In my opinion the major difference between video and still image is that a still image will stick in your mind. It leaves you guessing, wondering what happened next. The Execution, taken by Eddie Adams during the Vietnam War, is a perfect example of such a feeling. We can see a Vietnamese general executing a prisoner, we cannot tell if he has shot, is shooting, or just threatening the man and so we are left to imagine this ourselves. Yet there was also a video reel shot of the moment, this showed the general execute him on sight, which not only ends all curiosity we may have had from the still image, but condemned the man for the rest of his life, forcing him to retire from his post. I guess in a way you could say that still image causes more controversy as a human mind without conclusive evidence will imagine endless possibilities, and due to this an uproar is much more likely. Another example of this is Thomas Hoepker's photo of a group of people appearing to relax as the Twin Towers burn behind them, this is similar as a video reel would have shown the people's emotions and body language over a period of time and not just a single moment that condemned them as much as this Vietnamese general.
Earlier I mentioned the creation of possibility through still image, photographers will always attempt to eliminate this by capturing the "decisive moment". This is the definition of a "perfect" picture, with a definite meaning. In my opinion this particular picture, The Execution, was taken seconds too early to capture said "decisive moment" as I think there are still too many possible outcomes from this image. Unbeknownst to the audience that would have viewed this picture the victim was shot dead seconds later, and if he had been falling to the ground, still in shot then that would have been a perfect shot, again in my opinion.
Good Ben, I like your notion of endless possibilities, how and what do photojournalists rely on to shape and exclude possibilities?
ReplyDelete