Comprehension Questions:
1. In the first section of the film, cameras are
given to the Palestinians in order to “balance things out”. What kind of
balance is needed? Why?
The balance needed is the balance within
legal conflicts. The Palestinians are in a quite weak position when it comes to
the law since It is the Israelis that enforces the laws. The video cameras are
in use to give the Palestinians more power since they are no treated the way
they should be. The Israeli often claim the land of Palestinians as a military
zone and chase them of their own land which is not right or fair. With the
cameras they can prove their rights and show the police videos if they are not
treated the way they are entitled to.
2. The paparazzi photographer believes that he is a truer “photojournalist”. Why? Do you agree with him?
Mr. Flores says that you have to be
aware as a paparazzi photographer because you have to capture the moment and
that you never know when it will take place. He believes that a news
photographer or a photojournalist is only being told where to go and that they
always know in advance exactly how their photo will look like in the end. They
are being served their photos.
I do not agree with him. Yes, perhaps it
is easier for someone who knows exactly what to take a photograph of but I
think that a picture concerning a human catastrophe or something similar has so
much more value than a fashion shot of a model leaving her home for a coffee.
So I do not agree with Mr. Flores beliefs.
3. What is Katrin Jakobsen’s goal when she takes her pictures? How does she want viewers to be affected? Is this art, or is it political?
Her goal is not to change the world with
her art but she want to affect people. To make them take the image with them
for the rest of their life and remember them. By the use of colorful items and
what looks to be a “happy place” she wants to lure and almost deceive the
viewer into looking closer to the picture. When this happens, the viewer
realizes what the photo actually is portraying and then it is too late to look
away. I think that the message behind the exterior of the photo is a political
message. She strives towards affecting people but she uses the art as a
disguise and a bait to capture people’s interest. Her pictures are strong and I
was really affected by her art.
4. Why are cartoons such an effective weapon against dictators and poorly functioning democracies?
Because the aim of these cartoons is to
first make people laugh and secondly to make them think. The artists make the
people think about the message behind the cartoon and hopefully everyone laughs
at it since it is made in a funny way. The only one not to laugh is the one
person that the cartoon is all about, often against people like dictators of
countries which are in a bad state.
5. What is the role of paparazzi? What do they contribute to culture?
This is a question that has personal
opinions as answers and this question therefor has different answers depending
on whom you are asking. Personally, I do not see how paparazzi contribute with
anything to culture, at least not anything of importance according to me. The
paparazzi´s role is to display the life of famous people to us who live outside
of that world. We are so curious and eager to know more about the life of the
world’s celebs that paparazzi´s get paid to take their picture wherever they
may go or do.
6. Historian Dick Harrison says that leaders like to be portrayed as strong the media. In what way does this happen today? How are Obama, for example, or Reinfeldt or the Swedish king portrayed in the media? Find a few examples, and post these with a brief analysis to your blog.
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
Our king is almost always shown in media as very strict and as an important man. He often wears his medallions and very seldom smiling. He is portrayed as a man with authority and there is like an “unwritten law” that says that he cannot act like a normal person, laughing or even smiling big when something great happens.
Crown princess Victoria of Sweden
Our crown princess is very different
from her dad. In contrast to her dad she is smiling and laughing in the photos
shown in media. If you browse the web it is hard to find a strict and stiff
picture of her. This really shows a new side of the royal family according to
me. This side shows a more natural side of them and a side that more people can
relate to. She does not feel distant and this is something I think Swedish
people appreciate. When she takes the thrown this distance most of the population
has today for the king will probably decrease.
7. The image of Phan Ti Kim Phuc won a Pulitzer Prize and is credited with bringing about the end of the Vietnam war. Would such an image achieve the same notoriety or impact today? Why or why not?
I absolutely think that images like that
one can make such an impact in today´s society as well. For me it is hard only
to look at it because I get so sad for the people involved and that the picture
is just awful and that the pain is so striking. I honestly hope that the
countries and people at war nowadays feel the same as I do over these kinds of
pictures and that they realize that it is wrong in so many ways. There are
people suffering all over the world and hopefully more of these photographs
will help putting them to an end.
8. Today we are exposed to so many more images than we were a few decades ago. Does this make us pay more attention to images around us, or less? Support your response with examples.
This depends on where I
am. In the subway, in busses or in other public places with a lot of
advertising I do not take much notice of pictures or photographs but if I am
for example at a friend’s house the photos mean more and therefor they then
draw more of my attention. These photos are often personal and for me that mean
that I can learn something about the family and friend in question which I find
interesting. I do take the bus almost every day though, so it might be
different from people who rarely go by bus.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar