<<Seeking relief from the sight of masses of people starving to death, he wandered into the open bush. He heard a soft, high-pitched whimpering and saw a tiny girl trying to make her way to the feeding center. As he crouched to photograph her, a vulture landed in view. Careful not to disturb the bird, he positioned himself for the best possible image. He would later say he waited about 20 minutes, hoping the vulture would spread its wings. It did not, and after he took his photographs, he chased the bird away and watched as the little girl resumed her struggle. Afterward he sat under a tree, lit a cigarette, talked to God and cried. "He was depressed afterward," Silva recalls. "He kept saying he wanted to hug his daughter.">>

Exceprt from The Life And Death Of Kevin Carter - Scott McLeod

 

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s109/Orchitis/meal.jpg

 

Kevin Carter took this picture during the Sudanese famine of 1993, aged 32 years. It won him the Pulitzer prize. In 1994, only 16 months later he would take his own life, unable to comes to terms with his own guilt at not intervening further to help not only this girl but thousands of others dying of starvation. His suicide note read - "The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist."

 

<<It should come as no surprise that he found it difficult to reconcile the peaks and valleys of his career with the suffering and violence upon which it was built. It disturbed him, as it should have. By embarking on a career in photojournalism, Carter set himself apart from the lives of the people he photographed. He chose to be an observer rather than a participant. Carter opted for a moral detachment that most of us cannot achieve and that I would not want to have. Though I can admire his work and courage in the face of danger, I cannot imagine witnessing such violence and human suffering without trying to intervene. Perhaps, in the end, Kevin Carter could not either.>>

 

 

This very famous photo (and particularly with reference to the photographer in question) illustrates how documentary photojournalism can be a truly horrific experience. The question remains though:

 

Should photographers act upon the situations happening before them or does their act of merely standing back and photographing the scene do more to change things n the wider sense.

Had Carter acted upon his emotions he would simply have gathered up the child and taken her to the feeding station but does the publication of this picture cause more people to act and therefore justify the photojournalist's 'emotional detachment'

 

 

Discuss...

Edited July 11, 201015 yr by Severin

Is it not sometimes possible to do both?

I know every situation is different, but in this particular one you've described, even AFTER Carter had got his photo, he did absolutely nothing.

Is it not sometimes possible to do both?

I know every situation is different, but in this particular one you've described, even AFTER Carter had got his photo, he did absolutely nothing.

If I got this correctly. He picture was on the cover of the new york times, the picture and the info with it lead to a major influx of aid and focus on the plight in Sudan. I wouldn't say that was nothing.

If I got this correctly. He picture was on the cover of the new york times, the picture and the info with it lead to a major influx of aid and focus on the plight in Sudan. I wouldn't say that was nothing.

 

I meant at the time. Maybe I'm misreading the story, but did he take the photo, and even after that, just watch the girl? Did he take her to a medical centre or anything?

Is it not sometimes possible to do both?

I know every situation is different, but in this particular one you've described, even AFTER Carter had got his photo, he did absolutely nothing.

According to Carter he chased away the bird and the girl continued heading to the food aid centre.

 

Not essentially nothing but there is clearly a case to say he could've done more. The case has also been put that the photo being published saved many more lives than that one action could.

 

I think there's a line that most photojournalists must take of how detached they remain. Carter for example (like many documentary photographers) was an extremely emotional man and by taking direct action you can become drawn into the situation you're supposed to be covering to the point where you're no longer capable of documenting it but become focused on the activity of direct help.

 

It must be remembered that the girl in the photo was one of thousands affected and many others were close by. He could not possibly carry them all alone. How do you choose who to take and who to leave to their fate? He suffered enough at just seeing what he did but to become actively involved could well have been perceived as being far more damaging to him. It should also be remembered he travelled to the Sudan for respite from the experiences he endured in South Africa in order to cover the Sudanese civil war and famine and because he believed the world was ignoring it. Here was a highly emotional man, already in an exhausted and distressed state confronted with something far more upsetting than he expected.

 

Maybe for all the above reasons he should never have been a photojournalist but then again maybe it was all those reasons that made him one of the best in his field...