Photography & Vietnam: Opinions please

canonloader wrote in post #4900437
War is just the game of old, stupid, men. It has no other meaning.

You hit the nail on the head.."Wars are waged by old men, fought by young men"

Binning wrote in post #4899147
This interview with AP photographer Edward Adams will be helpful to you. http://www.newseum.org …em=SPOT-ADAMS1969&style=d He discusses a shot 'Saigon Execution' that one a Pulitzer.

There is another shot that had an important impact: Kim Phuc, a 9 year old girl running down the road nude and crying in pain from jellied gasoline that was burning her body. The photographer who took the picture took the child to the hospital. A useful link is http://www.peace.ca/ki​mstory.htm

I hope this helps. Those were the two pictures that stuck in my mind from that era.

Edit: it looks like the two shots referenced were already mentioned. The Adams interview might be interesting to you though.

Thanks, the interview is interesting. Not sure if I can use it though, for referencing purposes.

sjones wrote in post #4899178
The photos, particularly those suggested on this thread, still had impact, so personally, I think it would be an interesting pursuit. Despite the advent of CNN/24-hour video coverage, the photograph (excuse my ambiguity) of a starving child near a seemingly waiting vulture (which I think was actually from Sudan) played a role in the 1993 US intervention in Somalia, at least in terms of driving public awareness. Video images of burning C-130s with Cronkite essentially claiming the war a lost cause was undoubtedly influential, but it still might be interesting to look at the value of the still photograph. I believe there is movie film coverage of the flag raising at Iowa Jima during WWII, but its emotional weight could never surpass that of Rosenthal's famous still image.

I might try and analyse that value, could be a good section.

canonloader wrote in post #4899275
This is a very hard question, as the dirty little war went on for like 14 years. At one time, nobody protested, or not enough that anybody took notice. It was only when we start screwing it up and getting our guys killed in large numbers, that people took notice and began to ask questions. And all of that was directly related to photography coming from the field, and let's not forget the spin, put on the photos coming out of Viet Nam.

Like the one of the guy getting shot in the head. You do know, that famous still shot was just one frame in a home movie of the act? And anyone who did their homework knows that the little bastard that died had just killed the wife and children of the guy doing the shooting, just up the street not ten minutes before. Did that come out in the news when the film was shown here? No, it wasn't. There's still a lot of questions about that time that need answers.

Anyway, that one shot was the turning point. It gave the sob sisters just the ammo they needed to turn the tide of public opinion, which we all know is the best way to fight and win a war.

Well, i'm going to try and have a section on the context of the photo's and how they were used for particular means to try and show that they can be taken out of context.

sjones wrote in post #4899486
I had heard the same thing, but I never knew if it was confirmed. Similarly, during the Mai Lai massacre, US helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson landed his craft between fleeing civilians and pursuing US soldiers, threatening to fire on the soldiers if they continued their pursuit. Thompson and his crew then airlifted some of the injured Vietnamese for medical treatment. This story did not surface until noted on a BBC documentary in the 1980s or 1990s, long after the incident occurred.

In any case, this opens up the whole issue of context, which is even a bigger mess now, as local TV stations rush to point their cameras at the latest event to provide live coverage without any background or understanding of what is actually transpiring before them.

As such, exploring the face value of images from the Vietnam conflict and their propagandistic potential would also be another interesting angle to explore.

This could be usedful if I can find it referenced. Any idea of the name of the documentary?

yogestee wrote in post #4899565
Not really,,,,troops carried their cameras into combat as far back as WW1..There are also some striking images taken during the American Civil War but most of these were taken my pro photographers..

Vietnam was the first conflict to be beamed into our homes via television..

Jurgen

yogestee wrote in post #4899756
Tim Page http://blog.awm.gov.au​/focus/?p=23 is my favourite photographer from the Vietnam era along with
Nick Ut http://digitaljournali​st.org/issue0008/ng2.h​tm

There are many wonderful books written on the subject..Here are some of my favourites "One Crowded Hour" by Tim Page Neil Davis' autobiography, "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheenan, "The Girl in the Picture" by Denise Chong.

