Compassion Fatigue

Source: Campbell, D. (2012) The myth of compassion fatigue. [online] Available at: https://www.david-campbell.org/2012/02/29/the-myth-of-compassion-fatigue/ last accessed 19/9/17

Compassion fatigue is linked to photography because images are used to promote charitable appeals and media coverage shows human suffering.

Compassion fatigue in media and politics is different from compassion fatigue in health and social care (excess of compassion or secondary post-traumatic stress disorder.) Compassion fatigue was defined in the OED in 2012 as:

 “an American term meaning “apathy or indifference towards the suffering of others or to      charitable causes acting on their behalf, typically attributed to numbingly frequent              appeals for assistance’ esp. donations: (hence) a diminishing public response to frequent charitable appeals.”

Cause (numbingly frequent appeals of charities acting on behalf of others)

Effect (apathy / indifference)

Evidence of effect (diminishing public response)

Cohen – populist psychology thesis of compassion fatigue – information overload, desensitisation and normalisation. People respond on individual basis.

How is it perceived that the viewer acts when looking at atrocity pictures? Do we act? Or are we overshadowed by politics? Do we believe in the compassion theory because it fits with what theorists would like to think is happening?

Debate over not responding to crises has been happening for centuries (as early as 1500’s) with claims that photography is an analgaesic (John Taylor), contemporary cliché (Susie Litchfield).

Relationship between imagery and social impact could be described as pornographic (violation of dignity, taking things out of context, exploitation, objectification, putting horror and misery on display, encouragement of voyeurism, construction of desire, unacceptable sexuality, oral and political perversion etc) Argument falls down because although it is assumed that we are subjected to much pornographic imagery (and the voyeuristic side of it makes us want to look) we fail to recognise when we should respond to something portrayed by the media. If we had compassion fatigue, we would have an aversion to seeing the images. Evidence does not match this.

Susan Sontag claimed compassion fatigue existed in On Photography, but by Regarding the Pain of Others, she revoked her argument.

Susan Moeller popularized the theory of Compassion Fatigue with a book in 1999.  “Moeller’s claims to reveal how in her hand ‘compassion fatigue’ is an empty signifier that becomes attached to a range of often contradictory explanations and factors.”

Evidence shows that individuals respond differently to media coverage and it will be issue dependent. “Identifiable victim effect” – if the victim is identifiable people react differently than if the issue is statistics. An image of one person in distress is more effective than two or more or accounts. A sad facial expression gave the viewer “emotional contagion” and sympathy with the victim.

Emotional engagement, on the other hand, allows the individual to look at the context surrounding the victim in more detail. This can negate the need to send donations to the disaster / issue.

18/9/17

BBC posted a video clip entitled “The boy who shocked the world – It has been a year since the suffering of Saleem became the face of Yemen’s suffering. But where is he now?”

A sensational claim of the world being shocked at the 350,000 children in Yemen focussed on Salem, a 6yr old who had severe malnutrition. He was taken to a WHO feeding centre where his malnutrition was treated. The BBC claim the number of starving children has now risen to 2million. The BBC reporter also shares that Salim is now suffering from brain damage and stunted growth.

Researching Salim, he does appear in several papers, just giving, UNICEF etc. There have been updates on his progress and people have given money. UNICEF were half way towards their target last year and the crowd funding doctor nearly reached a fifth of their target before closing the just giving page.

I was surprised that the account was so honest. This seemed to fit with the emotional engagement which Campbell mentions.

The Guardian’s article (Hodal, 2016) mentions compassion fatigue being one of the reasons that people are not giving generously to all the natural and political disasters such as the Yemen food crisis, quoting Moeller to authenticate the arguments. She also suggests that the United Nations is being driven by results and political leaders such as Trump have a part to play in deciding what is funded. However, I have to agree with Campbell’s theory that compassion fatigue is used as an excuse and perhaps to keep the American dream alive?

