The photographs at the center of controversy in Boston. When is it not appropriate to publish photographs, especially photos that are not of explicit content? Perhaps that begs the question, what is explicit content in photography?
Just by looking at these photographs there really isn't much "explicit" content; there's only the morbidity of them because of the falling woman and child in a burning building. Personally, I believe it's inappropriate to publish photos that aren't explicit when it may contain sensitive material, or if it is just flat out unfitting for the article section. Then again, I believe that explicit content is when there is sensitive material, like nudity, death, and so on, but explicit content is rarely published in magazines and newspapers. The only question that I have for the photographer is why he didn't publish a photograph of the fire itself, and photographed a falling child and woman in a fire. Obviously the photographer is trying too show the severity of the fire (maybe, I'm unsure) and how fires are dangerous and can kill people. As I wrote about in my capstone paper, photojournalism is capturing a story through pictures, which can tell the viewer just what really went on and the extremes that may carry with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment