Shock Photography

What I found most interesting in the shock photography reading was the undeniably truthful point that the public view these so called “shock” photographs from a position of comfort, or as the article states, “from inside our freedom”.  Because of this standpoint, not many of the photographs actually do what they are meant to which is to promote a “wow” reaction.  The reading also makes a good point when saying that the photographer who took and produced these images was shocked for us, “shuddered for us, reflected for us, judged for us”.  The photographer did all the work for the viewer; he/she took the photograph because of his/her reaction to the scene or event.  But the public, viewing the photograph from a position of comfort, just sees the photograph of the event and the not the event itself, creating this disconnect and therefore the lack of “shock”.  But the question stands:  Did the photographer really take the photograph because he/she was indeed shocked and wanted the rest of the world to be as well, or did he/she photograph the event because of the reaction he/she thought it would receive?  I think an interesting idea to consider is whether the public’s reaction was supposed to be unprecedented, or if it was supposed to follow the photographer’s reaction.