Tuesday, March 25, 2008
---------------------------------------Pittsburgh to Nairobi---------------------------------------
Flight 1 - Tuesday, 6 May 2008 Status : confirmed
Departure : 05:00 PM - Pittsburgh, USA - Pittsburgh International
Arrival : 06:19 PM - Detroit, USA - Detroit Metro, terminal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>Change of plane required. Time between flights = 0:46<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Flight 2 - Tuesday, 6 May 2008 Status : confirmed Departure : 07:05 PM - Detroit, USA - Detroit Metro Arrival : 09:20 AM+1day(s) - Amsterdam, Netherlands - Schiphol Airline +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>Change of plane required. Time between flights = 0:55<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Flight 3 - Wednesday, 7 May 2008 Status : confirmed Departure : 10:15 AM - Amsterdam, Netherlands - Schiphol Arrival : 07:10 PM - Nairobi, Kenya - Jomo Kenyatta Airline ---------------------------------------Nairobi to Lilongwe--------------------------------------- Flight 1 - Thursday, 8 May 2008 Status : confirmed Departure : 08:30 AM - Nairobi, Kenya - Jomo Kenyatta Airline Arrival : 12:20 PM - Lilongwe, Malawi - Lilongwe International ---------------------------------------Lilongwe to Pittsburgh--------------------------------------- Flight 1 - Sunday, 8 June 2008 Status : confirmed Departure : 01:20 PM - Lilongwe, Malawi - Lilongwe International Arrival : 04:25 PM - Nairobi, Kenya - Jomo Kenyatta Airline +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>Change of plane required. Time between flights = 5:50<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Flight 2 - Sunday, 8 June 2008 Status : confirmed Departure : 10:15 PM - Nairobi, Kenya - Jomo Kenyatta Arrival : 05:30 AM+1day(s) - Amsterdam, Netherlands - Schiphol Airline +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>Change of plane required. Time between flights = 2:30<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Flight 3 - Monday, 9 June 2008 Status : confirmed Departure : 08:00 AM - Amsterdam, Netherlands - Schiphol Arrival : 10:35 AM - Detroit, USA +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>Change of plane required. Time between flights = 3:00<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Flight 4 - Monday, 9 June 2008 Status : confirmed Departure : 01:35 PM - Detroit, USA - Detroit Metro, terminal EM Arrival : 02:39 PM - Pittsburgh, USA *****************************************************************************************************************************************************Penalties Per Person) Before DepartureCancel: Not-Allowed Change: $350.00 After DepartureCancel: Not-Allowed Change: $350.00 ***************************************************************************YOU MUST BRING YOUR GOVERNMENT ISSUED PHOTO ID TO THE AIRPORT. A VALIDPASSPORT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THENAME ON THE TICKET MATCHES THE NAME ON THE PASSPORT. NAME CHANGES ARE NOT ALLOWED ONCE TICKET IS ISSUED.PLEASE REVIEW YOUR ITINERARY TO MAKE SURE YOUR NAME &TRAVEL DATES ARE CORRECT BEFORE YOU PAY FOR THE FLIGHT. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE YOU HAVE THEPROPER VISAS AND DOCUMENTS.FAILURE TO HAVE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION MAY RESULTIN DENIED BOARDING OR DENIED ENTRY AND YOU WILL LOSETHE FULL VALUE OF YOUR TICKET.PLEASE VISIT http://www.state.gov/, OR THE EMBASSY OF YOURDESTINATION COUNTRY TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION.
. ..................................................MISSING A FLIGHTIF YOU DO NOT CHECK-IN ON TIME OR CANCEL YOUR FLIGHTSPRIOR DEPARTURE YOUR TICKET WILL HAVE NO VALUE ANDYOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY REFUND OR CREDIT.IF YOU DO NOT FLY ON THE DEPARTURE PORTION OF YOURRESERVATION THE AIRLINE WILL CANCEL EACH SUBSEQUENTFLIGHT OF YOUR RESERVATION WITHOUT EXCEPTION ANDYOUR TICKET WILL LOSE ALL VALUEDO NOT BUY A ROUND TRIP TICKET IF YOU INTEND TO USE THE RETURN FLIGHT ONLY.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
"Ah, that mother. How she made me angry in the beginning. I couldn’t stand to see her on screen- convincing the world that joining the army was the ideal thing to do- perfectly happy that her daughter and son were ‘serving’ America- nay, serving, in fact, the world by joining up. I hated her even more as they showed the Iraqi victims- the burning buildings, the explosions, the corpses- the dead and the dying. I wanted to hate her throughout the whole film because she embodied the arrogance and ignorance of the people who supported the war.
