A (Jews) found at: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/2012/may/30/president-obama-polish-death-camps/
B (Obama) found at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-obama-poland-holocust-idUSBRE84T0B720120530?feedType=RSS
As we all have
learnt through my past blogs, this photographs illustrate the events occurred
on Memorial Day, which feature president Barack Obama and his incorrect
reference to the “Polish Death Camps.” It is a writer’s job, especially in
journalism, to try to make the article entertaining or clearer to his or her
audience, so images are quite commonly used in order to emphasize the main idea
of the article and so that the readers can take interest in the daily life
events. However, we also know that times have changed and, as a result, society
has evolved. In this process the main tool of this reporters and their
publishers has developed; I refer to photograph and how we have been
discovering that truly a picture says more than a thousand words. The purpose
of this essay is to contrast the balance, the application of the rule of
thirds, and the effect they might have on people, either the ones who are
related with this article or the ones that might need encouragement to read
further.
I’ll start by picture B, which
shows president Obama at the far right corner with a very apologetic grimace
and a white background in the rest of the image. Now, the balance is clearly
off, since we have the image loaded on the left side and void on the right. If
the artist’s goal was to make Obama feel small, he definitely achieved it, but
in the process he lost what I think is the first impression and reaction of the
audience of the photograph; he made the photo as awful as the president’s
speech and he managed to make his audience turn away without even bothering to
analyze the article. In contrast, picture B shows a good balance between the
black and white tones. The woman and her son to the far right are complemented
by the image of a map on the wall and the hand of the kid that’s pointing
something at the opposite corner of where his body is located. That way the
shades of black and way give the perfect harmony and the photograph doesn’t
look too crowded in any side.
Then we have a term called the rule of thirds. It consists on the
main focus being away from the center of the frame and many other things in the
near area so that one’s eyes can actually travel and unfold the photograph. In
the case of picture B, this rule is followed but quite ineffectively, since his
face is far from the center but there is nothing around him that can drive the
attention of the audience and help them discover more of the photograph. In the
case of picture A, the rule is followed, actually achieving the desired effect.
The bright Star of David gives you the start for a race upwards to the woman’s
face, then following her gaze down the kid’s hand, then the map, and then the
viewer can return to the child’s expression. It is as if traveling through
details that have been hiding in plain sight.
Last but not least, the effect
each picture has on people. Picture A gives us a sense of grieve and sadness hiding
under the character’s eyes, while picture B only gives us a hint of what the
president might be feeling but there is no immediate relation to what the Poles
feel about his speech and, to my personal point of view, this is the important
point because they were the offended party.
I have pointed out the most
important differences to my criteria, and I consider picture A to be the most
accurate to reveal mainly the historical background of today’s mistake, because
if the people doesn’t learn from history, then every action we take is bound to
shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment