War photography is pointless. It just perpetuate war and creates the 'oh dear look at that poor person' response.
You'll be better giving the money to a charitable cause to actually help these people. Don McCullin has made enough money already.
I have to disagree.
War photography and conflict journalism does not prevent or stop wars, directly, I must agree. But it at least highlights the brutality and futility of wars and the impact on those worst affected; the innocent civilians of all ages who get caught up in the fighting and the soldiers (often conscripts) who are given a gun and told to kill or be killed. These things cannot be ignored.
By the way, what, exactly, is wrong with people having the "oh dear look at that poor person" response? Is it not just a normal human response to feel sympathy or sheer outrage at the atrocities committed in the name of a cause that only politicians or religious leaders want? Should we just say "oh well, never mind, at least it's not happening here"?
As for those who risk and sometimes lose their lives in pursuit of photographic evidence, I'm sure that some have made some money. However, I doubt they've made anything like the sort of money that even fashion photographers make or the money that mediocre sportsmen make for running round a track or kicking a football.
I don't begrudge Don McCullin a penny - and I don't think Larry Burrows, Robert Capa or Tim Hetherington (to name but a very few) would, either.
I accept what you say. It does have to be recorded in some way. It's the building up of the 'famous and heroic' photographers I don't like.
I get very emotional about war, period. My brother served in the first Gulf war, saw terrible things which never make the newspapers, as it's deemed too shocking. He was then put in military prison for his sexuality, which was then illegal. I just think, where was his fame and fortune?
The tile of the exhibition is wrong - it's about McCullin and not the poor conscripts and innocent victims. The soldiers all bear a mark, and not all soldiers want to fight. A lot join up to get a job in these difficult times. I'm shocked that people are actually interested and exited in his interpretation of the terrible events in Syria. What? Have I missed something here? That's what I mean by the 'oh dear' response. By somehow looking at the pictures that's enough.
It's not my type of photography and the really terrible stuff is rarely seen. I know a RM who served in Aden in the 60's. The UK forces did terrible things to the locals, but reporters of all media turned a blind eye.
War photographers don't want to upset the side they are photographing, because they'll get sent packing. Nowadays it's tightly controlled. They can also helicopter out whenever they want. Unlike the soldiers and victims who have to live through it everyday.
I respect your opinion, but I just don't get it.