I can’t explain the feelings I had towards her. I pitied her because, apparently, she knew very little about what she was sending her kids into. I was angry with her because she really didn’t want to know what she was sending her children to do. In the end, all of those feelings crumbled away as she read the last letter from her deceased son. I began feeling a sympathy I really didn’t want to feel, and as she was walking in the streets of Washington, looking at the protestors and crying, it struck me that the Americans around her would never understand her anguish. The irony of the situation is that the one place in the world she would ever find empathy was Iraq. We understand. We know what it’s like to lose family and friends to war- to know that their final moments weren’t peaceful ones… that they probably died thirsty and in pain… that they weren’t surrounded by loved ones while taking their final breath." (Riverbend Wednesday, September 15, 2004)
Sontag writes that Salgado's, grand-scaled, beautifully composed images seem to focus on anonymous powerlessness globalized to a scale of suffering that invites passivity..."invites them to feel that the sufferings and misfortunes are too vast, too irrevocable, too epic to be much changed by any local political intervention. With a subject conceived on this scale, compassion can only flounder - and make abstract. But all politics, like all of history, is concrete." (Sontag 79) Riverbend shows a complex weave of the concrete with the ongoing historical context on both the global and local level. Her work gives history an essential human scale.
On Riverbend's blog "I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend.." is the first line that met me and she seemed to address it to everyone, Americans included, even when she broke out in outbursts of frustration with just what dunderheads we were acting like. Sometimes her blogs read like little mini-theses, as she used the language of eggheads and politicos, sometimes she sounded like the postcards Postsecret, sharing snatches of such personal, intimate response and everydayness, sometimes she sounded like she was writing letters to me, one of the soldiers whose everyday decisions and choices to be decent or not really did make a big difference. She gave pretty specific advice on how to help make a few, concrete things better by the ways we could behave within the limits we were given. Sontag says "Compassion is an unstable emotion. It needs to be translated into action, or it withers." (Sontag 101) Riverbend gave some detailed recipes for how to translate our compassion into action within the very particular time and place that she had some clues about, being kind of an expert on being an Iraqi. Good manners are a big plus, she wrote - here's how you might express good will and respect even if you don't know the language she prompted. I still thank her.
Fortunately for photographers, much has changed since the 1850's when Baudelaire declared his ideas. Today photography is considered as much an art as painting or sculpture is. Artistic photographs can be found just about everywhere in today's culture. Not only are artists highlighting their work through creative venues like museums and galleries, but they have found a place in commercial venues as well. Newspapers, magazines, and advertisements all use artistic photography. It is not enough to simply show an image of a scene or a person. There needs to be an idea behind the image that is shown through the layout, framing, and lighting of the photo. In his essay "The Photographic Message," Roland Barthes goes into great detail about the aspects that go into creating a photograph. He talks about the "trick effects" that a photographer can edit into his image, the posing of the figures that can be captured, the objects that are placed or removed from the scene, and how the image can be enhanced by elements of photogenia (lighting, exposure, printing). A photographer uses all of these aspects to create his artistic view in his image.
Even the images that we seen in the daily news about wars and disasters around the world take into account these elements. Each photographer has his or her own opinion about the event that he or she covers. As much as we like to believe that objectivity exists in the news media, we all know this isn't really that true. A photographer has an opinion and his images reflect that opinion. Photographers use the artistic elements of photography to show their ideas in their images. I think that art naturally finds its place in war and disaster photography simply because of the way photographers go about capturing their images.
Looking at Salgado's photo essays, the artistic elements are very evident. Even though Salgado's images did not appear in a newspaper or other form of media, they are still of disaster and suffering around the world. I think the fact that Salgado has won awards for his photography shows that art is definitely found in war photography. His images can also be considered beautiful. They are not beautiful in the traditional way, but beautiful in the way in which they evoke compassion. I think that this idea of beauty has in some ways taken over as what defines sometimes as beautiful. Pretty faces and sunny landscapes are rarely described as "beautiful." I think that people have come to expect beautiful images to evoke strong emotions. Viewers want to feel something when shown a landscape or a face.
Dorothea Lange's photo "Migrant Woman" taken for the FSA during the Depression, shows a woman gazing past the photographer deep in thought. Her struggles are clear on her face and she is not shown to be "pretty," but the image, and the woman, are still beautiful. The beauty of the photograph comes from the emotion that the woman's intense gaze delivers. Images like these show that even if a photographer is taking pictures during wartime or struggling, his artistic ideas still show through in his images, and it is these ideas that make a photograph beautiful.
