Photo Of The Day

Photo: Thomas Hoepker

Photo: Thomas Hoepker

Photographs Can Speak A Thousand Words, But Without A Narrative Device Framing Them, They Are Mute

These days, we have a lot of photo editors and pundits to tell us what they think of a particular photograph and what it actually means. The trouble is sometimes situations are complex, and it is not easy to understand the stories behind photos.

The above photo is one such:

On the morning of September 11, Thomas Hoepker, a Magnum photojournalist, crossed from Manhattan into Queens and then Brooklyn to get closer to the scene of the disaster. He stopped his car in Williamsburg to shoot a group of young people sitting by the waterfront as the plume of smoke rose from across the river. The result was a pastoral scene of five people chatting amicably as the towers burned. Hoepker expressed concern that they “didn’t seem to care,” and did not publish the shot at the time, feeling it was “ambiguous and confusing.”

The photo was published as the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approached. In The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote he sees the photograph as a prescient symbol of indifference and amnesia. “This is a country that likes to move on, and fast,” Rich wrote. “The young people in Mr. Hoepker’s photo aren’t necessarily callous. They’re just American.”

David Plotz, deputy editor of the online magazine Slate, reacted vehemently. “Those New Yorkers Weren’t Relaxing!,” read the headline. The subjects, he interpreted, “have looked away from the towers for a moment not because they’re bored with 9/11, but because they’re citizens participating in the most important act in a democracy — civic debate.” Plotz argued that Rich took a “cheap shot,” and he called for a response from any of the subjects.

Shortly thereafter, Walter Sipser wrote to Slate. “It’s Me in That 9/11 Photo,” the magazine said in the headline posting Sipser’s e-mail message, which explained that “we were in a profound state of shock and disbelief, like everyone else we encountered that day,” and denounced Hoepker for not trying to ascertain the state of mind of the photograph’s subjects and for misinterpreting the moment. Hoepker responded on Slate that “the image has touched many people exactly because it remains fuzzy and ambiguous in all its sun-drenched sharpness,” especially five years after the event. He wondered, was the picture “just the devious lie of a snapshot, which ignored the seconds before and after I had clicked the shutter?”

Yet, the photo remains the focus of a debate on a metaphorical level. In Underexposed, Colin Jacobson observed, “It took a photographer of courage and subtlety to stand back from the immediate crisis and show another side of the story. The calm scene challenges the conventional wisdom that ‘nothing in America will ever be the same again’.”

Iconic Photos
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2006/09/i_took_that_911_photo.html
 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Michael Cosgrove

    A few years ago a photograph appeared in Bangkok of a 16 y.o girl leaning on a motorway median apparently casually texting on her cellphone. Moments before she had been driving a car without a liscense and caused an accident in which about nine people died.
    The vitriol this caused on social media was horrendous, particularly as the second by second context of the setting remained unexplained. I believe the rape and death threats were so intensive that she had to be constantly moved to keep her whereabouts secret. It didn’t help her popularity that she came from a wealthy family which ensured leniency at any subsequent court proceedings.

  • Ward_Boston_JAGC_Remembered

    I wonder where the photos of the young Israelis there to “document the event” are?

    • Rick H

      Israelis? why would any of them have been there for that?

      • Ward_Boston_JAGC_Remembered

        Try looking it up.

        • Rick H

          Not everything you might read on the internet is fact, remember.
          This conspiracy has well been debunked.

  • The photo gives but a millisecond of information, worth a thousand (descriptive) words but interpretation can only come from speaking to the subjects At The Time. A minute later they could have been laughing or crying. Photo choice will always be subjective and it is too easy to make assumptions. I have similar issues with art critics who blather on in self indulgent reviews. Commentators should at least talk to the photographer.

  • Isherman

    “The Camera cannot lie, but it can be an accessory to un-truth” Harold Evans.

  • friardo

    Photographs, like books and other modes of expression tell us easily as much about the expressionist as the subject. Here the photographer just carried on the sort of thing he normally does, so did the subjects. We cope by making extremes normal, especially when they are repeated. Nero coped in his own manner too.

29%