Check out this image taken by Nick Ut,,,probably the most famous image to come out of Vietnam..Its the image of Kim Phuc ( "The Girl in the Picture") after being napalmed by the South Vietnam Airforce..This image still chills me to the bone!!

Jurgen
Laos

Would any of these be worth checking out for my question? I have to be careful not to get too embroiled in reading PJ works as I need to analyse the impact.

yogestee wrote in post #4900035
This image canonloader..General Nguyen Ngoc Loan then the Chief of Police executing Nguyen Van Lem..This image was actually taken by an AP photographer,,,the movie footage by NBC film crew..This image along with the image by Nick Ut of Kim Phuc were responsible for antiwar sentiments around the world..

Another facinating tale..In 2004 I was in Da Nang in a cafe waiting for a train to take me to Ho Chi Minh City.. I got talking to a Vietnam Vet,,a Vietnamese National..At the age of 16 the ARVN marched into his village put a gun to his head and "conscripted" him..He fought with the ARVN for 3 months until he was captured by the Viet Cong..They put a gun to his head and told him "Now you fight for us"..Amazingly he lasted 18 months until the end of the war when the average lifespan of a VC was about 6 months..Usually the VC executed ARVN soldiers on the spot but at that time they were quickly running out of combatants..

Another thing this guy told me was after a thousand years of war in Vietnam with China, Siam, the Khmer, Japan and France those 11 years fighting against the Americans hardly gets a mention in current Vietnamese history..Interesting!!

Jurgen
Laos

I found the same when travelling through Vietnam, the American war is a very small part of their history.

canonloader wrote in post #4900104
Though some critics claim that Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, the rights of POW status were accorded to Việt Cộng members only if they were seized during military operations (Nguyễn Văn Lém had not been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the alleged commission of war crimes).

The photo won Adams the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, though he was later said to have regretted the impact it had. The image became an anti-war icon. Concerning General Nguyễn and his famous photograph, Eddie Adams later wrote in Time:

“ The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths...What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers? ”

Eddie Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyễn and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Nguyễn died, Adams praised him as a hero of a just cause:

The thing is, it started out as a Just Cause.

We won't get into why America invaded Vietnam but I think that's all well documented by now.

yogestee wrote in post #4900198
Agreed canonloader..What was not mentioned was that Nguyen Ngoc Loan's family were executed by the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive and that Nguyen Van Lem was an officer in the VC and probably ordered the executions..

Another interesting thing to come out of this situation was that after Nguyen Ngoc Loan executed Nguyen Van Lem he pointed his gun at Neil Davis an Australian cameraman working for either Visnews or the ABC (I can't remember which one at the time) and told him one day he will kill Davis..Nguyen Ngoc Loan was beside himself..The ARVN and American Military didn't like Davis for his unbiased capture of the Vietnam War..

Jurgen

Binning wrote in post #4900321
You make a very important point about the impact of photojounalism. The photo was used to serve the editorial purposes of those opposed to the war. Listen to the interview of the photographer for this Pulitzer winning photo. You'll get a sense of the context in which it was taken. It was editorially used for shock value.

You do yes, need to try and explore this angle.

canonloader wrote in post #4900437
The best way to get a sense of the context, was to have been there. I don't think anyone who spent time there was fooled by any of this foolery, or what's going on now in yet another place we have no business. Then, as now, nothing was proved or disproved. War is just the game of old, stupid, men. It has no other meaning.

yogestee wrote in post #4900508
You hit the nail on the head.."Wars are waged by old men, fought by young men"

Thanks for all your input. If anybody knows of any actual books / journals on the impact (rather than just PJ works) then it would be really helpful. I've got to be careful on what I use for referencing purposes. The internet isn't regarded that highly if it's just google/wikipedia etc obviously.

