John Brown
 

Sad and Heroic at the same time.

Semper Fi and my utter respect for the Lady.

Utterly tragic.

That bit always gets me.

Try to read the expression on the brides face. Serious? Scared? Confused? :(

She's not a happy camper is she? I'd say she might be someone who would rather be in jeans and a t-shirt and does not like posing for the camera. That expression appears in a few of our photos -notably on my passport and immigration pics.

At least she's standing there with her man for all to see. Very courageous, whatever face expression.

I have mixed feelings about this photo.

On the one hand, obviously they are a genuine couple, and their lives have been forever altered and they are both heroes in their own way. On the other, I feel like this photo was taken to deliberately manipulate emotions. No one has an expression like that in their wedding photos--think about it, if she's decided to stick with her man and make the best of what's happened, she's going to try to smile and do just that. This is absolutely not the wedding photo that will be going on their wall, you know what I mean?

I see two possibilities:
1.) This is a candid shot they weren't expecting--her face looks sort of blank to me, and he's not looking at the camera at all. I have a few wedding photos where my face is all contorted, but that's because I was in the middle of saying something, not because my wedding day was wretched.
2.) They want to make a statement against the war, so they deliberately posed for a serious shot. They have clearly consented for the photo to be used, whether it was posed or just an accidentally poignant shot.

I guess what I'm saying is, I feel like the sadness of their situation is somewhat tarnished for me by my suspicions that it is being intentionally used as a political statement. I don't trust the look on the bride's face (or the implied look, I guess), and that makes me feel bad that he (they) are being exploited. I dunno. Maybe I sound like an ass. The whole thing just makes me uncomfortable.

I assume the photo was chosen by the photographer, as the link is to a photography contest open to professionals. The couple would have agreed to allow the photo to be entered (I assume) but may not have had any control over which picture was submitted.

I agreed that it looks like a candid shot - one where neither participant was ready for the photo.

The picture is just sad to me. It made me cry when I openned it.

I know I could not live if that had happened to me.

They must be very brave.

I thought it was going to be this John Brown.

I believe we now have the winning answer to the question posed in this thread.

Tragic doesn't begin to describe it. This girl, so young, so beautiful, and still true to the man inside what could easily be described as a monster's form. To know that she will always kiss a face that would revile most other young women her age, to know that she will tend this man through countless more surgeries, trying to remediate the horrific damage done to him...would that I could only taste the smallest sample of such strength.

But the soldier shows his mettle as well, by taking his bride wearing the uniform of the very agency of his maiming. By having been tough enough, brave enough, desirous enough of a life with his intended to see through the tortures of his injuries.

Look hard at that picture, folks. *That* is the price of freedom. Let us hope that no leader ever squanders the precious contents of his or her purse, but instead views this photo before committing their best and bravest to such a fate.

My friend, may I remind you of your wise words preserved here:While I find the groom's appearance startling at first, I don't find any tragedy in it. Instead I find hope and joy.

Good grief, what's the man supposed to do otherwise? Just go away and stop offending my sensibilities? And the lovely bride shows that her comely outward appearance is matched by a similarly flawless character of devotion and discernment?

What do I know from just one photo? Nuttin. It could be a gag, he could be wearing a mask, she could be an insurance money golddigger and he could be and uncouth lout. Anything.

But what I think is behind this one photo is hope. Who gets married without being filled with hope?

Ah, but my statement above was intended to contrast the young woman against what I perceive to be a defacto societal norm. My words were in admiration, not criticism.

Clearly, the bride knows that beauty is only skin deep; knows it with every fiber of her being. I simply meant to illuminate that quality within her.

While there is indeed hope in what is pictured, there is also tragedy. Despite all the love and support in the world from his bride, the soldier will experience pain from his appearance, because the world and the people in it are not, all in all, as deep as the bride in the end.

That is one of a series of photos by a photog named Nina Berman who is doing a project called "purple hearts".

Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical at her motives. Her production values (eg lighting choices, composition) are bordering on ghoulsih and bizarre and, IMO, lack sincerity or heart.

If you compare her work to, say, W. Eugene Smith's, Sebastian Salgado's, or Margaret Bourke-White's, you can see for yourself.

Her work looks more like something by Gregory Crewdson.

I'm not quite certain of the criticism, F3. Are you saying that the photographer is intentionally trying to make things look worse than they ought to?

I'm saying a few things, none of which is charitable about the photographer.