Ut's photograph was credited with launching the anti-war sentiment in America, and led Nixon to question its authenticity. Adam's photo, along with increasing the American anti-war sentiment, ruined Loan's life -- the general was villainized in American and South Vietnamese newspapers. When Loan, fifteen years after the fall of Saigon, moved to Virginia to open a pizza parlor, a few of his patrons soon discovered that he was the one from that famous photograph. Loan found the words WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE spray-painted on the bathroom wall one night while he was cleaning, and soon after business dropped off and the parlor was closed down.
The power of a single image is astonishing. Or in my father's case, a series of images -- in 1958, when he was only sixteen, Life magazine ran a series story called "Crisis in Education." Two sixteen-year-old boys peer out from the cover of the series’ first issue. Above their juxtaposed photographs, in red letters against a black background, it reads: "Exclusive pictures of a Russian schoolboy versus his US counterpart." The Russian, Alexei Kutzkov, purses his lips beneath a soot-streak moustache. His shoulders disappear into an armor of fur. A black shapka sits pushed back from his squinted eyes, which in any language appear to ask, "What the hell are you looking at?"
The American opposite him, however, is easy-smiling, each tooth standing straighter than a post in a white picket fence. His Flat-Top with Fenders haircut lay perfectly coifed, James Dean leather jacket half-zipped over a wool sweater. The caption identifies him as Stephen Lapekas of Chicago, Illinois. He is a vestige of Life’s long (and ultimately losing) battle with television and changing tastes, the poster boy for everything that was once wrong with America. He is a faded reflection of myself at sixteen. He is my father -- and after this magazine hit newsstands in 1958, he was instantly famous. For one week in February of that year, a Life photographer and journalist had followed him around the halls and classrooms of Austin High -- snapping pictures, asking questions, never mentioning what the article would look like when finally published.
And when my father finally read the article, he understood why.
“Stephen Lapekas of Chicago,” it begins, “starts out every school day by meeting his high school steady, Penny Donahue, and heading for Austin High. Ten minutes later he gets to Typing II class, slips behind a large electric typewriter and another pleasant school day begins.” A photograph of my father adjusting the tabulator, staring at the Underwood as if at a lab specimen: “I type about a word a minute,” he jokes in the box beneath. On the next page is a shot of my dad walking back from a blackboard graffitied with mislabeled angles and shapes, biting his lip to keep from laughing: “Stephen amuses the class with his ineptitude,” the caption says.
Alexei’s pictures fill nearly the rest of the five-page article, and in only one of them is he laughing: “When not reading Tolstoy or Chekov, Alexei can be found playing fervent games of chess with classmates,” reads one caption. In the photograph overhead he is seated across from Oleg Koryokavsky, a schoolmate, chuckling because the game is almost over and as the last line of the caption reveals, “Alexei won.”
On the third page of the article, “Alexei labors with keen concentration upon a Gaz truck in shop class. Though he is college applicant, he must still take vocational courses because they are in curriculum.” His classmates clamber around him, friends of his or the camera?
On the next page my father stands at the head of his English class, under fifty stars and thirteen stripes, reading aloud from Great Expectations. His finger follows the words while a girl seated at the back peruses the pages of Modern Romances, which she has tucked tightly inside her notebook.
On another page my father can be found dancing with Penny, his high school girlfriend. “After-school theatrics,” proclaims the caption under this page-sized picture, “occupies Stephen Lapekas who, with Penny Donahue (right), dances Rockin’ Cha at the YMCA. Stephen spent four hours a week for two months rehearsing the YMCA centennial.”
And on the page directly beside this one, “After school study brings Alexei Kutzkov to the curtained silence of his home. Alexei, who seldom has a date, spends three to four hours a night on homework.” Alexei, alone, a silhouette hunched over his desktop. Dancing with famous names and dates and numbers in the dark.
Looking back, now fifty years later, my father understands that the Life article is purely propaganda. "A product of the time," he calls it -- and he's right: that article was published five months after the launch of Sputnik. America was terrified, and we needed a place to point our fingers. My father became that place (that face) only by accident, and a half-century later he is still embarrassed about it.
So as much as technology (photography, specifically) has affected our ability to understand world events, it has conversely affected our ability to misunderstand them. If anyone at the time had bothered to research the events behind Eddie Adam's photo, he would have found that Loan, a highly decorated general, was simply doing his job. The same is true for my father. His family and friends knew that he was, despite being a c-student, intelligent, motivated, and diligent, but the country's perception of him, based on only a handful of the two-thousand photographs taken over the course of that week, was quite the opposite.
History is memory cobbled together, understood differently by each individual. Much of our understanding of world events since the 1800’s can be called to mind visually, events represented by single frames. Sontag states “This remembering through photographs eclipses other forms of understanding,” (89). In an increasingly media-saturated culture, has technology affected our ability or our desire to understand world events? Is it enough to know that such events are happening?
