David Levi Strauss, Between the Eyes: Essays on Photography and politics, Aperture, 2003, pp. 3-11 and 182-185.
"Salgado is too busy with the compositional aspects of his pictures and with the finding the "grace" and "beauty" in the twisted forms of his anguished subjects. And this beautification of tragedy results in pictures that ultimately reinforce our passivity toward the experience the reveal. To aestheticize tragedy is the fastest way to anaesthetize the feelings of those who are whitnessing it. Beauty is a call to admiration, not action." p.5
Maybe beautifying an image makes it easier to view- therefore making more people look and "take action". If the image wasn't beautified, it would be difficult to look at.
In some cases, beautifying images of suffering may be a political statement in itself. For example, Shakespeare wrote plays for the royalty of his time. His plays sometimes depicting the strength and power of a king, the evilness or weakness of the enemies and therefore infuencing the viewing public. Shakespeare's plays also show the inevitable tragedy of the protaganist in a Romantic way, similarly the photograph "Mali" 1985 by Salgado (above) shows a beautifully haunting image of a refugee who is clearly suffering.
Can beautified art be objective?
Do we have the right to view others' suffering?
No comments:
Post a Comment