Just for the record, the US and it's allies did not "invade" South Viet Nam. There were two Viet Nams at the time, and it doesn't do anyone any good to forget the real facts. Maybe another artifact from photojournalists spinning the facts, "as they see them"?

<added>
Also, just keep in mind, it ended 30 some years ago, and by asking people in the US for opinions of what happened 40 years ago when a hefty percent of the people who answer weren't even alive and those who were, were on the losing side, your answers may not resemble anything like the real facts.

FYI
The first recorded war was 2700 BC, that's over 4700 years ago. Ironically it was in the Iran/Iraq area and they had been scrapping for several thousand years before this recorded one.

Yes it is waged by old men and fought by young men, but...

It is engrained in our being, in our DNA, to preserve the species (our species). Do not think that we humans are the sole practitioners of this preservation practice as we are not. Anytime there is a shortage of anything that living things need/want to survive, there will be fighting and killing.

So before we pass moral judgement on the subject of warfare, let us first examine the very basic reasons for this fighting.

Having said all that, I do find it reprehensible and am saddened by the practice.

Adam,,"A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan is a great read..You have to wade through some of book especially the parts concerning John Paul Vann's private life..The book gives an acurate account why Westmoreland's tactics were flawed..There is a good section on the Tet Offensive of 1968 and Khe Sanh ..

Well, here's my 2 cents...you can look at not only how photography affected the Viet Nam War (ie. public opinion, etc.) but you can look at the future impact wartime photography has had. In other words, had "immediate" photography been around in WWII (as in the wire svc), I'm most certain that we (US) would probably have lost because - and I'm sorry to say this - the majority of Americans have no stomach for war. Had they seen the thousands of bodies lying in the surf at Normandy or the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge they would have yelled at the top of their lungs like they are doing now that nothing is worth even 1 life, blah, blah, blah; they aren't willing to make the "supreme sacrifice" and think that there is no cause worth it. When things go well, they'll wave the flag (ie. Desert Storm). However, when things go badly or, actually, not perfectly, they want to throw in the towel (ie. 2 wks after the current war started and the Army was stalled outside of Baghdad due to a sandstorm; in the eyes of the media, we had already lost the war!). Also, they are averse to almost any risk, which is why the Air Force and Navy were ordered to conduct tactical precision bombing from over 15000ft during the Kosovo campaign. I think that this is a direct result of instant wartime photography. Americans don't want to see the blood and guts of war. So, instant wartime photography has had both positive and negative effects in the US. The question, however, is how is the photography used. The media is supposed to be objective. They are supposed to report the news, not make it, not judge it, not shape public opinion. Photography makes that job almost impossible. Anyways, I'm rambling on but this issue drives me nuts sometimes.

yogestee wrote in post #4903424
Adam,,"A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan is a great read..You have to wade through some of book especially the parts concerning John Paul Vann's private life..The book gives an accurate account why Westmoreland's tactics were flawed..There is a good section on the Tet Offensive of 1968 and Khe Sanh ..

I read that book - very good albeit long.

Flashstan wrote in post #4895518
Another Angle? Is the Vietnam war the fist war where troops carried their cameras with them? My father carried his.

No, Korea certainly had its share. My father had a Leika and I have hundreds of slides.

I would also recommend checking out Kyoichi Sawada's photographs from Vietnam and Cambodia…

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Kyoichi_Sawada

Forgot to also mention that for background reading on the conflict, another worthwhile book is David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest."

yogestee wrote in post #4900198
..The ARVN and American Military didn't like Davis for his unbiased capture of the Vietnam War..

Jurgen

Maybe yes, maybe no. However, I don't think any photographer in a war zone (or most ay other zone) is unbiased. We might want to be that way but I don't think we can pull it off. When your own life is on the line your actions and thoughts are colored by that. My reflections have nothing to do with Mr. Davis or his work - just the condition of "mankind".