Bibliography

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/41313552/yemen-war-what-happened-to-saleem

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/19/pictures-show-incredible-recovery-of-starving-boy-who-was-victim-of-yemen-crisis-6201291/

https://www.rt.com/news/359343-yemen-children-suffering-war/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39248860

https://www.unicef.org.au/blog/stories/june-2017/photos-change-the-way-you-think-about-famine

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Yemenfamine?fb_comment_id=1214230118648140_1218193658251786#fbe0ba71e05d64

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/04/un-biggest-aid-appeal-fears-of-compassion-fatigue

Post-photojournalism

Patrick Chauvel, a war photographer of 40 years exhibited Guerre Ici (War here) in Paris (until 2011) and Bayeux. His images fall into the genre of photojournalism although the creative images are contemporary augmented reality. These combined pairs of images (2.5 metres x 2 metres each), displayed the original scene of war from places such as Chechyna, Beirut and Panama which provides the context followed by an interpretation of what could happen in Paris. Initially Chauvel’s collection contained an image of the Twin Towers and the London bombings, but following the two actual terrorist attacks, he removed them.

As a photojournalist, Chauvel “monitor(s) the situation and tells a story.” (Chauvel, 2012) His images illustrate and inform the public what is happening in the war zone. Chauval works on both sides of the war to understand the situation to make informed images (photojournalism). In an interview with Military History (2012), Chauvel clarifies that he works for history books and archives as well as the news. His images carry a warning for people to remember that peace is fragile and war can happen at any time to anyone, providing a means to influence political parties.

It took Chauvel 10 years to be exhibited in Paris because his work was seen as too political or disturbing. However, at the Monnaie de Paris (2011) his work was shown with actual footage of the Liberation in Paris in 1982 from the Paris Match and Michael Wolf’s screen grabs from Google Street View in Paris. Organisers told Chauvel, “You can show real war pictures, but not transpose war into Paris.” (Marzolf, 2015)

By introducing war to a familiar space, the viewer is asked to question what happened if war came to Paris? How do we see war when we are peace? The comments posted on the internet are mixed, although I wouldn’t take this as a real indication of how well his work was received. The websites are mainly in French so translation was a little difficult.

Chauvel addresses the issues of image fatigue by using familiar buildings and landscapes into which he inserts familiar scenes from wars. The colours are fairly dark and smoky reminiscent of painted landscapes by artists such as Turner. By showing the original war scene and then the photomontage, the viewer sees that this is not one particular war; for example, the soldiers’ uniforms are different, but this is an augmented reality which hasn’t happened yet. Because we are used to seeing war portrayed by reporters in action, the viewer look more closely at the image and realise this may not necessarily be a faraway land.

Chauvel was in Paris at the time of the attack on the Bataclan and Café le Carillon (2015). He reacted in the same way as he would when in a war zone, capturing the same facial expressions and emotions on people, with the same symbols such as candles, shrouds etc. This war was different in the fact that it was about freedom rather than religion.

Supposing that footage of a terrorist attack was inserted into a familiar landscape, the viewer might think that the image was too realistic and not see the point that the photographer was trying to make. I think Chauvel’s images have been carefully chosen to fit with the situation, drama, perspective, landscape and allows the viewer to consider war images from their memory in order to start asking questions. There is a danger that the images could be received as fake news but by displaying them in an exhibition with an explanation or on building walls with the original image, the message remains clear.

References

Military History, (2012) Patrick Chauvel an eye for war: the French photographer shot his first war at age 18 and has spent his life depicting the realities of combat. Military History, Nov. 2012, p. 44+.Academic OneFile [online] available at:

go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=ucca&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA302463911&it=r&asid=c842ddcc3191e1d3196ed1a92f00c6f8. Accessed 21 Sept. 2017.

