Hacker News Reader

Comment by andmarios | Hacker News Reader

These shots capture the harshness of human conflict and how we (human beings) change in the face of it. Thank you.

I disagree with people saying these are good shots. In the collection another user posted ( http://www.kainoalittle.com/mosul ) there are better shots technically and artistically. Yet that the photographer chose these shots for the article speak tons. These aren't photographs to make you feel better, these are photographs to make you understand (even a tiny bit) what real war looks like and it is ugly.

View on HN

I have to (respectfully) disagree. These pictures are good, but imo they are still arguably war porn- lots of concrete rubble and men in the heat of battle (videogame stuff essentially). They don't really capture the true consequences or horrors of war. Pictures like the Napalm girl in Vietnam or more recently the picture of the drowned refugee boy on the beach[1] and that picture of that Syrian boy covered in blood and dust[2] . Those pictures are painful to look at (but not too graphic to be nonpunishable) but still tug at the heartstrings and inspire people to action or make them reconsider their actions.

[1] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Alan_Kurdi)

[2](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/18/boy-in-the-amb...)

For me it works a bit differently. The photographs you referred to (and I do know them) make me very sad but also it is difficult to relate (not sure if it is the proper verb), maybe because I don't have kids.

The shots from this story though, I can relate. I can imagine myself (as a middle aged male) in a war going against live rounds and it is very scary. I can imagine both being a civilian, unable to do anything or a soldier going at the heart of the conflict and I hope I will never have to be in such a position.

I always found disturbing the way a mixing "art" with this kind of subject. It's giving a much more positive feedback, as in "it looks cool" or the feeling of emotions you get in a movie (because it doesn't look real).

Let's not forget war is freaking horrible and there is nothing worth idealizing one way or another about it. That's my personal belief, but I don't think art has its place here. Any form of heroic spectacle are truly misleading about what the people and soldiers truly endure.

"Art" obviously means different things to different people, but I know that in my case, and likely in the grandparent post's case, "good art" is a form of expression that effectively evokes emotion, feeling or idea, be they positive or negative.

We might respond positively to the efficacity and skill with which that feeling or emotion is conveyed, but still be disturbed by the message that it represents.

Does there exist any acceptable mixing of art + war in your view? What are your thoughts on Picasso's "Guernica" [1] ?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)

When I think about Guernica I think about opportunism.

The painting was commissioned before Guernica's air raid. After the bombing Picasso remade the paint. This is the true history.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev...

fascinating. yet must the history of a painting always overshadow its current emotional impact & message?

Years ago I learned to separate the art from the artist. There is too much art that I love made by despicable people, like Picasso. He was a really awful person but I leave that aside when enjoying his work.

Another interesting article about Picasso.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/05/arts/art-review-occupied-p...

I both agree with you and disagree with you. On the one hand war just or unjust results in destruction and death, so anything that comes from it is tainted by it.

On the other hand, that may be my personal attitude, others certainly feel different about it. Some people profit off if it (not in the multinational way, I mean people making a living bringing provisions in, etc).

On a detached unemotional level, I think there is no reason not to record these events. Be they fire, earthquake, floods, disease, war, etc.

James Nachtway[1]does good on that front by me.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nachtwey

Art certainly has a place here. The purpose of this are isn't to look cool. The purpose of art is express and/or provoke a reaction. In this case, it's a reminder that these people exist and are suffering due to war. Most of us know war is horrible, but we don't know it the same way someone who has experienced it has. Part of the reason these pictures exist is to give us a glimpse of that understanding. And maybe if we're lucky next time around, people won't choose war.

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/PwUqoz6-800x534...

It really hurts seeing little kids caught in this crap.

Agree. A lot of this cannot be truly understood just by the facts, it seems you somehow need to feel it too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com