F A K E H A N D B A G S: 905: You know what happens when you assume...

September 15, 2006

905: You know what happens when you assume...

For those who didn't see the Frank Rich article that stirred up a lot of internet buzz this week, Slate neatly sums up the subject of the article (for which a TimesSelect membership is unfortunately required) as this:

"In his Sept. 10 column, Frank Rich of the New York Times describes a "taboo 9/11 photo," one so "shocking" that photographer Thomas Hoepker didn't publish it for four years. The photo... shows five people on the Brooklyn waterfront, engaged in conversation while the smoke from the fallen towers billows over Manhattan behind them."

In Rich's own words, the above image, "is prescient as well as important—a snapshot of history soon to come. What he caught was this: Traumatic as the attack on America was, 9/11 would recede quickly for many. This is a country that likes to move on, and fast. The young people in Mr. Hoepker's photo aren't necessarily callous. They're just American. In the five years since the attacks, the ability of Americans to dust themselves off and keep going explains both what's gone right and what's gone wrong on our path to the divided and dispirited state the nation finds itself in today."

In reaction to Rich's article, Slate's David Plotz wrote "Frank Rich Is Wrong About That 9/11 Photograph" and "River's Edge". Plotz defends the people in the photograph, albeit while making his own assumptions about their behavior. Plotz says, "The subjects are obviously engaged with each other, and they're almost certainly discussing the horrific event unfolding behind them. They have looked away from the towers for a moment not because they're bored with 9/11, but because they're citizens participating in the most important act in a democracy—civic debate."

Possibly, but who knows for sure? The photographer apparently didn't interact with his subjects (nor, it's worth pointing out, did he secure their permission to publish their images), so not even he knows for certain how they felt at that moment -- whether they were jaded, already having moved on, or involved in a meaningful discussion about the attacks.

Reacting to Rich's assessment and Plotz's subsequent reaction to Rich's article, Gawker polled its readers for their opinions. "Without taking sides, Gawker wants to know how you interpret this photo: discourse or douchebaggery?"

The results of Gawker's poll:

20.7%: I'm frightened and numb right now. How should one react in a time of terror?"

15.5%: While horrific and unjustified, I can't help but feel that this attack is somehow a response to our destabilizing presence in the Middle East.

13.0%: I think we need to realize that we've entered a new era where our enemies are less likely to be conventional nation-states and more likely to be highly mobile organizations aimed at doing us harm whenever they can.

50.8%: Dude, I hope they don't cancel the Mooney Suzuki show over this.

Plotz's take on the photo in Slate received comments from two of the people who actually appear in the photo -- Walter Sipser, a Brooklyn artist, and Chris Schiavo, a professional photographer. In their defense, here's what they said:

Walter Sipser, far right:

"We were in a profound state of shock and disbelief, like everyone else we encountered that day. Thomas Hoepker did not ask permission to photograph us nor did he make any attempt to ascertain our state of mind before concluding five years later that, 'It's possible they lost people and cared, but they were not stirred by it.' Had Hoepker walked fifty feet over to introduce himself he would have discovered a bunch of New Yorkers in the middle of an animated discussion about what had just happened. He instead chose to publish the photograph that allowed him to draw the conclusions he wished to draw, conclusions that also led Frank Rich to write, 'The young people in Mr. Hoepker's photo aren't necessarily callous. They're just American.' A more honest conclusion might start by acknowledging just how easily a photograph can be manipulated, especially in the advancement of one's own biases or in the service of one's own career."

Chris Schiavo, second from the right:

"I am also a professional photographer and did not touch a camera that day. Why? For many reasons including a now-obvious one: This somewhat cynical expression of an assumed reality printed in the New York Times proves a good reason. (Shame on Mr. Rich and Mr. Hoepker—one should never assume.) But most of all to keep both hands free, just in case there was actually something I could do to alter this day or affect a life, to experience every nanosecond in every molecule of my body, rather than place a lens between myself and the moment. (Sounds pretty 'callous,' huh?) I also have a strict policy of never taking a photograph of a person without their permission or knowledge of my intent."

Posted by ashley at September 15, 2006 12:38 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ashleysaunders.com/cgi/mt-tb.cgi/900

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 905: You know what happens when you assume...: