Exercise 3.3: 'Late photography'

Another complex read for me I'm afraid but I managed to extract some statements that I found important. I found the essay was to make the point that although there are newer factors in the digital age as it is today, Photography still had an important status.

• "closer to forensic photography than traditional photojournalism"

I found this an interesting statement in regards to 'late photography' and it is spot on in that respect. The photograph will allow nothing more than the 'after' scene as the event will have taken place, so this image will allow us to examine the aftermath and picture our own conclusions about what exactly happened by using the 'clues' left behind. This then leads me into the next statement:

• "photography has of late inherited a major role of an undertaker, summariser or accountant"

This statement clarifies that photography isn't just an afterthought, it is still a major factor in the wake of an event. It has an important job to be used to piece together exactly what happened. 

• "photographs can be an aid to a memory but it can also become an object that blocks access to the understanding of the past"

I take a lot of photographs as my children grow up as I find them a key factor in remembering events in the future, so for me they can definitely aid a memory. But the second half of the statement caught me. I'm unsure what this means exactly but I think it means that the past can still remain unclear even though we have these images to look back on. In late photography we don't have the facts infront of us of exactly what happened, only the image of the scene afterwards, so these images are not able to give a clear indication of the event that took place. 

Rolling in to the next statement:

• "presentness of the moving image to emphasize the pastness of the photograph it shows us"

In order to keep the memories of the events more clear, the new digital age with video camera technology allows us to not only have the photograph to cover the scene following an event but we also have the ability to record the event as it is happening.

These two mediums are in large contrast in being present and past. As photographs are unable to capture a live feed, tv cameras are and therefore are used for breaking news and event coverage. The photographs give us the ability to examine the scene afterwards. 

• "event was: a moment, an instant, something that could be frozen and examined"

The live feed is always in the moment, covering the range of activities and emotions as they happen. The photograph is still, quiet and therefore in contrast by showing the silence of the scene after the activities and the live cameras have long gone. 

• "the stillness of the image complementing the stillness of the aftermath"
• "photos don't break the news"

You will rarely see breaking news reports using still photographs. This digital age allows anyone and everyone to be able to record footage using video recorders and even video phones.

I remember the morning of September 11th 2001 as clear as day. As I awoke from a night shift, my mum informed me that  plane had gone into the World Trade Centre. As a naive 19 year old I had no idea what the WTC was and my first instinct was that she meant a light aircraft had accidentally flown into a building and was at that point was completely oblivious to the catastrophic events that were unfolding across the Atlantic. I was met with numerous stations of tv coverage showing the devastation of the first tower on fire and the scramble of the people in the vicinity. I remember the chills watching a live feed of the plane going into the second tower, and the emotion watching each tower crumble to the ground in turn. But even now I think I've only ever seen one phone camera footage clip that actually captured that first plane hitting the first tower. Only the events themselves and the immediate aftermath were captured by the live cameras that day. The second tower acted as a gruesome finale to the horrifying events of that day and knowing there was very little that the cameras could now capture the live feeds turned to replay each section of footage shot from an array of different tv cameras and onlooker footage from different locations and different angles. The aftermath wasn't televised in the same way as obviously it took a substantial amount of time to complete the clean up operation. I remember the news showing clips every now and again of Ground Zero and how the clean up was progressing but it was usually footage shot flying over the area to give an overall view of Ground Zero itself. 

Meyerowitz's images not only show the aftermath and the immediate devastation the events of 9/11 left on Ground Zero but they also help to document the clean up operation from an artistic yet mellow, in the depth of the action kind of way. 

My memories of the tv footage include explosions, noise, fire, smoke and dust, panic, crying, understandable chaos and complete devastation.

Meyerowitz's images convey to me a more peaceful setting, a working environment, reflective space, a sombre scene, quiet mourning and a beauty within the empty remains of a world altering event.

The live feed showed the devastation of the events as they occurred following the first attacks but at that time, no one knew there would be more or that the towers would subsequently collapse so these scenes were caught by the media attention the first attack brought. The still photographs don't convey the same scenes. What we see are the same event, the same area but the emotion from the different types is altered. The media coverage conveyed the fear and the panic and the magnitude of the chaos yet the images convey the magnitude of the event in itself but also stillness, mourning and loss.