kadardr: In most of the images senior staff was watching the show projected in front of them. When the president arrives Cheney seems to take responsibility of a catchup. But no actions are seen, no orders are given to anyone, apparently no attempt to change the course of actions. Nothing at all. Were they totally paralyzed by the happenings? Cheney definitely seems very passive. So the next step would be to ask archives what actions were taken to mitigate the outcome. The series did not change my view that Cheney is a war criminal.
kadardr, what you're looking for is in the rest of the pictures -- there are hundreds on the flickr site. The link DPReview gives goes only to one of the four pages of them.
In fact, Cheney was constantly on the phone, which is where actions would be initiated from the bunker.
Meanwhile Rice was holding constant discussions, evidently with some independent thinking, in the next seat, which he would tune into. I don't think they were inactive, even when focused on the video wall in front of them.
Anyway, we can each find our interpretations, and in this way I think it is interesting as well as informative to look. Takes some patience, that's sure also...
nimrod1212: I so wish this had a mic input.
Flexible, excellent, small, much better than anything on a camera:
Richard Franiec: Was the second paragraph of the news necessary? Maybe "off topic" forum would be a better place to post it?
Richard, I've often enjoyed your viewpoints in posts, and was watching what might develop. Maybe there are ways to see Barney's editorial choice to be positive here.
First, I really feel the variety in the weekend articles to be a very welcome breath of fresh air. They suggest thinking out of the narrower channels that had become such a habit, and indeed open new ideas for images to be taken, which besides that size of good can inform our thinking about cameras.
A second point is more direct. There's a lot of politics anyway subterranean, in most of the comments discussion, not a surprise from all in unhappy cultures of the moment. I think it doesn't hurt to have a discussion occur a little more openly once in a while, and how better than centered around photographs and what they can notice as well as seem to directly express - our art here anyway.
More than enough to say, am sure, but in appreciation besides Barney and crew, of your own contributions, hope is clear.
Average User: Barney: I am glad you made the post. Totally interesting reading people's perceptions and reactions... it's a laboratory on how people respond to photographs. Some of us see pure evil (which was our previous perception anyway) Some of us see only hardworking folks trying to do their best (our previous perception anyway). The Solzhenitsyn comment raises the further issue regarding perceptions by third parties. The discussion demonstrates that predispositions can be so strong that people see only what they want to see, even when it's inaccurate. And then there's the question: If someone is acting from a certain perspective thinking they are doing good, but their actions do bring about some harm, maybe a lot of harm, at what point does the entire enterprise become evil? As "the artist" I wonder what the photographers were trying to depict as they took the pictures...Someone could do a masters' thesis on this forum.
Insight showing well, artist, and not a surprise it should come from an artist.
I'd like to say that in my own participation, I began from a general and long term bad feeling about these people. Looking into the images thoughtfully, their moment in time, and some background, I came to a different way to see.
That's the one that doesn't insist on hot-headed polarization, where any one point of view must be 'the truth'.
There's a word for such black and white thinking, from an ancient Persian religion, which another Nobel poet was very articulate about, Csezlaw Milosz. He expressed for a much different way to answer, where the understanding of how mixed human motives are, allows us to work more wisely with them -- and thus open doors to the great opportunity, which is change.
I found a little change on this old news of the photos myself. I think you'll know why I like it.
NarrBL: Well, food is natural at marathon meetings, corporate, church social, or elsewhere, isn't it? And not many cookies are eaten...
It's natural this presentation should have been a lightning rod for much ill feeling, but it seems worth remembering that these images are from the immediate phase of a catastrophe, not anything about later actions taken.
In particular, if you look into who is being pictured in the whole photo set on flickr, the most prominent are two high-powered public relations consultants, there certainly to advise on how to communicate to the local nation, and who have a lot of conversation with Condoleeza Rice, the most alert and also emotional at times person shown.
In the photos chosen for DPReview's mini-article, Cheney is shown as contemplative, which his history suggests has been a big role, as an answers man; but in the real photo set, he is constantly on the telephone, constantly, turning aside to listen or join into the discussions Rice is holding.
I'm just having a memory raztec has made me think of below, how I thought about reading Solzhenitsyn as a young man, teaching design in Korea in the early 1970s.
It wasn't easy, in translation, but I realized there was something more to that challenge, straight from the author, and not due to translation..
I then imagined it as what happens when you are listening to stories an older man is telling. As long as you listen, the stories are there. And when you stop listening, after a while you realize that they are no longer there.
As a Korean said to me about another but related situation, it's your choice. I felt to read, as carefully so.
maxnimo: For indoor shots those photos look quite good, except the contrast is a bit too low and the black level too high, a phenomenon that's usually caused by the presence of pure evil in the scene.
raztec, thank you, as that's entirely my point in all these postings, close enough, and among the others we can find with this door available.
I think we all _can_ understand, or wouldn't try to say it as discomforting, but yes, we don't all come from the point at first, which Solzhenitsyn has indeed identified so well.
By the way, truly or falsely, there's a very interesting chapter in his recovered and final The First Circle, which has Stalin in his late rooms, caught in his own paranoic trap.
This is the kind of thing he had to edit out the first time, but really the whole book is different, as he said it was. How much his late memory, who can know, but interesting.
Well, Europeans would ask if you are still in short pants, to my memory. But my purpose here is not to insult you, so just let this go, HR.
How you are wrong is important to you, and I will hope you come in due course to understand it. Said in the generous mode, I think you already understand.
