There are time images like this need to be seen..

There are times we need the shock value - photographs are almost the only medium this is possible.

Nowadays very few publications are able to publish images with this kind of "force" but I feel it is important for a small number to be seen to enable us understand the world around us and how man can treat fellow man.

The context in which they are published and the commentary are important though to ensure they are viewed in context and not as "porn"

Cop out.

"It is what it is" is an extraordinary cop out. Your job is to explain your decisions and this is your summary?

Artful images of severed heads. Right.

A means to make change or entertain!

I believe that shocking images have their place in changing the mindset of people who have the authority to make changes as well as to rally a community - local or international - to try and force changes for the better.

This image shown in Haiti, is reminder of a horror story of a natural tragedy. This is not the consequence of civil unrest or genocide.

I can appreciate that after seeing so many bodies, the man throwing the child into a human pile has had to put the horror of it all to the back of his mind in order to process the victims quickly to avoid the spread of disease. It's a job to be done. He is unable to offer dignity for the child and the people around, but perhaps we can, unless one truly believes such an image can make people react positively towards a campaign to help the sufferers rather than turning away.

atrocity porn

This argument is almost as old as photography itself. I do believe that it is important that acts of atrocity are witnessed and recorded and this is what the photojournalist does but the flip side to this is what good do these photos do other than recording atrocity? Man’s inhumanity towards his fellow man is as wicked now as its always been. Photojournalism, for all its millions of images of atrocity has not awakened us and stopped the violence or even made any sense of it. Therefore It can be argued that photojournalism, the concerned photography that grew out of WW2, is actually an abject failure and that the never ending wave of images of atrocity in fact achieve the exact opposite of their intended function, that is, they overwhelm and disconnect us. When I see more and more photojournalism in the art gallery and more and more commentators of photojournalism referencing classical art then I see take this as signifiers that photojournalism has lost much of its relevance as a social power.

CREATING PROPAGANDA?

There is an error in this piece – a remarkable one. There is a question mark where none existed on the cover of Time magazine – a question mark that should have been written on the cover that ran the photograph of Aisha by Jodi Bieber that won this year's World Press Photo award.

Remarkably, it was that lack of a question mark where one should have been, that turned an image which is undoubtedly a very powerful symbol of crimes against women into one that is also: a powerful reminder of how images (and it was commissioned) can be put to alternative uses. In this case, to create propaganda plain and simple.

Please leave the questionmark in! Because if the headline had read: “What will happen if we leave Afghanistan?” it raises a question to be answered in the mind of the viewer. Instead, the headline read: “What WILL happen if we leave Afghanistan” on top of the picture of Aisha. See:

http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/time_afghan.jpg

Without that question mark, this is propaganda of the likes I cannot recall having seen in a so-called 'quality publication'. And I have a question. Should providing imagery for such biased use as this particular image was put to be encouraged?

NB The atrocity against this women was actually committed while there were US troops in Afghanistan.

To know, or not know?

Life is tough and we can treat each other with surprising cruelty. We like to live our lives insulated from reality, but we need to be confronted by it if we're ever going to change anything.

Joel Peter Witkin

Really?

To compare the work of a photojournalist, who ideally is making pictures to document human suffering in the hope of fostering a positive change, to the work of a deranged man using dead people as objects in his "art"... is pretty far off base.

A comparison like that destroys any argument that photojournalism ISN"T anything but torture porn.

Photojournalists make pictures, pictures of horrific situations, to act as a witness. Nothing more. It's certainly not about winning contest, (although contest can certainly help get these images seen be a wider audience).

I'll tell you what, if you go into any of these nasty situations, as a photographer, in the hope of winning contests or drawing attention to yourself rather than the suffering of others, chances are you'll end up making worthless images while doing great harm to your soul.

Time to give up the trope of 'porn'

Having discussions about what images we do and should see in terms of 'pornography' has become a lazy trope, as I try to explain here (http://bit.ly/epjlns). The term applies to so many different circumstances, and is alleged to have a range of so many ddifferent effects, we have reached a point that - other than for images of sexual degradation - it has lost meaning. Worse, it now masks and even prevents a serious consideration of the work images do, and how they might or might not produce responses. Its disappointing to see BJP employing this term - especially with even more meaningless concept of "semi-pornographic."

Why employ such a trope?

It is a fair question to ask. What is the motivation and perceived benefit of employing such a lazy trope as a headline in a publication such as BJP? I think the answer to that question might shed some light on what the trope of 'porn' achieves for publishers who use it.

I agree with David that it masks serious consideration of the work. There many important issues raised in this selection of photographs. This article touches on almost none of them.

