http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/sep/01/photography-zed-nelson-best-shot
I read the article "Photographer Zed Nelson's best shot" which was an interview by Andrew Pulver. The article revolved around Nelson's photo book Gun Nation and this image in particular. Nelson decided he wanted to do a project on guns after experiencing some negative results of weapons in foreign countries. After doing some research he found that about 30,000 people are killed every year by guns. He was thinking of doing a piece on criminals and gang members, but decided to do it on white, middle class Americans instead. He traveled to a few gun shows and took photographs of volunteers. This image in particular he found shocking when released to the public. It looks as if the man is pointing the gun to his child. In reality, the man was trying to say that with his gun, he can protect his family. Nelson noted that if you look closely, the man's finger is under the trigger guard. What I took from this article is that with this project, Nelson was trying to expose something that he felt strongly about.
The problem I had with this article and this photo is that it was never clarified what Nelson's stance on gun control is. I'm sure it would be clear if I looked at the book, but from this article, the reader is left to assume. The Interviewer made it seem like this image was taken as a negative image of gun control but then defends the man in the photo. I think this article would have had a lot more clarification and purpose if the interviewer would have explained the thesis more.
I think that this image can loosely relate to Van Gogh's Starry Night according to interpretation. Starry Night seems to be a painting that is seen in two ways. Some people find the painting very peaceful and dream-like, others find it depressing and chaotic. This photo sends a mixed interpretation of violence and protection. In one sense, the man could be pointing the gun to the baby like he is going to harm it. This photo could also be interpreted that he is simply holding it in a way that shows protection and the baby represents his whole family.
After reading the article and then reading your blog, I can completely understand what you're talking about with the lack of stance that the author takes. It almost seems however, that because this photo can be seen in two different ways that was the reason for it. I think that maybe the interviewer and Nelson wanted the reader/ viewer to take their own stance on the photo and gun control. Personally, and this could be since I'm pretty against guns and weapons, I immediately saw the man harming the child because the gun looks like it's pointed at the baby. I also think it was interesting that he chose the middle class white Americans to be his subject in this experimental study he was conducting. That really forces the viewer to throw all stereotypes aside and view the matter as neutral no matter who you are or what social group you stand in.
ReplyDeleteYes, the stance of the author is unclear. Technically the picture can be taken either way, but the placement of his finger gives some clue to his intention of protecting rather than shooting. Still, its a man with a gun that looks as though it pointed at a baby....I mean most people connect the dots with obvious clues; gun + baby = no good. Also, I don't really know how I feel about gun control, but I do know how I feel about that awful stanky mullet.........A+
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that the stance of the author is unclear as well as the photographer's standpoint. I also agree with you when you say that it is so that the picture can be taken either way. When I looked at the picture, I saw that the man was trying to show off his masculinity by being able to protect his family, but it was still alarming to me because of how close he was holding the gun to the baby. The photo really reminds me of my hometown and some of the ignorant people who live there who say, "I'm protecting my family, here son, can you hold this gun for me?"
ReplyDelete