You see, you're assuming by everything you prejudge, and wrongly. And you're caught in that favorite American simplistic thinking of either/or, one of the things that gets us into these messes in dealing with actually differing cultures.
If you read what both Clinton and Albright said, you find that they are surely not speaking of extending Saddam Hussein's moment of power; quite the opposite.
Pack of lies, etc.. Here you assume far more than you could possibly know, and you are rather wrong.
As far as Chamberlain: he believed a sociopath. There was also a lot of German-English hoped-for alliance behind this. It was as warped as understandings in the Middle East.
I am sorry you felt to get so rigid, and aggressive, HowaboutRaw. I think it best this diplomacy lets things go, as we don't have to decide anything momentous here.
I just think again, how much we all have to grow up, if we are going to deal successfully with a world as we are able to much better understand by now.
HowaboutRAW, I didn't say that, and don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth. Let's not degenerate into the emotionalism here, please.
However, you may know Hussein read Hitler, and Stalin, assiduously. He had his own distortive approach, like calling a cabinet meeting and putting .45 pistols at some seats, then ordering those who had them to use them against the others. Who were many of his own family. And then there are the sons.
I don't think we can measure such things directly, but as Madeline Albright said rather clearly via that link, "It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them," (of the weapons) "Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."
This is very good -- I feel I am in Belgium and looking at a Magritte!
...and I would not rotate it...but that's opinion here.
HowaboutRAW, I agree, Clinton didn't want to -- but as the quotes just mentioned show, he and his government were ready to, according to cause. As in yours, distinctions can be very important, not a doubt.
I think a point missed here is how much governments of all flavors constantly develop and discuss alternative plans, particularly of trouble spots, in case they come to a point of action.
In this link, if you read down into it, you can find elaboration of relevant and interesting quotes of both Clinton and Albright, which show I think a particular awareness of the personality they were dealing with -- after Saddam had been put in play vs. Iran earlier by the US, as you may recall. What they say is in recognition of what happened with Neville Chamberlain, not to be repeated.
I think these statements reflect a measured approach, while holding a considered awareness.
Yes, that's well taken. Just that in that group's apparent viewpoint of the Middle East, there was always something to be 'managed', by force as necessary, and according to historic experience.
Always the spectre around the oil....
You know, you're actually replicating what Hanna Arendt was warned about, which gave a shape to her peace.
It was that if you saw Eichmann as 'simply' 'pure evil', you would become blind to the more important reality, that what he and others did actually was so normal to human tendencies, whenever awareness of their also-human context is distorted or removed.
Remember the university student experiments later, where people controlled the shocks given to other students. Or for considerably grounded understandings of much wider and interesting view, a number of the books of Erich Fromm.
Sorry, but I think humanly -- and having viewed this all from overseas life at the time -- always first the shock, including staring at the re-runs -- and then the seeming knee-jerk.
It's all too human, and maybe also is the leg up while watchng, relieving tendons as we all have them at age and after sitting in a conference room for hours and hours. I also thought those office shots rather composed, or at least light metered; too much accuracy of lighting and exposure to get the window, the tv, and the personal environment so balanced. But that is the constant show business of government in the capital, or in a small or large company for that matter. We are still all the subjects of Kaa's hunting, so much of the time. and had better remember it if we we want differently (Kipling, Mowgli as read).
Yes, that big act that came out of their world-view; but again, these photos are of a 'now', those choices were later.
FuhTeng: DPR needed more page hits to achieve their page-views target for the month (I like seeing the Canon banner ads "The photos of yesterday... today!"). This is troll-bait, nothing more.
Barney, I appreciate what you say, and it stands as it is, just it seems might have been anticipated where it would lead, not least by very similar reaction on telegraph.co.uk, from a similar photo-article released a day or two earlier?
What you would do differently is less certain, I'm sure, but might be worth thinking about. And in the sense I like that DPR presents these opportunities for wider thought around week-ends, the more freedom to responders, feels mostly the better...
...and looking again, how you led in the mini-article seems to have much well-taken, so good.
As interesting is anything is how Cheney morphs into a completely subservient pose when George Bush is present. And in fact there are many quite interesting for their body languge readings, starting with Tenet.
I suggest then that these images are much more interesting than their simple damnation speaks to.
For myself, the picture is of the dwindling end of a last Raj, those who were in charge who believed entirely in their worldview, oil-centric through the Bush family, and in an old-fashioned structural model of economics and its necessary politics, neither of which fit by then very accurately in our more self-reorienting, self-communicating world.
Hence failures of judgement and execution, but one doesn't want to forget how much this belief in their passed-by worldview may have built the relative evils that so many may feel.
As we each might do in situations, and there will be many of them, unless we learn forward, no?
Also, lots of wide angle; some, useful...
Well, food is natural at marathon meetings, corporate, church social, or elsewhere, isn't it? And not many cookies are eaten...
Battersea: In the third photo, one of the ones of the pretty girl, what are those green flares called and what causes them? I am not a technical photographer but I would like to know so I can follow along when people talk about imperfections of the equipment. Thanks for any replies.
Well, in this case it's not something for me that adds to the apparent intentions of the photo, so I found myself thinking how much trouble to clone and otherwise retouch it out, if for a magazine placement for example. Also whether the rainbow globe part might have been inspiration for the small visitation ships in Close Encounters ;). So I think you make your point, if I think also that Rishi's was a bit different...take care.