In today’s culture, I think the desire to understand world events is often overcome by a false feeling of knowing everything already. The expression ‘a picture is worth a thousand words,’ suggests that the images that pervade our culture tell the whole story. Consider John Kifner’s writing about the image of the Serb militiaman kicking the Muslim woman: “It tells you everything you need to know,” (90). I think many people expect photographs to be a quick and easy tell-all for world events. In the same way that someone might browse headlines online instead of reading news stories, they might browse the images and captions in order to know what’s going on. This cursory overview might seem like an adequate way of “understanding,” but it’s not. As Sontag says, “but of course [a photograph] doesn’t tell us everything we need to know,” (90).
A photograph shows us one scene or image through the perspective of one photographer. It can be manipulated (either digitally or through the presentation) to mean something to one group and something totally different to another group. For example, “during the fighting between Serbs and Croats at the beginning of the recent Balkan wars, the same photographs of children killed in the shelling of a village were passed around at both Serb and Croat propaganda briefings. Alter the caption, and the children’s deaths could be used and reused,” (10). Clearly, a picture can be shown to mean something it does not, which makes the desire to find an all encompassing truth in a photograph dangerous.
Our ability to understand world events is thus altered by treating an image as a quick capsule of truth. Since people think that “everything we need to know” can be taken in a glance, there is apparently less need and less desire to actually research or investigate the event. Knowing of an event rather than about it makes people docile. If, when looking at a typical image of a bloat belly child in an African famine, the viewer feels shock and empathy, they might consider their job done. They have seen the image, and now they “know” there is starvation and suffering, and they have felt sufficiently bad about it. But this doesn’t solve anything. It’s necessary to see a picture and wonder what’s going on outside the frame.
I think this same logic holds true on a smaller scale. When Sontag says, “this remembering through photographs eclipses other forms of understanding,” (89), she’s right – and not just about world events. A lot of my “memories” cannot exist without the photograph of the event. I say that I “remember” playing in my pap’s pigpen with the pigs, but what I’m really remembering is a picture of me in a dress crouching down in some hay petting pigs. The stories I’ve heard about it fill in my “memory,” but what I understand about the event hinges on the image.
The same type of memory affects the way I think about world events. The image on the girl running from the napalmed village in Vietnam really influenced the way I “understood” the Vietnam War. I first encountered the image in a high school history course and without knowing much of anything about the war I based my opinions and understanding on that one image. It’s a hollow, false way of trying to understand anything, and the use of images in the media is dangerous for exactly that reason. In the same way that the Serbs and Croats could be made to feel hate based misrepresented images of dead children, images today could be misrepresented to influence us.
Although photographs are useful resources, they only capture a fraction of the event. As Gourevitch explains in We Wish to Inform You, it’s appealing to look at the dead bodies but just looking is not enough. The bodies hold only a part of the history of the genocide. A frame can only hold so much, and it takes all parts to make a whole.
And yes, I do believe that simply knowing such events are occurring in the world is enough. “Photographs of an atrocity may give rise to opposing responses,” Sontag writes. “A call for peace. A cry for revenge. Or simply the bemused awareness, continually restocked by photographic information, that terrible things happen” (13). Even the most politically active individual cannot possibly be involved in all world issues. By being aware that all the events are happening, individuals can at least take minor or indirect steps to managing the problem at hand such as voting for political candidates, protesting or even taking personal initiative such as (in the case of environmental issues) using less electricity or water. Environment and personality are really what matter when going deeper into world issues on an individual level: Which issue(s) do you have personal interest or expertise in? How can you go about taking steps to remedy it at your current location or in your local community?
As for “art’s” place in war or disaster photography, I think (as cliché as it sounds,) that it all depends on your definition of “art.” Art, to some, is simply paints and canvas. To me, music is art: the more depressing and raw or real world oriented the lyrics tend to be, the better. And that’s not simply because I view the world in a negative light; I just enjoy realism as opposed to idealism. It’s entertaining. War photography can be seen in much the same way. It very often reveals human life and violence in blunt and gruesome ways; a photograph offers no shield or fancy language to dance around the horror of war. As Sontag writes on page 47, “Everyone is a literalist when it comes to photographs.” She continues with this thought a little later in the book: “No sophisticated sense of what photography is or can be will ever weaken the satisfactions of a picture of an unexpected event seized in mid-action by an alert photographer” (55). In other words, the simple fact that the photographer can capture the essence of life and the reality and fast-paced nature of it in a standstill picture, makes it art. Like song lyrics, images that simply depict war as an unsatisfactory reality of life itself make them beautiful and artistic.