Are You Disappointed?

     I remember when I first found out that there were allegations as to whether or not one of Robert Capa's Spanish Civil War photos  was "real" or staged. Well, I don't remember where I was or what I was doing. But I remember thinking about the possibility that a war photograph of such intensity was staged. It made me feel sick to my stomach. I didn't suddenly garner a deep hatred for Robert Capa, but I was fairly torn. Why would Capa go through that effort to create a war scenario that never actually happened? Would it have been for fame or recognition? It's hard to say. What I really though about, though, was the idea of staging battle for photojournalistic purposes. Does it still make it a war photograph? Sure, it might represent what was happening in the war at the time, but it simply isn't a real event. One of the main points of war photography - and I can't imagine that many people would disagree with this - is to capture the events taking place during a war. Specifically in the case of real battle, however, there is no worth in recreating something that may have happened or that could have happened. It either already happened, or it never did, and I think that as a photographer one must live with that truth. In my opinion if you missed that perfect moment during a battle then you should under no circumstances recreate the scene unless you specify that you are doing so.

     Then I think about other photographs that have supposedly been staged in the history or war photography. In Elliott Leyton's article "Touched by Fire: Doctors Without Borders in a Third World Crisis", Leyton makes mention of a few of these photos. He brings to the table the timeless photo of an American soldier kissing a woman in Times Square, as well as the photo of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. In mentioning these photographs, Leyton is questioning the need for people to criticize the practice of staging scenes. He then references the Canadian journal of record, which, in response to such criticism, poses the question: After finding out that these scenes were recreated, "are you disappointed?"

     To answer Leyton's question, yes, I was fairly disappointed to find out that many of these scenes were staged. In photojournalism, and specifically in war photography, there is often a great degree of spontaneity. Part of the reason why the photograph of the sailor kissing the woman in Times Square is that much better is because we assume that it is candid. The idea of it being staged removes much of the natural emotion contained in the image. I almost feel as an audience member that I am being duped. I'm not suggesting that a photojournalist can't take creative license with his photos, but rather that he be honest about the moment in which he captured an image. That piece of information changes the photo's message.

     The reason I left a link to Carl Mydan's photograph (click the title link) of American troops in the Philippines during WWII is because I find it to be one of the only acceptable examples of staging war history. Initially, when I read that it was staged, I simply cared less for the image. It didn't move me as much as it might have had it been completely natural. However, this is not a time of battle. Neither is it a seemingly spontaneous kiss. It is almost clear that this photograph is staged. Even if LIFE.com hadn't explicitly broken the news to me, I could have guessed that Mydan asked all of the troops to look at the camera. Yes, just like Robert Capa, Mydan was trying to communicate a message with his staged photograph. The major difference for me, however, is that Mydan's image suggests that it was staged while Capa's does not.

     I can't accuse Robert Capa of actually having staged that photograph, but in a hypothetical situation in which he did, I would expect more of a photographer of such journalistic prowess. I think that every photojournalist has the duty to provide the truth about their images, whether they were staged, manipulated, and/or both.