Marzolf, H. (2015) Attentats due Paris: Le temoignage du photojournaliste Patrick Cheuvel. [online]  Available at: http://www.telerama.fr/scenes/attentats-de-paris-le-temoignage-du-photojournaliste-patrick-chauvel,134424.php last accessed 21/9/2017

Bibliography

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/aug/09/luc-delahaye-war-photography-art

http://www.voir-et-dire.net/?Patrick-Chauvel-Guerre-ici

http://archives.prixbayeux.org/index.php?id=197

Charuel, M (2011) “Fears over the city” or peace unmasked. Valeurs. [online] Available at: https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe/peurs-sur-la-ville-ou-la-paix-demasquee-28506 last accessed 21/9/17 last accessed 21/9/17

Breaking the news?

A blog post from Christopher Zara entitled "New York Post Subway Death Photo : Unethical or just tasteless?" posted on 4th December 2012 questions the decision of the New York Post to publish this image as the front cover. 

Ki Suk Han, 58, of Queens frantically tries to climb to safety yesterday as a train bears down on him in Midtown. He was fatally struck seconds later. (2012) R. Umar Abbasi 

Naeem Davis, a black street vendor allegedly pushed drunk Ki Suck Han, 58, of Chinese origin into the path of an oncoming train in a New York City subway. Han suffered life threatening injuries for which he may have received CPR on the platform after he was pulled out from the gap and died later in hospital from his injuries. Davies absconded from the scene and was later brought in for questioning by the police.

Davies remained in police custody for 41/2 years and was acquitted in July 2017 through lack of evidence having been accused of  first and second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

Zara's blog entry was published on the day that the paper went into circulation. Zara states that Twitter users questioned the actions of the photographer in taking the image and not helping. He claims the photographers response to the trauma unfolding on the station was to fire his flash several times to alert the train driver. The New York Post refused to comment on the use of the image. The morality of the New York Post's decision to publish this image is questioned. He did not question the people on the platform.

Zara raises the issue of morality concerned with not helping the man who is about to die. Kevin Z. Smith, chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics committee checked the image was not photoshopped and responded to an interview with IBTimes stating that “It defies any sense of professional, moral or ethical judgment [Journalists are advised] to show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. It also says to avoid pandering to “lurid curiosity” and to show “good taste” when covering gruesome subjects. (Zara as cited by Smith, 2012).  

Further questions raised in the article are: Do papers see this type of image as something which will sell papers? Do the public want to see images like this? How do the family of victims feel?

By analyzing various news reports, a larger picture of the event is built up. The idea of Ritchin's hyperphotography with metadata attached to the photograph would answer some of the viewers' questions.

The photographer stated he was too far away to help and the flash was his way of alerting the train. However, he has also stated that he wasn't strong enough to help. So I don't think he can be believed.  The press are guilty of sensationalising the story. The wife and daughter of Mr. Han have not been respected or considered during this story. 

In this image the gaze is between Han and the train driver. The platform is empty. The image could be compared to an atrocity image whereby the viewer is sharing a private or voyeuristic moment between the two people.

"Pictures of people about to die, less graphic than pictures of corpses and body parts, also play on different parts of a viewer's psyche. Where images of dead bodies often push viewers away, creating a sense of distance and objectification, images of impending death do the opposite: They often draw viewers in, fostering engagement, creating empathy and subjective involvement, inviting debate. … About-to-die images tweak the landscape on which images and public response work, suggesting that certain news pictures do not surface by playing to the much-touted rational and reasoned understanding that journalism is supposed to provide. Instead, images of impending death play to the emotions, the imagination, and the contingent and qualified aspects of what they depict." (Zelizer, B as cited by Lowder, 2012)

"Contemporary critics dismiss problematic images as pornographic and launch ad hominem attacks against photojournalists. These critics seek something that does not exist: an uncorrupted, unblemished photographic gaze that will result in images flawlessly poised between hope and despair, resistance and defeat, intimacy and distance … They want the worst things on earth … to be represented in ways that are not incomplete, imperfect, or discomfiting." (Linfield as cited by Lowder, 2012) 

This image could be portrayed as showing what the Americans find disturbing about the treatment of New York's mentally ill and homeless. However, the public choose to see the event and not read further into it, instead laying the blame with the photographer and the newspaper. 

