James Nachtwey is an American photojournalist who has spent his career taking photos of war, genocide, and the repercussions of such events. In a field that has grown tremendously and changed rapidly in the past century due to the increasing need for visual content, he is one of the most prominent photojournalists. Nachtwey’s photos show the gruesome and shocking reality of war and trauma, but they beg the question of whether such photos are justified and what makes them appropriate or inappropriate? Through exploring the conversation amongst scholars examining the exploitation of war photography and the role it serves in society, I hope to discover what justifies the aestheticization of war photography.
Christan Frei, a Swiss TV documentarian, created a documentary titled “War Photography” about James Nachtwey’s life and work. This documentary explores the conversation that captivates so many scholars at large: the relation between war photography and the exploitation of another’s suffering. Furthermore, this conversation captivates Nachtwey himself. Tammy Kinsey responds to Frei’s documentation of Nachtwey in a very insightful manner. Kinsey asks readers to contemplate if through engaging with the photos themselves they have become “voyeurs of a voyeur” and how much of the responsibility of such exploitation is on them. These questions focus on exploitation and Nachtwey’s intentions. Nachtwey believes that the main purpose of his work is “to make pictures as a tool of the mass media, of communication” but many view his work as art primarily. Furthermore, it would be amiss to not mention that he profits tremendously from the prints. Tony Pipolo responds to Frei’s documentary on James Nachtwey by highlighting the notion of exploitation embedded in photographs of war and trauma. In the documentary, Nachtwey was asked why he photographs war and his response was simply that “war is dehumanizing.” His response was described as both “grandiose and naive” by Pipolo who also describes Nachtwey as both harmful and well intentioned. There is a juxtaposition apparent in how Pipolo views Nachtwey and it causes one to question how it might be too simplistic to deem war photography as good or bad. Furthermore, Pipolo speaks to the exploitation explored by Kinsey and believes that the possible positive impacts of Nachtwey are “less immediate” than the effects of putting together a reputable gallery exhibition. Pipolo concedes that the photos of such atrocities do convey something, but he regards them as primarily aesthetic objects. Kinsey and Pipolo both argue that while war photography can serve a purpose, the exploitative nature of taking and viewing such photos is stronger than any good obtained from them.
In “The Arithmetic of Compassion: Rethinking the politics of photography”, James Johnson provides his view on when the exploitation that Pipolo and Kinsey express concern for is justified. Johnson argues that compassion is not a plausible aim for war photography, but that the building of solidarity is the exclusive goal of war photography. Nachtwey stated that he hopes that his work contributes to an “ongoing dialogue between information and response that helps create an atmosphere in which change is possible.” Johnson delves into why photography’s broader political and societal aims, like the aforementioned one stated by Nachtwey, cannot thrive when based on compassion. Johnson believes that the kindling of compassion juxtaposes the need for the audience to develop an articulate and thoughtful stance on photos and the situations displayed within them. He holds that a photo meant only to elicit compassion is “a failure at the level of individual viewers” and that such a photo would lose its ability to actually contribute to the dialogue around what is portrayed. Moreover, he argues that photos of wars, in which death is made into an art, are only productive when they prove debate and thought.
Another reason often discussed in the justification of such photos is the greater role they serve in society. Some scholars believe that war photography educates and affects the public in ways that cannot be achieved without photojournalism. Miles Orvell, who is one of those scholars, takes a more positive and hopeful look at the role of war photography in “Photographing Disaster: Urban Ruins and the Destructive Sublime.” Orvell believes that the primary function of photography is “bearing witness, and allowing for the implicit moral compromise in such an act” and this is a belief that many of the scholars participating in this conversation share. Furthermore, Orvell argues that photography is central to one’s cultural formation because it works against one’s “natural tendencies of amnesia and indifference born of fatigue”, thereby allowing for more conscious individuals. However, Orvell concedes that after the initial shock and wonder of seeing offensive photos we become bored and apathetic towards the “ambiguities of photographic representation” and choose to remain passive versus making a change. He firmly states that the transforming of death and pain into art by way of photography is justified and important despite his prior concession because it allows for the preservation of horrible events long after the time in which they took place. Similar to Miles Orvell, Charles Molesworth in “Photography and War: The Protocols” believes that war photography is justified and important because it portrays something unique that cannot be seen elsewhere. He references some of Nachtwey’s work on the war in Iraq and how his work “shows something that escapes the nightly news as it is portrayed on television” and this supports the argument for war photography being a legitimate source of information in society. Johnson, Orvell, and Molesworth all believe that war photography can be justified and have a genuine role in society despite the exploitative nature of it.