Larry Burrows took a photo during Vietman which honestly looks as if a young wounded black soldier is reaching to comfort a fallen white soldier. The photo could be interpreted as "brotherhood of soldiers in more than skin deep". However, the lense choice alters, unintentionaly, the perspective. The man was simply trying to stumble to a place to sit down. Reference: the making of great photographs by Eamonn McCabe.

To the OP, I think your idea is wonderful. Look at intended, and unintended consequences. If you are familiar with Paul Harvey, he had a radio series that concentrated on "The rest of the story". Good luck on your project and let us know when it is ready for viewing. Thanks for a great topic

Jubilee32 wrote in post #4905473
Maybe yes, maybe no. However, I don't think any photographer in a war zone (or most ay other zone) is unbiased. We might want to be that way but I don't think we can pull it off. When your own life is on the line your actions and thoughts are colored by that. My reflections have nothing to do with Mr. Davis or his work - just the condition of "mankind".

Larry Burrows took a photo during Vietman which honestly looks as if a young wounded black soldier is reaching to comfort a fallen white soldier. The photo could be interpreted as "brotherhood of soldiers in more than skin deep". However, the lense choice alters, unintentionaly, the perspective. The man was simply trying to stumble to a place to sit down. Reference: the making of great photographs by Eamonn McCabe.

To the OP, I think your idea is wonderful. Look at intended, and unintended consequences. If you are familiar with Paul Harvey, he had a radio series that concentrated on "The rest of the story". Good luck on your project and let us know when it is ready for viewing. Thanks for a great topic

One example of Davis' restraint was the execution of Nguyen Van Lem by Nguyen Ngoc Loan..He shot almost the same footage as the NBC crew but didn't file it because Davis didn't believe it was appropriate under the circumstances..His footage was first released in 1979 as the opening scene to his documentary "Frontline"..

I have to admit I'm a huge fan of Neil Davis..He was killed in 1985 in a "bloodless" Thai coup..I remember images of his death shown on Australian TV that evening..What is even crazier that evening during the local news the anouncement was made an associate of mine won the International Hasselblad Masters within minutes of the Neil Davis story..

Jurgen

We could use some restraint nowadays . . . I appreciate your comments about Davis. From what I have seen, you are wise to be a fan of his.

You work on Laos is beautiful and compelling

canonloader wrote in post #4902416
Just for the record, the US and it's allies did not "invade" South Viet Nam. There were two Viet Nams at the time, and it doesn't do anyone any good to forget the real facts. Maybe another artifact from photojournalists spinning the facts, "as they see them"?

<added>
Also, just keep in mind, it ended 30 some years ago, and by asking people in the US for opinions of what happened 40 years ago when a hefty percent of the people who answer weren't even alive and those who were, were on the losing side, your answers may not resemble anything like the real facts.

I agree, I was asking more for references but opinions obviously welcome.

chauncey wrote in post #4902869
FYI
The first recorded war was 2700 BC, that's over 4700 years ago. Ironically it was in the Iran/Iraq area and they had been scrapping for several thousand years before this recorded one.

Yes it is waged by old men and fought by young men, but...

It is engrained in our being, in our DNA, to preserve the species (our species). Do not think that we humans are the sole practitioners of this preservation practice as we are not. Anytime there is a shortage of anything that living things need/want to survive, there will be fighting and killing.

So before we pass moral judgement on the subject of warfare, let us first examine the very basic reasons for this fighting.

Having said all that, I do find it reprehensible and am saddened by the practice.

yogestee wrote in post #4903424
Adam,,"A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan is a great read..You have to wade through some of book especially the parts concerning John Paul Vann's private life..The book gives an acurate account why Westmoreland's tactics were flawed..There is a good section on the Tet Offensive of 1968 and Khe Sanh ..