Haiti earthquake not a natural distaster

One of the above comments says Haiti is different because it was a natural disaster. The earthquake here killed 250K people because of economic violence because many of them were forced to move to Port Au Prince when they were no longer able to survive farming and they moved in unstable houses on steep hillsides which should never have been built. Bill Clinton and US Farm policy are to blame for thousands of these deaths.

obviously

I am sane: I have never been interested in such situations, let alone compiling dossiers of images of them to fill the spaces between the ads in magazines and newspapers.

The idiots who hop on planes to record revolution and get into Magnum (it used to be a sure way in) and their sucessors in other oddly named and allegedly charismatic cults with groupie followings, frankly baffle me, because apart from any ethical or moral problems, or bourgeouis considerations about, ha, "good taste" and "need to be seen",

They are as disgusting as our addiction to theatre of cruelty TV (make your own list of programmes, and include soaps and documentaries about plastic surgery etc.;

and none of them
1. Make us any wiser or any happier.
2. Bring about change for the better (not since Hine and Riis anyway)
3 Inform us of the reason or causes of these situations, or enlighten us on any other level.
4. All traumatise us, but worse they traumatise and degrade our children in so doing, as the amount of copy-cat atrocities prove.Even natural causes and the response to them visually transmitted and published sets the standard, however low it may be, for behaving and for dealing with the next similar situation.

Thus the entire process of the broadcasting of images of violence and degradation conjures up further violence and degradation, and this has been the case since we first saw pictures and film of war, and of earthquakes, floods and fires.

The winners of the World Press Award
get awarded the World Press Award precisely because they sucessfully sell more newspapers.

Only doing my job.......

Could it be a simple matter of respect?

Surely, instead of recoiling in the shock of the explicitness, could it be most non-photographers are recoiling from the lack of respect for the dead shown by the photojournalists and WPP.

Are earthquakes going to stop if photo's of the distressed are shot and shown around the world? Is that an act of human cruelty that needs changing through the power of photo's/art? I don't think so personally.

Photojournalists could have "witnessed" acts of heroism instead of the many acts of suffering in Haiti. People trying to make a difference instead of people suffering. Why is there not a single shot of an Aid, UN, army, local worker, somebody trying to organise some sort of relief in a single shot of Haiti? Just one act of redemption please but no.

Suicide jumper shots are not going to change the lives of those contemplating suicide is it? It certainly is not going to change the life of the individual in the shot that won first prize. High fives all round.

Even the second prize in the Sports section is an explicit image of suffering.

Surely it is possible to tell shocking stories without scenes of death after the event?
Surely it is not the best way of all the possible ways of witnessing events?
Surely the public have to be given credit for being aware of important social issues with needing to see dead people?
Is public passivity to be blamed for the lack of engagement in photojournalism given what is being shown to them and awarded prizes by WPP?

What values are being passed onto those who want to win next year's prize? It is certainly not originality, intelligence or creativty although they might get you an honourable mention...

(Lovely nature shots though and Michael Wolf's project is very very cool indeed).

Time Magazine's propoganda?

Jenny Lynn Walker is absolutely right. This image was used by Time magazine in such a biased way that it is difficult to separate Jodi’s image from the Time cover and look at it without being angry that Time is being rewarded for propaganda.

?

Would we be seeing these images if the victims were white?

WORLD DePRESSed PHOTOS

Year after year, the World Press Photos is full of depressing images confirming that it is a big bad world out there. Surely there has to be some positive stories to give us a ray of hope.

They resemble crime scene phtos

Press photography is intended for a wide public audience, scenes of crime photos are not. I believe good press photography exhibits tact and sensitivity toward A) the subject, and B) the audience. Gory press photos employ crude shock tactics to achieve impact.

"falling man"

I'm sorry Vince Aletti, with all due respect there is a massive difference between an image of someone jumping from the towers at 9/11, and an image of someone committing suicide in a tragic, but ultimately personal situation. The latter is not an image which needs to be broadcast to the world. This is not because of censorship, but simply because it achieves nothing. It comes across as voyeuristic and nothing more.

Porn and Photography

I was under the understanding that porn is something very, very popular that people whack off to?

I can't see anyone doing that to these photos, otherwise they'd be both financially valuable and very popular (not a lot of evidence of that). Its really a further insult to the people in them to use the word porn.

An

Agree with Gari's comments

Year after year we see similar images, how's about a positive series for a change, celebrating what we have?
Do the images really change anything? Mccullin was taking similar images 40 years ago....

Agree with Gari Williams

Where are the heroic images, of the South Korean navy fighting off and rescuing hijacked tankers off Somalia waters? I could have missed it. That might frighten off future hijackers? er..no.