BAGnewsNotes

Your Turn: Something That Isn't There

(click any for full size)

I spent a month on the Gulf Coast in January working on a story for National Geographic Magazine, published this month in a 24 page article. The idea was to take a look at the coast months after the storms, and see what, if any, progress had been made to try and get reconstruction going.

What I saw was depressing and unsettling. Many areas were virtually untouched since September; it was as if you had been dropped into dead zones which had been frozen in time. I was, as it happened, in Atlanta at Home Depot headquarters just about the time that Rita hit western Louisiana – the last week of September.

As we watched in their “crisis center” the movement of the storm, and the local reactions to it, the one surprising thing I learned was that right after Katrina, the usual “morning after” rush of shoppers to Home Depot to buy the things they needed for repairs never materialized. It was the first time anyone at Home Depot could remember (and they have all the numbers to back it up) when there wasn’t a rush to “fix things up.”

The reasons we now know. Hundreds of thousands of people either had left town, or, in too many cases, were unable to return to homes which had totally been destroyed. It was unlike anything that has ever happened in my lifetime in this country.

Storms hit every year, some homes are ruined, but there is always a reason for that “next day” rush to the Home Depots of this world: people are fixed on staying where they are, and want to start the reconstruction process as soon as possible. In New Orleans, and other towns across the coast, there was simply nothing to go back to. Nothing to repair. Nothing to fix. Nothing to work on. Nothing to hit a few boards into in order to keep the water out.

It is difficult to photograph something that isn’t there. Sure, you can see damage, and in many places it was an obvious and stark reminder of what had taken place. But when there is nothing left, you will be pressed to find a way to show that barren quality in a photograph.

--David Burnett.  August 12, 2006.

David Burnett is one of the deans of American photojournalism.

He co-founded Contact Press Images in 1976 and, over the years, has produced outstanding and well-known work for almost every major American and European print publication.  He was a leading source of news imagery during the Vietnam war, and this year, always the contemporary, he (along with his eloquent wife, Iris) became a full fledged member of the blogosphere.

In the extended quote from his blog, David refers to his photo spread in the August edition of National Geographic.  Using his cherished large format Speed Graphic, the shallow depth of field created a particularly unusual effect.  With Katrina's impact already other-worldly, Burnett's images add the impression that barely-recognizable automobiles might have been twisted inside a diorama, or that the scars wreaked upon the landscape might have taken place in (or else, actually left behind) a toy world.

I was quite moved by these images.  My reaction, however, was almost purely visceral.  My question is, what is it that these images accomplish that enhances, rather than diminishes or minimizes the poignancy of the devastation?  (And, since I've blogged incessantly this week about Bush's pathological return to the Gulf, is there something inherent in Bush's alienation from the disaster that makes the alienation in these images even more compelling?)

I realize a lot of the readership might already have gotten a jump on the last summer weekend.  Given that David has leant permission to The BAG to post these images, however, I am quite interested in your reactions.  It's also a great opportunity to hear from those of you, loyal readers, who have otherwise been tentative to jump into the thread.

You can view the extended "Aftermath" series here.

(images: David Burnett/Contact for National Geographic.  2006.  Used by permission.)

Katrina Anniversary: From Tragedy To Farce

... And I'm not referring to the natural disaster of a hurricane, but the man-made disaster of a Presidency.  The White House images from Bush's second day in the Gulf reveal a shallowness, a self-centeredness and a lack of connection that is now all too painfully visible.

Bush's appearance in New Orleans is represented by fifteen photos on the White House photo gallery.  Excluding four shots with musicians (including the famous Fats Domino) and one professional football player, there is only one photo of George Bush with regular black citizens.

Of course, we have two by-now reflexive and cloyingly staged photos of a) classroom Laura makin' sure dem black kids are gettin' sum edu-cay-shun, and b) a "we are the world" group hug.

We also have a picture of George and Laura at a high school roundtable discussion with what looks like a group of white people (But wait!  The White House photo actually highlights the name card of the partially blocked discussion leader.  Whew, my apologies.  Her name is Hernandez!)  ...You've also got to love the redundant title of the program this school was the recipient of a grant from.  According to the caption, it's called: The Laura Bush Foundation for America’s Libraries Gulf Coast School Library Recovery Initiative.

Oh, and did I mention the two photos of the Vice President in the thread? 

Katrina Anniversary: The New Paparazzi

(click for full size)

In spite of my partisanship, I didn't expect the first White House Katrina anniversary shot to be quite this pathetic.

Obviously, Bush is in an incredibly weak position on Katrina, but I have yet to see Rove -- characteristically defiant when the chips are down -- pull back or get this defensive with the visuals.  (Just more evidence, I believe, that these guys are spent.)

Until late last week, the Administration's strategy was to organize Bush's Gulf trip around the reconstruction effort and dollars expended, framing Bush in front of government-funded renewal projects.  Perhaps sensing a perceptual disaster, however, BushCo. switched tactics at the last minute, deciding to identify itself, instead, with the classic American "can do"/survivor spirit.  (A little projection there, maybe?)