I may look into it at a later date, need things directly related to photography + public opinion atm or i'm going to be spending alot on books!

jwilson wrote in post #4903528
Well, here's my 2 cents...you can look at not only how photography affected the Viet Nam War (ie. public opinion, etc.) but you can look at the future impact wartime photography has had. In other words, had "immediate" photography been around in WWII (as in the wire svc), I'm most certain that we (US) would probably have lost because - and I'm sorry to say this - the majority of Americans have no stomach for war. Had they seen the thousands of bodies lying in the surf at Normandy or the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge they would have yelled at the top of their lungs like they are doing now that nothing is worth even 1 life, blah, blah, blah; they aren't willing to make the "supreme sacrifice" and think that there is no cause worth it. When things go well, they'll wave the flag (ie. Desert Storm). However, when things go badly or, actually, not perfectly, they want to throw in the towel (ie. 2 wks after the current war started and the Army was stalled outside of Baghdad due to a sandstorm; in the eyes of the media, we had already lost the war!). Also, they are averse to almost any risk, which is why the Air Force and Navy were ordered to conduct tactical precision bombing from over 15000ft during the Kosovo campaign. I think that this is a direct result of instant wartime photography. Americans don't want to see the blood and guts of war. So, instant wartime photography has had both positive and negative effects in the US. The question, however, is how is the photography used. The media is supposed to be objective. They are supposed to report the news, not make it, not judge it, not shape public opinion. Photography makes that job almost impossible. Anyways, I'm rambling on but this issue drives me nuts sometimes.

Sounds interesting but I have to be careful in how much I cover, what you are talking about could probably be a dissertation in itself.

Karl C wrote in post #4903622
I read that book - very good albeit long.

Jubilee32 wrote in post #4905291
No, Korea certainly had its share. My father had a Leika and I have hundreds of slides.

sjones wrote in post #4905402
I would also recommend checking out Kyoichi Sawada's photographs from Vietnam and Cambodia…

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Kyoichi_Sawada

I've seen his work before, amazing.

sjones wrote in post #4905442
Forgot to also mention that for background reading on the conflict, another worthwhile book is David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest."

Jubilee32 wrote in post #4905473
Maybe yes, maybe no. However, I don't think any photographer in a war zone (or most ay other zone) is unbiased. We might want to be that way but I don't think we can pull it off. When your own life is on the line your actions and thoughts are colored by that. My reflections have nothing to do with Mr. Davis or his work - just the condition of "mankind".

Larry Burrows took a photo during Vietman which honestly looks as if a young wounded black soldier is reaching to comfort a fallen white soldier. The photo could be interpreted as "brotherhood of soldiers in more than skin deep". However, the lense choice alters, unintentionaly, the perspective. The man was simply trying to stumble to a place to sit down. Reference: the making of great photographs by Eamonn McCabe.

To the OP, I think your idea is wonderful. Look at intended, and unintended consequences. If you are familiar with Paul Harvey, he had a radio series that concentrated on "The rest of the story". Good luck on your project and let us know when it is ready for viewing. Thanks for a great topic

Thanks for your help, that reference is fantastic if I can find it.

yogestee wrote in post #4907017
One example of Davis' restraint was the execution of Nguyen Van Lem by Nguyen Ngoc Loan..He shot almost the same footage as the NBC crew but didn't file it because Davis didn't believe it was appropriate under the circumstances..His footage was first released in 1979 as the opening scene to his documentary "Frontline"..

I have to admit I'm a huge fan of Neil Davis..He was killed in 1985 in a "bloodless" Thai coup..I remember images of his death shown on Australian TV that evening..What is even crazier that evening during the local news the anouncement was made an associate of mine won the International Hasselblad Masters within minutes of the Neil Davis story..

Jurgen

Jubilee32 wrote in post #4907779
We could use some restraint nowadays . . . I appreciate your comments about Davis. From what I have seen, you are wise to be a fan of his.

You work on Laos is beautiful and compelling

Heres some DDD stuff
http://digitaljournali​st.org/issue0405/burro​ws_ddd.html