britain, the US, and Germany allowing the
governments to censor all outgoing cables, the mail, and newspapers.
Many journalists were jailed. Although my research on this topic was
very limited, I can only assume there was official censorship of
photos during this time. Indeed, the public saw very few pictures of
the war. Many historians characterize WWI as a war of deceit.
Interestingly, there is no lack of photos from WWI; actually there
are hundreds of thousands. There is, however, no way to tell who took
most of them. Many were likely soldiers who smuggled cameras with
them to the front. There is still no one set of pictures which
adequately conveys the true nature of the war. Jorge Lewinski, in his
book The Camera at War, describes the following:
"The realities of war conducted from rat-infested holes in the ground
are not vividly expressed in photographic images: the intense cold,
the grime, the lice, the mud, the constantly wet clothing, the soaked
and swelling feet; the nightmarish unreality of living with the
perpetual fear of death from an enemy within earshot, the danger of
sentry duty at dawn or dusk with the risk of death from a sniper's
bullet; the shuddering periods of bombardment with thousands of
shells raining on trenches, killing, maiming, sending skywards
cascades of earth, burying living men in mud; the sky at night
crisscrossed with flares, explosions, fire. These sights live in the
memory as images -- the images in photographs are inadequate and
few." (p. 69)
I hope this is helpful information for your research.
--Andrew
>I need some help on some research I am beginning.
>
>I am interested in historical events surrounding the suppression or
>censoring of photographs especially specific photographs or tight
>bodies of work that became issues of public censorship as opposed to
>grotesque, revolting, or hard to look at photographs that were
>exhibited but not censored.
>
>I've got a grip on the well known events of the recent past such as
>the Cleveland-Barry-Mapplethorpe, Seranno, Sturges, Witkin,
>Livingston, Mann, etc. I am most interested in events of the last 20
>or 30 years not as well known and especially ones from the 60's on
>back.
>
>The scope is international. Soviet, Nazi, or other settings are
>welcome. The scope may be regional as well.
>
>Cheers.
>
>
>--Dick Sullivan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:10 AM Z CST