Is photography an art? I bet it is one of the most controversial questions today. Is it the way to store all the most important, heart-piercing, and remarkable memories of our lives? Yes. Is it the way to pass along the message of affright realities of modern life? And again yes, because without photos from so-called flash-points in Iraq, Afghanistan, or from Japan just after the earthquake in 2011, there would not be an adequate picture of these disastrous facts. But do photos tell us the true?
For me, this theme is very close. But to write the answers to this question helped me first draft essay Hope you will enjoy reading and understand my message.
Modern photo is just the best shot chosen from a set of identical ones, but seeming the most live. We live in the era of digital cameras, and we are able to draw another picture above the taken one by a single mouse click. Such photos lose their speech. Remember our moms and grandmas used to take a photo album off the shelf, sit on the couch, and surf through memories? Every family had own albums, unique and impregnated with its own energy. Each photo had its own history. These photos showed things as they are.
And what do we have now? Hundreds and even thousands of photos on our personal computers, and only about a few of them we can tell a pre-photo story, the very few of them worth a thousand words. The opportunity to choose from pictures you just taken has made it almost unreal to have a bad photo of somebody today. It is just a mockery of those unrepeatable photos that made photographers of the previous century.
And another question is about the photographers. What I mean is do they have any right to subject to the public gaze lives of people they took a photo of? I am talking about those terrible shots of killed children on the battle field or imprisoned people emaciating in dirty cells. I agree, the single picture is worth a thousand words about the place it is taken in. But these tell us about single facts happened, not showing the whole accident picture. Photos give us an ability to observe events all over the world and in our lives as well, but they do not show real life.
Do you know who is Tyler Kirk? The story, that is widespread in social networks. It was usual shooting of the advertising. With quite a usual story where the boy sadly sits and eats an apple, then his parents come, demonstrate him a jar with Nutella and he happily runs to make sandwiches. After the shooting, there were many "spare" apples in the basket. And someone suggested shooting the apple from sporty bow. But bad luck has given birth to the idea in the head of photographer Jason Adderley to make a picture of man with an apple on his head before the arrow gets there and then to show the emotions of the "victim".
Tyler gladly volunteered to take part in the fun. But even experienced in sports shooting Adderley could not capture the moment when the string breaks out of his fingers and send an arrow just in the boys forehead. Briefly, in the middle of the fun. Accident, which is just unbelievable. Is this picture worth a thousand words? But what is the price of such photo? The boy became famous after his death.
As for me, I think that art is immortal. But are these pictures art and not a commercial willing to get famous and earn huge sums of money for hot news? Do worth a thousand words pictures, really worth lives of dozens, and even hundreds of lives? Every day we see wars between photographers and people on photos, photographers and authorities for the right of existence of most of these photos, but are they worth it?