A Risen Hell Capturing memorable moments

A Risen Hell

Pictures can capture memories in many different ways.  Looking at a picture close enough can do more than catch your eye, it can tell a story.  Sometimes, words aren't even needed to convey the message behind the photo.  Some of the most compelling stories are captured in graphic images.  These are photographs that produce a negative effect and feeling to the viewer.  To truly capture a memorable moment, you really have to see more than the obvious; you have to read the image like a story.  The controversy behind the publication of graphic images has led me to take two different opinions.

There are many pictures that bring up controversy in society.  Many are of recent, and many were taken in the past.  The picture that I have chosen to discuss is on the mass extermination of Jews in World War Two.  "War photographs" implies more than just pictures of combat: it can refer to military photographs in general, or photographs of civilians caught in the middle of conflicts.  For many people, the photographs of the concentration camps, which came out only after World War II, were too much. The suffering and death at these and other concentration camps were greater than any before endured.  These photographs may be the most shocking ever published.  After them there could be equally graphic horrors (such as the Columbine tragedy for example) but not the initial shock at what human beings had done, or the shock of seeing and reading how bad the Jews were treated As war photography and photographs of other extreme situations have become increasingly graphic, it has been argued that seeing such images have made us routinely used to the horrors of such images.

In his essay on the Holocaust, Stephen Feinstein tells us, "Some say that even the special realism the camera brings to the depiction of war can no longer shock, for we have seen too much, and true shock is no longer possible."

The photo I chose to discuss was taken in Auschwitz during World War Two.  Auschwitz, Birkenau, Buna, and Buchenwald were all concentration camps that were responsible for the murder of nearly six million Jews during World War Two.  Just about every photo that was taken at one of these camps is graphic in some way or another.  Whenever looking at this picture, it is not amusing in any way.  Here in this picture we have a Jew, just seconds before the prison guard is about to pull the trigger and sending his murdered corpse into the cremation pit that is already full of dead bodies.  How scared he has to be.  This Jew is perceived as nothing other than a nuisance to this guard and the Nazi republic.  This picture says a lot about how bad these camps were.

As society views graphic photos such as these, many questions should be asked in deciding whether certain questionable photos should be published, or used. Clearly, these questions should be taken into account whenever the photo is "negative" in nature or presents the ugly side of life.  Pictures of the "good, happy and beautiful," as long as they are not manufactured or posed, will always pass well in society.  I have an uncertain attitude toward this photo.  The right side of my brain tells me that the picture deserves publication so that the public will know the problem of how horrible the tragedies of the Holocaust were.  This side of my brain also tells me that only certain audiences should be able to view these horrific photos, and in part only audiences old enough to understand the Holocaust should be concerned with such photography.  The media on the other hand shouldn't have to censor the photos of extreme graphics in photography.  It is television that would maybe need censored, but not photography.  Those that think they are too graphic need to decide for themselves on whether to view them.   Even in some cases they can't help whether they see them or not, but it goes against what my views in censoring them in photography anyway.  The left side of my brain, however, is sending me the message that it is not fair to the Jews to be photographed and shown to the public in such a depressing condition.  They are as much entitled to respect as their more well-off counterparts in our society.  It's bad enough that they have been neglected throughout the most part of the twentieth century.  Giving publicity to their sad plight only adds to their already miserable condition.  I also think that in our economy, the media has a strong influence on how people related to many different topics.  The audience in my opinion doesn't have that much say in what gets printed.  The media does influence public opinion, but they are rarely guilty of creating or manipulating it.  People are going to think what they want to think, and media is going to print what they want to print.  In relate to commercial purposes, I don't think that coverage on television would be good because photos are enough.  There are also many different kinds of audiences that watch television.  On the other hand younger audiences don't tend to look at magazines like "Life" or "Newsweek," that are more likely to have such photos in them, as much as they

would look at "Ranger Rick."   On television, there can be anything that pops up on commercials that young kids see.  These are my views on everything.

In conclusion, the times of the Holocaust offered society with photography that shocked the world.  As we look at pictures, we can find stories of the unimaginary that linger in our minds.  The country's dilemma will probably always be at stake with the publication  of certain photography.