1. I feel she is capitalizing on the suffering of the soldiers. The feeling I get from looking at the photos is that it is about her rather than them.
2. She uses the technical and aesthetic aspects of photography to push her ideas about her subject. It is extremely far from objective and it is also manipulative. Not that it should be objective, but it is important to point that out since it isn't always obvious to people that the camera does in fact lie the moment it is turned on.

As an example, the lighting is very controlled and managed, in some cases almost surreal. Maybe she wants to underscore how surreal it must be to experience what those people have experienced, so she chooses to make the lighting extra spooky. In any case, that is her adding to what is happening, possibly projecting her ideas onto these people. Compare "Tomoko in her bath". Gene smith photographing the victims of mercury poisoning in Minimata, Japan. He didn't need to do anything fancy with the lighting or pose his subjects. He was there with them keeping his heart and eyes open. Look at Salgado's work. He shows you what life is like for his subjects by telling their story, not his story about them.

It's not that she's trying to make things look worse than they ought to, it's that she's using cheap carnival tricks to make a point and I feel that trivializes her subjects. If she had real talent she wouldn't have to rely on the gimmics to make your tears flow.

In the end, it's all about her.

What you seem to be saying is that she is an artist. And that you see that as derogatory.

I have to think about that.
I don't see being an artist in general as derogatory, I consider myself an artist. I think it is just her approach to / treatment of, her subject that I dislike.

You lost me. Do you object to the agenda you perceive in her work? Do you feel the public is being unknowingly duped by the effects/style of photograph? Do you feel her agenda doesn't jibe with the subjects agenda?

"Tomoko in her bath" strikes me as extremely theatrical in the lighting and printing, much more so than Berman's picture. While Berman maybe trying to push an agenda, we have no way of knowing if the agenda is hers or the subjects......or both. Berman may have sought out subjects with the same agenda as she has, or her agenda may have been determined by the wishes of the victims.

You know much more about this manipulating photographs than I'll ever know, but I though every photographer, in every picture, was trying to tell a story,....trying to set a mood,...trying to convey a feeling? In other words manipulate the picture to manipulate the viewers perception. :confused:

That's your own perception. To me it's just a surreal picture of a young couple which dreams about a happy future were shattered because of an unnessecary war, but nonetheless decided to continue with their marriage which asks a lot of courage and dedication of both.

Sure we'll never be sure if it'll last, but at least can't we give this couple the benefit of the doubt?

This picture was not manipulated, the drama comes from the principal characters itself.

I have to agree with Bruce...the Tomoko shot was *totally* lit in an artistic, dramatic fashion, right down to the stark and documentary quality lent to the subject matter by the use of black and white film and a relatively high contrast print.

The pic of the soldier and his bride is, if anything, more of an unposed snapshot, something to which anyone who has ever owned a camera can relate. What it says to me is, "These people are people who could live next door to you. This could be your brother, your sister."

Both photos use artistry to communicate their points, but certainly the color shot is far less staged in any sense.

If you look at the res of her work you will understand what I am talking about. I am not refering to that picture specifically but her work as a whole.

I agree with you about the picture of the couple, and I certainly don't mean to cast any doubt on the couple or their feelings for one another.

As for the Tomoko shot, it wasn't "lit" at all. It was dramatic light, but if you know about gene smith's work he shot in "available light" and didn't carry along lighting gear. In fact, many people say he shot in "available darkness" because he often worked in situations where there wasn't any light. In that particular shot the window was the only source of light in the bath and he couldn't have shot it from the other direction since there wasn;t anywhere to stand. As it is "contre jour" or backlit is not a desirable position to be in to photograph. He did what he had to.

I understand it is hard to have a discussion about these photographers with out you knowing much about them or their manner of working, but if you look at a larger body of work, learn a bit about the photographer's method of working you may see what I mean.

Apologies if I sound condescending, I don't mean to.

And Elspode: unposed snapshot in front of a painted studio backdrop?

Unposed snapshot in that the couple is not looking at the camera, not holding their bodies in a certain fashion...in other words, the picture was taken during a moment when they weren't standing prepared to be photographed, despite their physical location.

I think the "controversy" lies in that they are being presented as wedding pictures, but the very essence of the wedding pics is missed -the smile, the touch, the looking at the camera or into each other's eyes.

They could well be the between-pose shots, but those don't go in the album.
I suspect they were not taken on the wedding day. Maybe that's the norm here, I don't know.

Does anybody feel that the groom's face looks as though it might be less badly injured on the other side? He seems uncomfortable (emotionally) to me -his head looks a little bowed. Not that that would be surprising in the circumstances, but it has me wondering...

Grafted skin over burns can be very taut until it has been stretched through many painful therapy sessions. He may simply be unable to hold his head up any straighter than that due to the grafts.