It's expectable Bush would first dive into the old well, seeking safety and credibility by wrapping himself in the military at Mississippi's Kessler Air Force base.  At the same time, I'm surprised by the shallowness of this shot, actually turning a (ethnically-balanced) group of soldiers into paparazzi in order to manufacture a sense of popularity.

Katrina aside, could there be a more damning exhibit of the exploitation of military loyalty?

(image: Eric Draper/White House.  August 28, 2006.  Biloxi Mississippi.  whitehouse.gov)

Katrina Anniversary: Dirty Pool

It's quite a difference working the news cycle from Barcelona, having long "played catch up" from L.A.  With the first images from Bush's Gulf trip just coming in now, however, it will be just past the dinner hour (meaning, around midnight) before I can start analyzing a good cross section of pics.  To my benefit, though, I can get up in the morning, crunch for a couple hours, and still have a post put together before the first Times hits the NYC pavement.

In the meantime, this shot from New Orleans on Monday's newswire does a superior job previewing the thematic pixel war between Bush and the Democrats over the next few days.  Here's the caption, which works wonderfully as metaphor:

One home has a clean swimming pool as the pool next door is still filled with dirty water after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina nearly one year ago in New Orleans. Members of Congress toured the city Monday and President Bush was headed for the region to see the state of recovery efforts one year after the city was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina.

(image: Alex Brandon/AP. August 28, 2006. New Orleans. Via YahooNews.)

Katrina Anniversary: The Art Of Misery

In the summer issue of Aperture, Fred Ritchen (the director of Pixel Press and the Transmedia Center at Temple University) reviewed The Body At Risk (link), a photography exhibition dealing with "the vulnerability of the human condition" over the past hundred years.

Ritchen described the show as "concerned photography," which he elaborated as:

"the notion that a compassionate, empathic approach to human suffering, with the photographer serving as eyewitness, is able to provoke society to do something about the problems revealed."

In that context, Ritchen cautions that such exhibitions mostly offer a "self comforting delusion" because their display causes little to happen.  Perhaps his critique is aimed mostly at photos in galleries or museums.  Alluding to the effectiveness of social images in publications such as LIFE Magazine, however, I assume Ritchen's point also extends to the news press.

As dedicated as I am to political imagery, I hope the stream of Katrina-inspired photo-documentation is having some tangible impact on the reconstruction of the Gulf.  However, I'm under no illusion about this week's anniversary visuals.  With summer at its exhaustion point, its hard not to see the "concerned" pictorial coverage as feeding the commercial interests of the media, as well as various political aims.

As a case in point, I was put off by the heavy-handed images in this week's NY Times Magazine lead story, "Children of the Storm."  (That's the cover shot above.  The on-line edition offers this dedicated interactive feature.)

In the piece, we have image after black-and-white image of children in what often feel like tightly-scripted and self-conscious expressions of misery.  In the shot above, for example, we find a boy who is somehow wet posing disconsolately in front of the camera nearby an open hose.  The decrepit surroundings suggest the ground -- fed by that notorious Gulf water -- might even be contaminated.

Karl's Handiwork Of The Week

Image and caption from Friday's White House photo gallery....

President George W. Bush and Rockey Vaccarella of New Orleans walk to the Oval Office after delivering a joint statement to the press on the South Lawn Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006. Vaccarella, who lost his home in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, drove to Washington, D.C., with the hopes of speaking directly with President Bush. White House photo by Paul Morse.

BAGnewsNotes Revised caption (with suggested links):

White House photographer highlights press coverage of a snickering President George W. Bush and  former parish council GOP candidate (but supposed God-fearing nobody), Rockey Vaccarella, after delivering a joint statement to the press on the South Lawn Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006. Vaccarella afforded the President face time with somebody who lost his home in the wake of Hurricane Katrina just prior to a White House Katrina anniversary PR blitz. The wonderfully-named Rockey drove all the way to Washington D.C. in what was widely reported as a FEMA trailer with some story line about hoping to speak directly with the President (proving that Mr. Bush will meet with just about anyone who wishes to speak to him during the late August news vacuum).  White House photo by Paul Morse.

(image shown:  Paul Morse/White House.  August 23, 2006.  whitehouse.gov.  linked image 1: Kimberlee Hewitt/White House.  August 23, 2006.  whitehouse.gov.  image 2 & 3: Nick Wass/A.P.  August 22, 2006.  Washington.  Via YahooNews.  image 4: Jim Young/Reuters.  August 22, 2006.  Washington.  Via YahooNews.)

Print Nostalgia

I find this an apt image to post having just relocated from Los Angeles to Barcelona for my sabbatical.

.. By the way, I hope The BAG didn't suffer too much this past week while I was boosting signals in airport food courts from Captain's Clubs; getting ripped off for big euros from hotels where the otherwise "free" service ran at a snails pace; slinking through lobbies juggling adapters and power cords; and wrestling with Telefonica over speed and compatibility issues in a country that has obviously yet to be invaded by the Apple Store.

More relevant, however, is the fact I haven't seen a physical newspaper for over a week now -- not since I drove away from my house, and my NY Times and LA Times subscriptions.  Because I've never cared much for the International Herald Tribune, I've decided to do what many of you already do, which is get my news strictly from the web.  And you know what?  I'm experiencing no withdrawals.

