



Susie Linfield, director of the cultural reporting and criticism programme at New York University, begins her beautifully written book with "A little history of photography, or, why do photography critics hate photography?" What does she mean by that? "It's hard to resist the thought that a very large number of photography critics - including the most influential ones - don't really like photographs, or the act of looking at them, at all."In the second chapter ("photojournalism and human rights") I came across another eye-opener (there are many more in this tome and I won't of course mention them all): "Officials in Stalin's prisons, and Pol Pot's too, photographed some of their prisoners before they were executed; in both instances, meticulous records were kept. These photographs are among the most important, and worst, documents of the twentieth century. And while these prison pictures are not, obviously, examples of typical photojournalism, they reveal the great strengths and weaknesses of photographs of suffering. They were taken by perpetrators, yet they speak for the victims and are on the side of the victims. They sabotage their own intent; they are scalding self-accusations; they twist in upon themselves. But they also epitomize, in especially cruel ways, the inability of photographs to save the people they depict."
Part two ("places") deals with Holocaust photographs ("Primo Levi got it right far more than Susan Sontag. It is not that the dead have nothing to tell us, show us, teach us; it is that we have trouble listening, seeing, learning."), the visual documentation of China's Cultural Revolution, the photographic record of the eleven-year civil war in Sierra Leone, and with "Abu Ghraib and the Jihad". Errol Morris has argued that "... all alone ... shorn of context, without captions - a photograph is neither true nor false ...". I must admit that I used to believe just that but Linfield taught me otherwise: "Yet the Abu Ghraib prove just the opposite", she writes for "as Gourevitch admits, 'Without the photographs there would have been no scandal.' And this is because people know - even after forty years of postmodern theory and two decades of Photoshop - that photographs record something that happened." And that, of course, tells us also something about the relevance of postmodern theory.
Part three ("people") portrays Robert Capa, James Nachtwey, and Gilles Peress, who, Linfield claims, could understand "that a photograph is objective and subjective, found and made, dead and alive, withholding and revealing." Indeed. And this is precisely why photography interests me: it teaches me not only to look at the world with different eyes, it teaches me something about life.
This book is far more than an eloquent and convincing tome on photography and political violence (yes, of course, it is that too) for Susie Linfield not only gives us an informed view on what she sees, she also tells us what she felt when looking at photographs. In so doing she lets us take part in her personal process of seeing. And this, in essence, is an invitation to share her experience. In texts on photography, that is not only rare, that is pretty unique, I'd say. And what's more: it is helpful.
Susie Linfield
Können uns Bilder von Kriegsopfern eigentlich überhaupt noch rühren? Oder hat uns die Bilderflut mittlerweile immun gemacht gegen Fotoaufnahmen vom Leiden anderer? Wer sich Zeit nimmt, sich mit Fotos auseinanderzusetzen (sie immer mal wieder, und in verschiedenen Stimmungen, anguckt, sie an sich heranlässt, sich über sie Gedanken macht), weiss, dass es auch in Zeiten, in denen wir mit Bildern zugeschüttet werden, immer wieder Aufnahmen gibt, die uns erreichen, sowohl aesthetisch als auch emotional.
Muybridge was not only a rather eccentric character but also a murderer. Soon after the trial that acquitted him - that he killed the lover of his wife was seen by a Californian jury as a pardonable act - he took off for a photo expedition to Panama and Guatemala. Later on he continued the motion studies in Palo Alto.
"The Human and Animal Locomotion Photographs", a heavy tome (almost 4 kilos) of 804 pages, shows 781 plates of human and animal movements - walking, trotting, running etc. - is a most impressive work that includes not only a chronology of the life and work of Eadweard Muybridge but also the criticism of the folio collection.Despite the — sometimes seemingly profound — differences between cultures and values, there is no such thing as an Islamic society, an Arab mind, an Oriental psyche, as much as there is no European society, no American mind, no Western psyche. The same opinions, the same love for certain books or for certain music, can be found all over the world. Moreover, there appears to be a common consciousness existing alongside, or underneath, the cultural values, as Sri Ramakrishna taught,
"which is our own ground and so in consciousness we are one; insofar as you identify yourself with the consciousness that moves and lives in your body, you've identified with what you share with me. And on the other hand, if you fix on yourself, and your tradition, and believe you've got it, then you're removed yourself from the rest of mankind (Campbell, 1990: 64)."
Moreover, the author Arthur Koestler, in the words of Holbrook (1981: 92), observed that,
"our religious and scientific modes of knowing are often indistinguishable, and support each other. To put it more strongly, objectively viewed these two traditions [Greek versus Chinese] pretend to respectively specialize in spirituality-mysticism and rationality-science but, actually, neither does either well enough, and, as indicated above, the two are basically identical. They differ chiefly in their practical relations to the human society over which they divide their influences and which they divide."
Joseph Campbell, who researched mythology in various cultures, "deems the meaning of all hero myths not just similar but identical: 'As we are told in the Vedas: 'Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names'.'" (Segal, 1990: 33).
Could it then be that there exists a deep layer of the unconscious that Jung called the collective unconscious, a term that is used "in recognition of the fact that there is a common humanity built into our nervous system out of which our imagination works" (Campbell, 1990: 122)? Very likely for how would one otherwise explain that the same mythological motifs seem to appear everywhere?
For the full text go here
Wo warst Du, als der Mensch zum ersten Mal seinen Fuss auf den Mond setzte? Ich sass vor dem Fernseher, es war Nacht, mein Vater hatte mich geweckt, dieses historische Ereignis sollte mir nicht entgehen.
Die erste Mondlandung des Menschen am 20. Juli 1969 ist wohl der bedeutsamste historische Augenblick des 20. Jahrhunderts. Dieses Ereignis zelebriert der vorliegende Band eindrücklichst mit hunderten von grösstenteils unveröffentlichten Fotografien und Plänen aus den Archiven der NASA, von Zeitschriften und Privatsammlungen. Dazu kommt der auf seine Art einzigartige Text von Norman Mailer, Auf dem Mond ein Feuer (eine gekürzte Version des gleichnamigen Buches), ursprünglich als dreiteilige Reportage für LIFE geschrieben und der längste Sachtext, den LIFE je veröffentlichen sollte.
Dieses Buch ist eine Fundgrube, ja eine Schatzkiste ("Als die beiden Männer auf dem Mond herumliefen, rief Pat Collins {die Frau des Astronauten Michael Collins}: 'Warum jubeln die nicht? Deswegen lassen sie keine Frau auf den Mond fliegen - sie würde herumspringen und schreien und weinen.'") und gehört zu den beeindruckendsten Reportagen, die je geschrieben wurden. Zusammen mit dem hier versammelten grossartigen Bildmaterial ist Moonfire, um es mit David Schonauer von American Photo zu sagen, "mehr als ein Buch, es ist ein Erlebnis."Notes on things intercultural, photography, the media, and other things that interest me