Even if this pic had been completely posed, the pathos is still plenty present. For things to be otherwise would be like saying that just because Ansel Adams really knew how to make pictures of Half Dome look amazing, that Half Dome is not striking in and of itself.

It looks like nobody smiles in any of her pictures. :(

Foot , I dont' see that as so exploitive of any agenda , just pics of a dude that did his duty , was scared by it , and is trying to get on with his life , a supportive girl friend ( now wife ) will help , it will NOT be easy , but hell what in life that is worth haveing IS easy ??

OK I'm not talking about the pic of the marine at his wedding. I am talking about these pictures and I object to the way she lit them. I feel it is cheap.
http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php...t&dir=imagesph click through the set.

The use of flash combined with the daylight is done in a way that creates a ghoulish atmosphere, the over saturated colors adds to the surreal ness of the images. It is more appropriate to a freak show than some one who wants to show respect for her subjects.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy for a minute that she gives a shit about the people she is using. I doubt she even kows their birthdays.

Got ya , now I understand what you were talking about , I agree , she could have put these folks in better light ( literly ) , shown a more human side insted of high lighting there battle scars ,


FUCK now I am PISSED !!!!
Who the FUCK does she think she is , ??
What the FUCK has she Done for the betterment of her nation / way of life ( weather she agrees with the orders /agenda or NOT ) !!!!!


AHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!

No appologies needed FFF. Just that I was struck by the picture and had no idea who made it and really no intention to find out. Maybe all this deeper discussion is too much, why not just see it as it is a snap shot of a sad moment in time and let's go on with our life.

Mrs. Brown, is a wonderful woman, she loves her man and that is all that matters. Using this photograph as a political statement is wrong.
Sgt. Brown is a very brave Marine and they deserve our congratulations
not our pity.

The photographer is clearly attempting to evoke emotion in the viewer. However, she is not *creating* anything. These individuals have been horribly maimed and scarred in the service of their country. Most people don't see the individual impact that our efforts at bringing Truth, Justice and The American Way to other lands have on our Armed Forces. That the photographer chooses to present these tragic figures in a compelling manner doesn't bother me.

Every photographer composes their shots, no matter what the subject. I don't see this photographer's work as being any more manipulative of the public than pictures of Dubya in a flight suit, or the attempt of the government to keep pictures of cargo planes full of flag draped caskets out of the press.

People need to know the reality of war. Need to have their faces rubbed in it, so that, when we are called to fight, we know exactly the cost, down to the last eye lost for an eye and tooth lost for a tooth.

Honestly her expression in the first picture had me worried. Spluch had these pictures and this write up which made me feel a little better about the their relationship.

Also, I wonder if Nina Berman was there taking pictures for her Purple Heart series and was not taking the official wedding pictures. That would explain how she caught them, not ready, off guard. ;)

I've been out of antidepressants for three days. The strength and dedication of this couple makes me want to just sob my goddamn eyes out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle1294008.ece

The Berman picture is just a picture. It doesn't reflect the story. It's a powerful picture. It's a wonderful story.

I think her face doesn´t express the worrying about her husbands appearance or their future but more how people will perceive the picture and might not understand her motives or their situation.

Foot, I think it great that you look critically at this work and its messages. The idea that a photo is objective and true is rooted deeply. I see the slick presentation, heightened color and lighting, but it just strikes me as a contemporary aesthetic styling. I don't see this treatment of subject as "use". I am assuming she worked with the cooperation of her subjects due to the intimacy of the shots. And I am assuming as adults, they gave consent.

I found the image of the bride and groom dancing, with her hands behind the back of his head very loving.

Her work has a defininte angle and perspective, I read the purple heart series as showing a reality and intimacy that we don't often see unless we know the individuals. There is a shot of a guy in a store with a kid staring at him, that pity gaze. The pic captured his dignity, I think.

The mega church series plays off surrealism.

There is a parallel conversation about photographs of disaster. If human subjects are included might it be gratuitous, push tabloid? (like Nina's?) but if it is just landscape, detail, softened, is that overly distancing?

Warch said it way better than I could have.

I object to the very notion that a war to remove a dictatorship can ever be unnecessary (which is how you spell it). While it may by exceedingly good fortune not require a war to remove a dictatorship, none should ever flinch at removing a dictatorship by artillery, because that is usually what it takes.

Democracy must prevail, dictatorship must perish, and the casualty count, set next to this moral imperative, is immaterial. That is, if you want a good world. Too many fools and pseudosophisticates don't want it enough.