In case you were wondering, renting a dunk tank is substantially cheaper than renting a light-up dance floor.
Rental prices aside, I do feel like I'm learning a lot in my job. And if you know anyone who wants to hire me to write things like meeting agendas or poems about corn, please don't hesitate to send them my way. I'm a little serious.
Anyhow, today is Friday, which means cat-sitting and potentially napping after I renew my library books. I've been reading a lot of stuff for my thesis, which is empowering because I feel really smart and accomplished, but also challenging: I'm in the middle of
Susan Sontag's
Regarding the Pain of Others and just finished her article "On Photography," which makes me question (though only slightly) my aims in taking photos.
In the piece, Sontag argues that all photography is an act of exploitation and voyeurism, and that taking a photo is a way to passively control and encourage a series of events. Her main focus is seems to be war photography, and how great photographers like
Robert Capa and
Warner Bischof committed morally questionable acts by choosing to photograph conflict rather than intervening. She also makes the claim that photography is also dishonest as a form because it contends to be absolute truth, when in reality it's only a subjective glance from a human perspective. Furthermore, each viewer imposes her own meaning on any visual she sees, regardless of the photographer's intentions or the situational context of the photograph itself.
While I think she has some valuable points, I do think that the idea of photography as objective is problematic on a social level and is not inherent to photography as a form. People are the ones who put labels like "objective" on pieces, and the form cannot be entirely blamed for how it's perceived by a mass audience. It's crucial that photojournalism exists: it's a way of making the "news" (however you choose to define it) relatable and human. When one sees a tangible visual from a war halfway around the world, for instance, it's a little harder for that person to ignore or mindlessly support the war. Those visuals urge the viewer to contemplate, from a moral viewpoint, the situations captured on film (or digitally). Consider the Vietnam War, and how its public support drastically shifted as images poured into television sets in living rooms across the U.S. People couldn't hide from it any longer, and began to voice their concerns with what was seen as unjust and misplaced violence and conflict.
Then again, I wasn't born until twenty-one years after the U.S. withdrew its forces, so I'm probably not the foremost authority on public opinion of the Vietnam War.
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u5O4PyhAkJdldX7nQJgj3I8jSSW1AOL7WnRM6hlkM0CUEI7kshhWpmcJdhFdX7HnG0H_LwK7naxhraZ3yMwSeSyF5HDq9vt9vI64MKn4ZRNspRphTEYBbvrMzVbUY8XvLvqSBP7fCL998xZ2ZO=s0-d) |
One of Horst Faas's images from the Vietnam War (December 1965) |