
The meaning of 9/11's most controversial photo - antr
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/911-photo-thomas-hoepker-meaning
======
lusr
I'm not so sure I follow the conclusion of this article. The author suggests
we "forget" quickly. What were these people "supposed" to be doing at the
time, and why? What "should" they be doing 10 years later?

When I learned of the 9/11 attacks I remember being surprised at how many
people sat glued in front of TV screens of hours on end. I didn't see the
point and got on with my life: there was nothing I could do, as far as I could
tell, from 12,500km away. Even if I were there, I'm not sure there's much I
could have done other than get out of the way of the emergency crews (possibly
volunteer?).

------
fractallyte
A photo is a snapshot of an instant - and without an immediate 'before' and
'after' context, the moment is open to interpretation. Thus it's not an
accurate photographic record of an event, even though the photo itself is
fantastic (in the original sense of the word).

Here's another example: the 'Falling Man'
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man>) - perceived by many as calm,
serene, even graceful... Totally inaccurate: other photos in that sequence
showed him to be in obvious distress.

