(*) In 1994 the South African photographer Kevin Carter, who worked as a freelance , received the Pulitzer Prize for photography, section Feature (let's leave it) for a picture published in The New York Times on March 26, 1993. As with other photographs issue that received the Pulitzer Prize, the decision to publish was made by the editors and this was widely reported worldwide. The picture is not a snapshot but was prepared by Carter, waited a while (hours, depending on Newseum, which was exposed a few minutes as his teammate Silva, who was with him) for the vulture approach, enter both in box and got a greater effect. Even wait for the vulture with his wings, which did not happen. The girl was alone at that time and was near a power United Nations The incident occurred during one of the famine in Darfur and southern Sudan in the 90's. Carter was justified during the award acceptance speech saying that she could get their own way to the UN camp. Shortly afterwards declared, "is the photo of my career but I'm not proud of it, I hate to see it, hate it. I'm still sorry for not helping the girl. "
versions and details aside, Carter was criticized for not having given up the picture, picking up the girl to save her. The critical success and chased him, he spent a nature photographer and two months after he committed suicide.
From the beginning the issue was raised by the media that the photo became an icon as a matter of public morality, including section utilitarian characteristic of Anglo-Saxon world. However, and from that point of view of utility, Carter emerged unscathed from the process and winning, as he got more benefit to the community (African, food, western welcome) in the form of international aid if it had been limited to rescue the girl, supposedly dying. The moralists who criticized him refused to turn the moral autonomy of the individual in whose name they spoke. Carter was required to be exemplary time without the picture could not be because nobody would have known. The virtuous character for the community rescue action that called for excluding the value of the news as a fact witness. At the same fact, the agony of the girl and the vulture ready to devour it, were denied their autonomy to impart a moral value of others. This tragedy led by a photographer and means ambitious and outraged a community, do you have limits? Is it right that Carter had prepared the scene to morbid extremes, as the death of the child?
( * ) Nickjournal Published on February 25, 2010
versions and details aside, Carter was criticized for not having given up the picture, picking up the girl to save her. The critical success and chased him, he spent a nature photographer and two months after he committed suicide.
From the beginning the issue was raised by the media that the photo became an icon as a matter of public morality, including section utilitarian characteristic of Anglo-Saxon world. However, and from that point of view of utility, Carter emerged unscathed from the process and winning, as he got more benefit to the community (African, food, western welcome) in the form of international aid if it had been limited to rescue the girl, supposedly dying. The moralists who criticized him refused to turn the moral autonomy of the individual in whose name they spoke. Carter was required to be exemplary time without the picture could not be because nobody would have known. The virtuous character for the community rescue action that called for excluding the value of the news as a fact witness. At the same fact, the agony of the girl and the vulture ready to devour it, were denied their autonomy to impart a moral value of others. This tragedy led by a photographer and means ambitious and outraged a community, do you have limits? Is it right that Carter had prepared the scene to morbid extremes, as the death of the child?
( * ) Nickjournal Published on February 25, 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment