Re: Photographic censorship question

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.co.uk)
Date: 03/01/03-03:00:23 AM Z


Surprisingly I just put a piece about Fenton on
http://photography.about.com/ this week.

He wasn't directly commissioned by the government, but by a print dealer,
although almost certainly with government support. He relied heavily on
the government and the army for facilities (he went out with letters from
Prince Albert to each of the commanders asking for their assistance.)
Fenton had to work without any precedent as to what could or could not be
shown in photographs of an army in a war zone, and also to try to make
saleable images. Commercial pressures operate pretty strongly in modern
wars also - as, for example, the Welsh Magnum photographer Phillip Jones
Griffiths found in Vietnam.

I don't think it at all fair to suggest that his picture 'Valley of the
Shadow of Death' glorified the Charge of the Light Brigade - it is an
image of emptiness and desolation. He also took a rather good portrait of
Russell.

At least one photographer later to be well-known - Andre Kertesz - covered
the First World War as an amateur photographer, and I think there were
many others. Of course later wars - particularly the Gulf War - saw
control of media rise to new levels. There has been some discussion among
photographers and editors of the guidelines for correspondents
accompanying troops to Iraq; most opinion has been that little if any real
news will be allowed emerge from these 'embedded' correspondents.

Peter Marshall
Photography Guide at About http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@about.com
_________________________________________________________________
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

>
> --Boundary_(ID_CQetWVGCHU0Pmqf4SCB8JQ)
> Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> 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
>
> --Boundary_(ID_CQetWVGCHU0Pmqf4SCB8JQ)
> Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
> <html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
> blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
> --></style><title>Re: Photographic censorship
> question</title></head><body>
> <div><font color="#000000">Two war related incidents come to mind, but
> they may not be exactly what you're looking for.<br>
> <br>
> 1. Roger Fenton and the Crimean War (1854-1856). The Crimean war was
> probably the first war to be covered by &quot;war correspondents&quot;
> 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<i> The Times of London</i>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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<i> The
> Camera at War</i>, describes the following:<br>
> <br>
> &quot;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.&quot; (p. 69)<br>
> <br>
> I hope this is helpful information for your research.<br>
> <br>
> --Andrew</font><br>


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:24 PM Z CST