Do you remember this photograph?: The Falling Man | Hacker News Reader

Do you remember this photograph?: The Falling Man

esquire.com

27 pointsrobg30 comments

"Each jumper, no matter how many there were, brought fresh horror, elicited shock, tested the spirit, struck a lasting blow."

That is a seriously overwritten article. There are few things worse in journalism than people who think they're making a big statement, just making the statement bigger. As if they needed to explain what 9/11 did to us all.

It's esquire. Of course it's overwritten.

I think I only ever saw it in the book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. I do remember it from that occasion, however. Pretty memorable photo.

I have no idea what it has to do with startups or technology, though.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with startups or technology to be here. It just has to be interesting to hackers.

In the book, that falling man was the kids father? I read it awhile ago and can't really recall the exact details of his father's death.

No (at least I didn't get that impression). I think it was just used as a symbol for everyone lost. The kids father did die in the WTC.

Doesnt belong here in hacker news. Lots of things may be interesting to hackers, that doesnt mean you put them on the tech/startup forum. So keep that crap on digg/reddit and let their community fall apart not this one.

That, and the fact that the article is horribly written. It's like the editor went "Holy &#!! it's 9/11 coming up! Quick, someone write an article!" half an hour before going to press.

I don't feel that way.

I particularly liked this paragraph:

There was no terror or confusion at the Associated Press. There was, instead, that feeling of history being manufactured; although the office was as crowded as he'd ever seen it, there was, instead, "the wonderful calm that comes into play when people are really doing their jobs."

"Ed. Note: This article originally appeared in the September 2003 issue of Esquire."

the editor actually went "Holy &#!! it's 9/11 coming up! Quick, what can we post?!" five minutes before going to press.

"very long rant about the mere premise of this article. Please, for the love of god, let. it. go."

I think you and many others are missing the premise of the article, if you bothered to read it at all. 9.11 is merely a setting for the image. The article is about the image, the inherent "lie" of photography in general, and about people's reaction to images such as this one.

True, this is a famous image from a particularly notable event in recent history, but the same basic article could have been written about many other images, even some of those specifically mentioned in the article itself.

For more in the same vein, check Errol Morris' excellent series of blog entries (http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-...); then re-read the Esquire piece. I think you'll have a different feeling about it coming from that perspective.

Re-read article. Nope, still snuff photos.

Suicide? With a lion facing you in one direction and a tiger at the other, rushing at the tiger isn't suicide. Stupid fucking journalists.

Did you read the whole piece? I thought the reality faced was described in all of its possible dimensions and much more so than I've ever seen any where else.

No. I guess I don't think it bears that much analysis. Fire hot, ground far, shit happens.

I think you've missed the point. The photographic - in detail and in scope - is very far removed from "Fire hot, ground far, shit happens."

Photography is an artistic numbers game. When Michael Angelo plots out a creation over months, that's one thing. When a photographer grabs an aestetically pleasing bit of snuff porn in a lucky 0.5 millisecond window, that's another.

Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later.

I'm sorry I was with you until you said this.

Most photographers don't get a good photo with each camera snap. They capture what's happening as it happens and go back to find it. So while Drew didn't capture any other photos - apparently - that took the nation's eye, this photo is still an excellent one.

Not sure where your disagreement is.

It's that you call it snuff porn and dismiss its value as art. While I understand where you're coming from, I most wholeheartedly disagree - capturing an event as it happens requires quite a lot of courage and it results in really opening an audience's eyes as it happens.

Terrorism, you'll know when it works...they'll be talking about it 7 years later.

This is definitely the most concise version of my very long rant about the mere premise of this article. Please, for the love of god, let. it. go. I know we gotta go with the whole culture of fear thing, but it's time for a new platform already.

I agree with what robg said to you: this isn't a photograph of fear. Far from it. It's about an act of defiance at the last moment.

Of course I agree with you. But we could also have a wide-ranging discussion about what that photograph represents. Indeed, that to me is what makes it so memorable and artistic. It's photography at its absolute, 1000-word best. Still amid that, fear never comes close to my interpretation.

Did the falling man leave a note?!

This romantic pandering about a horrible situation is just not making any sense. He jumped because, perhaps he got scared? Paniced? Decided it was better than suffocation/burning? He didn't say when he got to the ground level.

"Act of defiance"? Who the hell cares?! The building still got destroyed and they're all still dead, the US still went to war, etc.

I guess if emotional romantic babbling is how one deals with emotional stress, then fine. But try not to make factual conclusions

See, to my eyes, that photograph and the story surrounding it is very far from a reflection on fear.

There's one mention of the word "suicide" in an article that should have been 1/10 the size.

I don't think that was suicide. The article described his posture and how he wasn't flailing around like the other jumpers. Rather here he falls, staring straight down, saying "fuck you. I choose." In those last moments he refused to have his freedom denied by awful circumstances.

At least that's what I got out of it.

Re-reading this article, it makes me think of the BF Skinner pigeon experiments where he described superstitions. It also reminds me of human pattern recognition and how humans will see things when they're not there.

Perhaps the falling man fell in that way by chance? I guess we'll never know, but let's not draw wild and probably invalid conclusions.

Perhaps the falling man fell in that way by chance? I guess we'll never know, but let's not draw wild and probably invalid conclusions.

Agreed, but the article does take pains to cover this very thing. They mentioned that there were something like 11 other photos snapped of the man as he fell and, by sheer chance, the photographer caught this angle in one of the frames. In the other frames, the guy didn't look majestic . . . he looked like a guy falling 100 stories.

I read that part time and am not convinced. It's like when people see the image of Mary in a piece of wood or toast. We see what we want to believe.

I skimmed some parts of it so I may be hallucinating this, but again, I could have sworn this point was made in the article. Ah well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com