Photography of Global Disasters: Violence or Not?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Numbing Effect of Disaster Photography
Limits of Photography
Moral Dilemma
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Photography is a powerful tool in evoking people’s emotions because, with a single picture, the human brain unconsciously processes biological motion and develop emotions based on the image. Subsequently, the mind activates the expressions depicted in the photo and conveys this information to language processing centers, and individuals can consciously express their emotional response to the art (Orvell 16) The power of photography lies in how one portrait can sway people’s feelings, transforming their behavior. Humans have evolved to feel how others feel and develop empathy for them. Susan Sontag argues against this idea by arguing that photographs are a weapon that violates people. She claims that constantly seeing images of violence frequently makes individuals immune to them, affecting their sense of morality and view of the world. This essay uses a historical approach to study Susan Sontag’s perspective of disaster photography.

The Numbing Effect of Disaster Photography

Pictures of injured bodies have been used to vivify war condemnation. Past photographers, such as the archipelago on the Pacific Ring of Fire, used disaster photography to bring home a part of global conflict to people who do not have any war experience (Protschky 9). However, when people accept war proliferation as a portion of reality, they dismiss photographs claiming they do not show any evidence for war renouncement (Hoffman and Kaire 1671). In the 21^st century, people are no longer affected by photos of destruction and violence. The media has allowed wide accessibility of imagery and information. Oversaturation of such imagery on the internet acts as a numbing agent to the sensitivity of people to similar world events (Ye et al. 3). Although catastrophes should be documented to create understanding and awareness of issues needing resolution, abundant documentation is counterproductive (Lichfield 5). Repeated exposure makes the events less accurate and sensitive to people, leading to the numbing effect of disaster photography.

Limits of Photography

Photographic knowledge goads conscience; however, it cannot finally be political or ethical awareness. The information obtained from still pictures often triggers sentimentalism, either humanist or cynical emotions (Sontag 17). However, the hypothetical, comprehensive muteness in the photos makes them provocative and attractive. The ethical sensibility of the images is not calculable; furnishing the world with duplicate images only makes people feel that the world is more accessible than it is (Lydon 2) Therefore, photography is limited to provoking emotions and the conscience of people, but it cannot be used to convey long-term knowledge. There is no moral charge attached to the representation of cruelties in disaster photos.

Moral Dilemma

There is a moral dilemma in people’s urge to respond to suffering photographs of others by either just looking at the pictures or doing something to stop the disaster. In the past, photos had the advantage of bringing contradictory aspects together (Yasmin 214) They had inbuilt objectivity and a necessary point of view. As a result, people had the urge to stop the atrocious suffering represented by the pictures. However, with the new era, the aspect of co-joining the two contradictory photography features is lost, and therefore, shots can be edited to be what the photographer wants (Huber 4). Thus, people have lost trust in the reality portrayed by them. Everybody is addicted to aesthetic consumerism, needing the experience enhanced by pictures and the truth confirmed (Cameron et al. 14). People love viewing images of disaster with less liberating feelings. The lack of realness in photographs and their abundancy puts individuals in a moral dilemma of whether to believe the photos and want to “stop this” or “look at that” and pass.

Conclusion

To conclude, photographs can be interpreted differently, especially those without a caption or context. Although objectivity is believed to be an intrinsic photography aspect, most images are usually produced with a point of view. Subjective framing makes it hard for individuals to believe in the realness of the pictures; hence they do not know where to react by stopping disaster or looking and passing. Today’s culture is media-driven and full of depictions of violence because these are the best-selling news. People have become addicted to hunting for dramatic images, which normalizes shock, leading to a numbing effect on disaster photography.

Works Cited

Cameron, Daryl, et al. “’Does empathy have limits?” The Conversation, Web.

Hoffman, Aaron and José Kaire. “Comfortably numb: effects of prolonged media coverage.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 64, no. 9, 2020, pp. 1666-1692.

Huber, Mary. “How is disaster photography sublime?” Frieze, Web.

Lichfield, Gideon. “In Defense of the Disaster Selfie.” Quartz, Web.

Lydon, Jane. “Worth a thousand words: How photos shape attitudes to refugees.” The Conversation, Web.

Orvell, Miles. Empire of Ruins: American Culture, Photography, and the Spectacle of Destruction. Oxford University Press, USA, 2021.

Protschky, Susie. “Searching for Indonesian Histories of Disaster in Photography.” Research Center for Material Culture, Web.

Sontag, Susan. Regarding the Pain of Others (London: Penguin, 2003), pp. 79-106.

Yasmin Ibrahim, ‘Self-Representation and the Disaster Event: Selfimaging, Morality and Immortality’, Journal of Media Practice, vol. 16, no. 3, 2015, pp. 211-227.

Ye, Zheng, et al. “Brain imaging evidence for why we are numbed by numbers.” Scientific Reports, vol. 10, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-6. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!