Bibliography
Conley, K. (2012) Suspect confesses in pushing death of Queens dad in Times Square subway station. New York Post. [online] Available at: http://nypost.com/2012/12/04/suspect-confesses-in-pushing-death-of-queens-dad-in-times-square-subway-station/ last accessed 11/9/17
Zara, C. (2012) New York Post Subway Death Photo : Unethical or just tasteless? International Business Times. [online]. Available at: http://www.ibtimes.com/new-york-post-subway-death-photo-unethical-or-just-tasteless-918619 last accessed 11/9/17
McKinley, J and Alani, H. (2017) Man who pushed passenger to his death on subway tracks is acquitted. New York Times [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/nyregion/naeem-davis-subway-death-ki-suck-han.html?mcubz=0 last accessed 11/9/17
Lowder, B. (2012) what really disturbs us most about the N.Y. subway death cover? Slate. [online] Available at:  http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2012/12/04/ny_post_subway_death_photo_of_ki_suk_han_why_r_umar_abbasi_s_image_disturbs.html last accessed 11/9/17

Digitising atrocity

Date: 19^th December 2016

Photographer: Burhan Ozbilici

Photograph: Shooting of Andrei Karlov at the opening of Cagdas Municipal Art Gallery’s exhibition of Russian landscapes in Ankara, Turkey

Burham Ozbilici The Associated Press (19/12/16)

This image shows Andrei Karlov, a Russian ambassador after being shot, possibly by an off-duty police officer. “The crime that was committed is without doubt a provocation at disrupting the normalisation of Russian – Turkish relations and disrupting the peace process in Syria that is being actively advanced by Russia, Turkey and Iran.” (Walker et al, 2016) This terrorist attack of a Russian assassination in Turkey could be seen as a symbol in the Turkish involvement with Russia. Turkey and Russia were restoring ties after Russia shot down a Turkish plane in 2015.

The photograph was submitted for the World Press Photo Awards in 2017 which caused controversy among the judges. Radio Free Europe highlighted that Russia officially criticised the image, labelling it as “demoralising” and showing “complete degradation of ethics and moral values.” (Ozbilici, 2017) The photographer claims to have taken the image to record what would become history and journalism.

The World Press was concerned that the image may “amplify a terrorist message in some way […] I don’t think we can forget that this was a premeditated, staged murder at a press conference. It seemed to me to reaffirm the impact between martyrdom and publicity.” (Shepherd, 2017)

At least 3 photographers captured images of the shooting which was shared globally through different processes and at different speeds, although they did not all receive the same attention. The other two images identify the victim through his face. 

Yavus Alatan Daily Sozcu Newspaper (19/12/2017) 

Hasim Kilic – Hurriet Media Organisation (19/12/2016)

Publishers may not know if the family had been informed. Ozbilici’s image is theatrical, showing the emotion on the face of the shooter and the power of the photographer to stand in front and capture the image. The viewer reads the immediacy of the image; this is happening now. The other images are not confronting the shooter. Ozbilici’s image was uploaded to Facebook and shared 58,000 times that evening. Reports suggest that other images took longer before being seen by viewers, although some news sites used all 3 images. The other images show bullet casings and give an idea of the situation.

References

Walker et al. (2016) Russian ambassador to Turkey shot dead by police officer in Ankara gallery. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/russian-ambassador-to-turkey-wounded-in-ankara-shooting-attack last accessed 7/9/17

Ozbilici, B (2016) Witness to an assassination: A P photographer captures attack. APPress. [online] Available at: https://apnews.com/eadca282d5d341a79bb464bbadc4fa11 last accessed 7/9/17

Shepherd, J. (2017) Photograph of Russian ambassador wins top prize at World Press Photo contest. The Independent [online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/world-press-photo-2017-russian-ambassador-assassination-of-the-year-a7577551.html last accessed 7/9/17

Bibliography

Vartanian, H. (2017) Controversial Assassination Picture wins 2017 World Press Photo Award. Hyperallergic [online]. Available at: https://hyperallergic.com/358285/world-press-photo-announces-winners-of-2017-contest/ last accessed 7/9/17

