----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin
Absolutely. I just wonder how one arrives at an answer. I've never, for example, taken photographs at an "active" car wreck as my first instinct is to help the people involved. But I know a person who has and who has been assaulted because of it.
That is the risk one takes, of course.
What if the pictures you were taking had the potential to be used politically, in a manner you did not agree with? Would you still take them? Or does it come down to the phtotographer taking pictures of the things that interest them, so they are sure that there will not be such "fallout"? Is that not propaganda? More questions than answers, tonight.
I'm going to put a few generalizations out there, so I anticipate that there will be a few exceptions to disprove the rule, but here goes:
I doubt if anyone would take a picture that has the potential to be used politically, in a manner they do not agree with. At least not knowingly.
People tend to do things that match their own agenda.
Taking pictures is just one of those things.
It is a pretty safe assumption that pretty much every picture taken is some form of propoganda, whether it is benign, harmless or otherwise does depend on a lot of factors.
William Robb
