Response to Campany

In his essay, David Campany discusses the problems of ‘Late Photography’ or rather photographs that were taken after the climax of an event. His argument about photographs that are taken after the event being aestheticized more than a “spontaneous snap shot” during the event is valid and I agree. In the example of Joel Meyerowitz’s 9/11 photographs there is a certain aestheticized look to them. Most of them are taken at beautiful parts of the day, either early morning or late afternoon where the sun is low and the light is soft and golden. The sky then turns to a deep blue, which shifts to a pink after the sun dips below the horizon. It is quite a beautiful scene among the wreckage and aftermath of a horrific event. Campany is critical of this. My opinion differs from Campany on this point because part of art is the formal and aesthetic quality, especially in color photography. I think it is virtually impossible to escape from. Even Robert Capa's D-day beach landing photos are aesthetically beautiful. The waves washing up on shore as a soldier runs up on shore in the foreground of the high contrast scene.

Furthermore, I do not think that just because a photograph is beautiful means that it does not hold a certain truth or power as Campany suggests. He says that images like Meyerowitz’s only are powerful on the surface and can “foster an indifference”. I do not think this is true. From a personal standpoint I believe that formal elements of photography draw a viewer into the image. If all aestheticization is lost then very few people are going to look at it. A message cannot be received if there is no one there to listen.