Katz, A. (2016) Three photographers witnessed an assassination. One went viral. Time [online]. Available at: http://time.com/4608713/russia-turkey-assassination-photos/ last accessed 7/9/17

Atrocity and Action: The Performative Force of the Abu Ghraib Photographs (2012) Peggy Phelan

Source: Phelan, P (2012) Atrocity and Action: The Performative Force of the Abu Ghraib Photographs in Bachten, G. at al (eds) (2012) Picturing Atrocity: Photography in crisis, London: Reacktion Books. (Pp51-61)

Phelan questions what photographs of atrocities prohibit and prevent by examining images through performance. When presented with an atrocity photograph, viewer considers what has been done, what is being done and what they can do to help. In digital photography, the photograph is seen when it is taken and on viewing. Phelan argues there is a blind spot in atrocity photographs so the viewer may not see what the photograph is really depicting because the image is traumatic.

Phelan compares atrocity photographs to Barthes punctum in Camera Lucida where the press of the shutter signals the death of the subject. Barthes thought that a portrait photograph activates mourning through its affective force by providing a space for grief. If the subject is already dead, the viewer goes through more extreme grief because they are reflecting on the literal subject.

Phelan argues that atrocity photographs don’t work like this because they are in the present rather than the past tense. The viewer may find the first reading traumatic and then the image is seen in the past tense. Occasionally an atrocity photograph stands out – one which maintains its “performative force” and not judged on truth. (Phelan, 2012:54).

Atrocity photographs share a link with trauma psychology and may activate a trauma which has not been coded or decoded. People may react to atrocity with disbelief or defensiveness. Culture will affect the way the photograph is regarded. Absorption, repression, political meaning, evidence, art exhibitions and triggers to violence are all ways in which the atrocity may be viewed. Errol Morris (2009) produced a film called Standard Operating Procedure showing some of these images.

The photographs can be viewed through different gazes; the male gaze, imperial colonist gaze, racist gaze as we are used to Hollywood using scenes like this in movies. The Abu Ghraib atrocity images were taken by American soldiers of Iraq prisoners (e.g. Gilligan on a box (2003) Sergeant Ivan Frederick). America looked defensively at these photographs and questions what it said about them rather than being concerned for the prisoners. If these are compared to historical events the present tense is removed making them easier to look at. E.g. The hooded man has his head covered so the viewer does not know who he is and his pose is Christ-like. In other images, prisoners are covered in blood or handcuffed and portrayed as if close to death. This removes the subject from the photograph. Phelan explains that because of this we do not see what is really being portrayed which she described as the blind spot. Photographs are labelled – ideology, sadism, racism, ethical, pornography of war, imprisonment which still does not address the issue. The photographs were taken so that the prisoners would release intelligence information to their interrogators. The photographs are preparation for what comes next in war.

In order to see the photograph, the viewer has to recognise that people can’t see. Didl Huberman explains that

“With the visible, we are of course in the realm of what manifests itself. The visual, by contrast, would designate that irregular net of event symptoms that reaches the visible as so many gleams or radiances, “traces of articulation”, as so many indices…indices of what? Of something – a work, a memory in process, that has been nowhere fully described, attested or set down in an archive, because its signifying “material” is the first of all the image.” (Phelan, 2012:56)

The implied interpretation makes us not see what is in the photograph. Photographs pose as weapons. We ask questions. Torture is made visible. Errol Morris and Philip Gourevitch argue that

“the pose is obviously contrived and theatrical, a deliberate intervention that appears to belong to some dark ritual, a primal scene of martyrdom. The picture transfixes us because it looks like the truth, but looking at it we can only imagine what the truth is: torture, execution and a scene staged for the camera. So we seize on the figure of Gilligan as a symbol that stands for all that was wrong at Abu Ghraib – and all that we cannot and do not want to – understand about how it came to this. (Phelan, 2012:59)

The viewers ask questions such as who, why, what, when, where, how and react differently to the images which contribute to the meaning of how we view Abu Ghraib.