Photography and film is a great way to not only entertain but also to inform the people. But how much can a newscast can inform us during the times of war? There's always that thin line of what is publicize and what SHOULD be publicize. Due to censorship laws now days we are not so "inform" as it used to be during the WWII. Do we really want to see the grotesque pictures of people lay on the pavement all bloody and disfigured? How much can we truly handle? Should we be thankful for all the censorship laws?
As humans beings we have the tendency to crave more, to be "unique" and for a photographer or a filmmaker this factors are more intensify. They try to tell the story not only from their point of view but how the story relates to them, what I don't get is why in this article puts this "artist" in a place where what they capture it's not true enough, or it's beyond ambiguity. Art is view in different facets and or perspectives so why are this photographers are judge by their work? Is it their fault that the audience can't or won't accept the "reality"?
After 9-11 media focus much more about the shock of how United States was attacked and a bit less of the loss of families. Back then this was reality and nothing more. Then came the stage of we are strong and we still "stand tall," the attacker was names the enemy and war broke loose. But ever since we have less and less information given to us. Until a movie is made and we think that's what exactly happens, and we believe this because that's the only information given to us.
In other words what do we really need to see photographs of what is truly reality or a movie that makes us believe that's what truly happen? Either way we will never be satisfy, because we want/need the truth but the government will not allowed for our own "good." I think we should sit back and really think what we want from our government and from our entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment