read of the day: "suffering and art"

i really appreciated this discussion about the ethics of photographing suffering. there were some good points of practical distinction made (it's easier to preserve moral integrity when a photo is properly captioned and contextualized, and when it is not subsequently commodified). i also found that this comment resonated with me:

“You have to remember that the stronger the image is, the more it hurts,” said Ms. McNally, an assistant managing editor and the director of photography at The Times. “When a photograph of a horrific situation is mindfully and artfully put together, and works on multiple levels, it simply grabs your attention and is more effective. Those pictures tend to live long in your memory because all the elements work together to reinforce the narrative and emotion.”

that's what's most striking for me. i find it almost nonsensical to argue that (barring aforementioned issues of commodification) one can detach the formal/aesthetic and empathetic messages of a picture. like being in love (i imagine), being truly moved, having your "heart wrenched," by an image is both both intensely tragic and intensely joyful. by making these images wrenchingly beautiful, a photographer makes them wrenchingly human as well.

anyway, enough of that serious/theoretical nonsense...back to our regularly scheduled fart jokes.