Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/12/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There was an article (NYT) in which a photo historian matched up the hills on the horizon with those only visible some miles away from the conflict that day, ie in a 100% safe location away from the fighting. The match-up is extremely convincing. There's nothing close around the site where fighting was taking place on the day the soldier is supposed to have died This proof is entirely different from the if it's too good to be true, etc... argument that was current when I first saw the image many years ago. I was actually standing next to Cornell on one of the occasions when he had to defend his brother's work. His incredibly passionate belief in its authenticity was a driving force behind the founding of ICP. In his mind, photography was being taken over by art as defined by MoMA. It's easy to see that in defense of pure photojournalism, not only did he identify with his brother, but with the soldier as well. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/arts/design/18capa.html?pagewanted=all