Ursula Taylor would agree with Orvell and Molesworth on the contributive nature of war photography to society but for a much different reason. Taylor believes that “alternative ways of both making and interpreting images must be explored”, meaning that the onus of making war photography ethical is on both the photographer and the viewer. Moreover, she sheds light on how the way one chooses to interpret photography and whether they do so in a moral manner is an important part of this conversation. Taylor argues that when war photographers like Nachtwey “bring a sensitivity and self-reflexivity to their work” it allows viewers to engage with the photos in new ways. If a viewer doesn’t have any real engagement with a photo, she argues that it is on the viewer to “learn to look again” and figure out how to be engaged and active. Taylor’s part of this conversation is important because it shares a view that I did not find expressed at all from another scholar and I believe it highlights how this conversation is a complex one that can be viewed from multiple different perspectives. I expected to find a conversation that was filled with similar voices and opinions but have come to discover that there can be multiple views in a single opinion and that there is no single answer on whether war photography is justified or not.
Bibliography
Basoli, A.G. “Redefining Human Rights: The Human Rights Watch International Film Festival.” Cinéaste 27, no. 4 (2002): 34–35.
Butler, Judith. “Photography, War, Outrage.” PMLA 120, no. 3 (2005): 822–27.
Follweiler, Melody. “Other and Self-Representation: A Pentadic Criticism of Kosovar Muslim and Roma Identity as Represented in Photographs by James Nachtwey and Djordje Jovanovic.” College of Communication Master of Arts Theses, November 30, 2012. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cmnt/14.
Ignatieff, Michael. “The Genocide Convention – A Crime against Humanity.” RSA Journal 148, no. 5492 (2000): 60–65.
JOHNSON, JAMES. “‘The Arithmetic of Compassion’: Rethinking the Politics of Photography.” British Journal of Political Science 41, no. 3 (2011): 621–43.
Kinsey, Tammy. Review of Review of War Photographer (2001), by Christian Frei and Schweizer Fernsehen. The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 3, no. 2 (2003): 108–11.
Kurasawa, Fuyuki. “In Praise of Ambiguity: On the Visual Economy of Distant Suffering.” In Suffering, Art, and Aesthetics, edited by Ratiba Hadj-Moussa and Michael Nijhawan, 23–50. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137426086_2.
Molesworth, Charles. “Photography and War: The Protocols.” Salmagundi, no. 144/145 (2004): 11–19.
Orvell, Miles. “Photographing Disaster: Urban Ruins and the Destructive Sublime.” Amerikastudien / American Studies 58, no. 4 (2013): 647–71.
Roberts, John. “Photography after the Photograph: Event, Archive, and the Non-Symbolic.” Oxford Art Journal 32, no. 2 (2009): 281–98.
Rothwell, Kenneth S., Leonard Quart, Richard Porton, Tom Hyland, and Tony Pipolo. “SHORT TAKES.” Cinéaste 27, no. 4 (2002): 64–64.
Taylor, Ursula. “Art/Document: Photographing Political Violence: Representation and Response in the Work of Sebastiao Salgado, James Nachtwey, Fazal Sheikh, and Alfredo Jaar.” Thesis, ResearchSpace@Auckland, 2011. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/6634.