(Although I am quite motivated to tune up my Spanish to avail myself of El Mundo and El Pais, or La Vanguardia and El Periodico, which are preferred in Catalunya, I'm sure they all have on-line editions.)

But back to the image.

One association the collage pulls for is that of a ransom note.  Ironically though, the hostage has already been done away with.  Unless the aim of the cover is sensationalism, I believe the question is already antiquated, holding interest only as a matter of form and semantics.  In other words, it's not the newspaper that has expired so much as the old concept and term "newspaper."  Already in its place is some new information entity which has permanently bifurcated into the "physical" and "electronic" body.

The use of "Who" is also conceptually strange.  Perhaps the cover reveals an editorial staff suffering from nostalgia and fear of evolutionary change.  Besides clinging to "the newspaper" as a singular, historical entity, the sense is that the Economist -- while, at the same time, trying to make light of it -- can't face the on-line revolution without wishing for someone to blame.

(illustration: unattributed.  Economist.  August 26th 2006.  Cover)

Going Over The Cliff Notes

(click for larger view)

Just like the "permission to pee" photo at the U.N. earlier this year, the A.P. stole a shot of Bush's notes from his idiotic press conference earlier this week.  In terms of deciphering what they said, I am largely referring to a brief analysis by Bob Harris at HuffPo who rotated the pic in photoshop to have a better look.

Assuming Bob's decoding is accurate, there are three items here.  On the left are notes on the Middle East and Iraq.  On the right are statistics about the Katrina recovery.  In the center is a press seating chart with some names highlighted and some crossed out.

Harris suggests some connection between who Bush has prepared to call on, and the first questions he received.  It's hard to believe in that level of collusion, but it would be interesting to know more about that middle document.

Beyond the absolute control that governs who can ask questions, what else is indicated here?  Is it possible the opportunities are democratically distributed and the system simply exists to eliminate any hint of favoritism?  Assuming the crossed-out boxes indicate someone who has already had their chance, why are some boxes outlined and some aren't?  Also, as Harris wonders, does the list cover all the questioners, or is it exclusive to the MSM "regulars?"

Regarding the "content" notes, the Katrina sheet seems fairly straight forward.  Bush has a list of initiatives and accomplishments to simply ram down the first available throat.

The function of the left note, however, is strangely undecipherable.  In general, an even semi-confident person would use the page to list a summary set of facts (as you see on the Katrina list) and/or a set of topics to remember.  Bush's Iraq/Middle East notes, however, lists a set of phrases containing only vague generalities.

This would imply one of four things.  One, Bush is so anxious (or nuts or narcissistic), he needs some specific language to "get him started"  and create a simplistic framework for the subject.  Two, the specific policy is so vague it can only be framed in the most simple generalities.  Three, Bush is so defensive about his policies (especially, the Iraq debacle) that these notes are cues to "trust me"-type rationalizations.  Or four, the Administration agenda (particularly relative to the Middle East and Iran) is so covert that Bush's intention, in terms of a public face, is simply to finesse the issue -- even if it makes him look like a moron.

As always, I welcome your analysis and interpretations.

(image 1: Charles Dharapak/AP.  Aug. 21, 2006. Washington.  Via YahooNews.  image 2: unattributed/A.P.  Via Huffington Post)

Your Turn: Pregnant Pause

(click for full size)

Besides responsibility for the senseless death of thousands of American service people in Iraq, and the squandering of America's reputation around the world, the greatest sin committed by George Bush was the hijacking of 9/11.

As an American, a parent, and a psychologist seeing a full caseload of patients that September, the intensity of the shock and anxiety generated by the terror attacks was unimaginable, particularly as a collective social experience.  By immediately politicizing and appropriating the incident for his own purposes, Bush deprived individual Americans and the cultural as a whole of the opportunity to own, make sense and create meaning out of the event in a more open, deliberate and intentional way.

Like any trauma, these experiences eventually make their way to the surface on their own.  We are seeing many instances now in the arts and media.  For example, Vanity Fair has a photo gallery this month of images from the new book Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11 by editor David Friend.  I found the images very powerful, especially those, like the one above, that capture elements of "normal" life in direct juxtaposition with visual display of the breaking tragedy.

In this image, according to VF: "architect and amateur pilot Isabel Daser, eight months pregnant, asked a co-worker to take her portrait as a record of the day" but Daser was not aware of what was taking place in the distance.

I am interested in your impressions of this image, both as a stimulus for your own recollection and for your associations to this startling scene.

(image: Isabel Daser Bessler via Vanity Fair.  Photo Essay Feature.  8/21/06)

Full Of Macaca

At first, you might not see much connection between the NYT George Allen "macaca" story, and a piece that appeared later that week about facial profiling at airports.  The link is that, ultimately, both stories have to do with reading faces.

More power to You Tube.  What The Times article and apologist headline (Verbal Gaffe From A Senator, Then An Apology) try to pass off as a "verbal gaffe" is easy to see in the video as an ugly slur.  More than that, however, what the video really captures is a larger facet of Allen's psychological make-up.