Meaning is a product, and often a commodity. Meaning is a representation and representations are susceptible to strategy. Usually, the strategy is intentionally enacted, but it can be the result of circumstance as well.
I assert that the photo containing the vulture and the dying girl would not have garnered a Pulitzer Prize, nor have reached the cultural status it did, had the photographer saved the girl. The meaning the photo achieved goes beyond the actual girl. The larger narrative of the photo is famine, not this girl's life. It is that large narrative that gives the photo power. Had the photographer saved the girl, the latter narrative would have taken precedence, thereby nullifying the meaning of greater significance. Without closure in the story concerning the actual girl's fate, however, viewers face dissonance that is difficult to reconcile. It is precisely this dissonance--and viewers difficulty with it--that allows the photo to generate the emotional response it does. This emotional response has been exploited by charitable organizations for years, with this particular image, as well as others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is possible that the photo would not have had the impact or acclaim it earned if we had know for certain he saved the little girl, but what about the ethics of the situation? Isn't one person's life worth a symbol? I think we could have found something else to rally around if her being saved negated the effects of the picture. Perhaps her rescuer would inspire others to action as much as her demise did.
ReplyDelete