Happymarx, Sontag is an extremely crucial source on artistic ethics, and I think she would’ve had a lot to say on the topic of 102 minutes. It would be an interesting notion if the Mother of the small girl was close by, collecting food. The obvious question here is whether Carter had been justified in capturing the shot if, against all odds, food and nourishment was at hand. I’m not an expert, but this does pose problems to the phenomenological nexus the art of photography seeks to display, but in terms of photojournalism and artistic commitment, Carter’s piece was influential of change, whether true or fictional.

Its little known, but when I saw the pro- turned anti-Michael Moore documentary in Edinburgh, I was appalled, for all the wrong reasons. I was lucky enough to be at a Q and A with the filmmakers and I questioned them on their commitment, especially given Moore’s status as war critic, and how crucial American voices were, few and far between they were too. But over time I saw that better they, as leftwingers, gave the game away than rightwingers who would use it to strengthen their case. Furthermore, if they are elements to a leftwing polemicists’ film that are purely for dramatic effect – as their film demonstrated of Moore – then despite their political weight in general, this is counterproductive, and simply an insult to the rest of the anti-war left who once claimed Moore as one of their own.

If I seem to be making an incongruous point, I’d like to suggest that Carter’s falsehood is purely speculative, Capa’s is a real pity albeit with a real truth, Moore’s deception is seemingly needless. I can feel the topic of art versus politics emerging, so I’ll just admit that were it not for the song Kevin Carter by the Manics, its possible I would’ve been introduced to his work a little later than I actually had, so I concur how influential that song is.

I didn’t know anything much about Kevin Carter – apart from the MSP song about him.

On his wikipedia page there is an alternative story of the photograph given by Joao Silva – who was with Carter at the time of the famine girl’s photograph.

The story makes it sound as if Carter had, like Capa, used a fictious element to portray the truth (The girl’s mother was only yards away collecting food from a UN aid plane).

Kevin Carter belonged to the infamous Bang-Bang Club. One critic argued re Carter’s Pulitzer: “The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering, might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene.”

I think that picture Carter took pushed him over the edge mentally hence the suicide. He documented death, political turmoil and violence continuously, and with that level of engagement it would probably mess with anyone’s head. But when I first read about the details around Carter’s picture I did wonder myself why he didn’t carry that child to the food station. Why didn’t he intervene? Was he not responsible as well?

From my own personal point of view during the past couple of years I have taken up photography mainly as a way to document the organisation of the labour movement esp. the representation of women.

Reading your post made me think of Sontag’s book on Photography. Actually, this post has made me think about these issues esp. the purpose and importance of documentation, along with responsibility and accountability. It kinda reminds me of the citizen journalism capturing the brutality and violence of the cops from the G20 protests.

Also it is interesting to analyse our reaction to these images (the issue of voyeurism is one aspect that interests me), the feelings and emotions that are thrown up.

Sorry if this sounds disjointed but it is a bit of a stream of consciousness.

In both instances, what is most disturbing is our viewing it, how to view it and so on. Is our engagement, our voyeurism, not without a lump in the throat?