Comments on: So Says The NYT Photo Editor, Part I: This War Is In The Book

By: Eric Jenkins

Eric Jenkins — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:28:30 +0000

Great comments from everyone!
I think icons have very distinct aesthetic practices, tracing even back to iconographic painting. The main characters are completely immersed in the scene, not engaging the camera. The perspective is frontal, presented to the viewer. The background matters little. The viewer’s attention is focused. The icon is for the viewer’s contemplation of the moral lesson. The moral lesson is embodied in the image-character, i.e. they are in the act of being penitent, etc. In the older photos, we have icons of sacrifice for country (Iwo Jima), of trauma (Napalm Vietnam), and of militaristic violence. These lessons are actually present in the image — there is trauma, sacrifice, and violence. The bridge photo lacks all of these characteristics. There is no clear moral lesson taking place in the photo. We are not sure where to focus or who to identify with. The image makes us look into the image rather than projecting out into the viewer’s wolrd (known as inverse perspective in iconography). Some of the people engage the camera, rather than the moral lesson of the moment. And what moral lesson are we to draw — it has to be implied from the image. The lesson is not in the image itself. This image is not memorable like icons because it lacks all these features.

By: superpower=corruptempire

superpower=corruptempire — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:15:22 +0000

Given the mind-body-and-soul-numbing human sacrifices each of these photographs merely gesture towards– at this point in this illegal, unjust, and immoral US War on the World, I just don’t care about the aesthetics. I just want and need it to end.

By: ciao!ciuck

ciao!ciuck — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:06:00 +0000

Also iconic: the lone man standing in the street in Tiananmeng Square confronting the tanks, here. The Iwo Jima photo shown, the classic, is not the re-enactment; it is the first and original, a picture you see happening right in front of you and only have a chance to get a frame or two. (for details, see here.) Likewise with Eddie Adams' photo. I saw a documentary about him with a film clip of the event. Adams barely got his camera up in time. And Nick's picture? wow. An icon from the current ongoing war has yet to appear, I suspect, although all of the ones mentioned above are far, far better than the bridge photo, I believe.

By: jawbone

jawbone — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:01:04 +0000

Comparing the Iraq War photo to the rest, the composition struck me immediately as being much too busy, with no real central focus other than the raised arm of one demonstrator.
The others have the central figures dominating the photo, the backgrounds have enough open space or fuzzy resolution to set off the central figures, and the important figures are gripping. No need to search for what is going on–it hits you immediately. The napalm burned little girl also has been cropped to bascially only her figure, which is totally stunning. This uncropped version, however, gives her greater context.
The Fallujah photo has so much going on–it’s a good news shot, but it does not become symbolic. I have a vague recollection of some of the photos of the hanging charred bodes being more dramatic.

By: Kija

Kija — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:29:36 +0000

Photos I would choose as iconic:
1) The man in the hood on a box from Abu Ghraib
2) The pulling-down of the Saddam statue — with a frame wide enough to reveal its stage-management.

By: Cocoageek

Cocoageek — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:59:59 +0000

I agree with much of the discussion and dissection above. I’m guessing a (the?) primary reason why McNally chose the Fallujah bridge photo was because, like the others, it was snapped by a *professional* photographer. The (iconic) photo of the hooded Abu Ghraib prisoner was taken by U.S. military personnel who AFAIK were not professional photographers.

By: Siberian

Siberian — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:13:49 +0000

I have to agree, Chris Hondros' photo of the little girl is more iconic then this one, you have to look at this one too long or even have the the bodies pointed out to you. The Abu Ghraib hooded prisoner is a close second for me. Both the little girl and the Abu Ghraib photo are instantly jarring and generate an immediate impression, much like the older war photos shown here.

By: Gray Lensman

Gray Lensman — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:43:05 +0000

Chris Hondros’ photo of the little girl is the one that always stops my heart. The babies are the real victims and we will pay for that for decades.

By: Stan Banos

Stan Banos — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:14:48 +0000

Must say, the majority of commenters are much more on the ball than Mc Nally on this. The aesthetics and composition just aren’t there to make this an “icon,”
and you really have to search out the “dramatic content matter” within the (way too busy) frame- even then, it’s not very revealing without the aid of
narration. “Iconic images” hit you in a visceral, gut level because of their content, and remain in your consciousness because of the dynamics of their composition. Strange how a photo editor got it so wrong; this aint nowhere in the “icon” league.

By: steve talbert

steve talbert — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:09:09 +0000

what is interesting to me is that in the other photos it gives the impression of the US being the agressor, or the people who’s side we are supposed to be on being the bad guys. In the Iraq photo, it is the opposite. Although gruesome, I don’t think it will be remembered in the same light as the others. I think it will be lumped together with images such as the victims of the holocaust, etc,, it is showing how bad our ‘enemy’ is.