You know it’s OK for different people to be saddened by different things. Why are you getting so angry about this?
Of course.
You know it’s OK to judge what does and doesn’t sadden people, as well? Or what they’ll blithely skip past without anything but a sarky comment…
What about my posts indicates I’m in any way angry?
You asked us to analyze the photo. As a photo, it’s sad. But like I said, not remotely the saddest.
I am getting the sense that you think that the title to this thread was some kind of gauntlet thrown at you. And then with your mad Google skillz and your awesome education, you crushed me in just five seconds exposing my “lack of scope”.
It’s all in your head. There is no competition. I really don’t care what you think. I just find your persistent hostility baffling.
That’s not what I think it is. I think it’s misplaced, all right, but that’s not the same thing at all.
You might want to sue your typing fingers for slander, then.
I generally save my hostility for the Pit and racebaiting GD threads.
Here, I’m just doing exactly as you asked - passing aesthetic and emotional judgements on your photo and its context (I mean, this is Cafe Society, so I’m assuming by “analyze the photo” you didn’t want me to critique the JPEG compression used), and posting links to sad photos of my own.
In fact, if hostility were a valid charge, I think it would fall on the person who responds to 20+ sad pictures with nothing but sarcasm.
You seem to feel I am objectively wrong about something as opposed to merely having a different opinion about a photo. At the same time you can’t seem to articulate what it is I am wrong about or provide any kind of reasoning about it.
No, you feel what you feel. You can’t be objectively wrong about how you feel. Just lacking in historical perspective, or naive about Japanese tradition and upbringing of children, or any number of things that make your opinion not of much aesthetic or emotional weight in judging relative sadness.
Just like there are people who genuinely think Thomas Kinkade paintings are the highest form of art. They feel what they feel. And their aesthetic opinion is not of any import.
So you feel you have a deeper historical perspective which allows you to better judge the relative sadness of different photos?
Historical, and aesthetic, yes, it seems so.
For one thing, I don’t naively buy into, and further add my own gloss onto, some foreigner’s years later post-hoc interpretation of what was going through that kid’s mind. Anyone who things standing at attention is “an obvious military influence” is unaware of the degree of discipline expected of Japanese schoolkids (even more so then). And just maybe the kid was standing stock still and biting his lip because of the scary foreign conqueror pointing a camera at him in his moments of private grief…but sure, gloss that as “heroic” and “dignified and brave” if you feel it helps add to your narrative.
And I’m also more aware than to think capturing this kind of thing is rare. Like I said, I can easily find moving photos of war and famine - the Sudanese boy, the Nanjing father holding his baby, the naked Vietnamese girl…this is one of countless such. But you cited the rarity as if it was some factor in the your rating of the impact of the photo. So I countered that, and all you responded with was sarcasm. I don’t know if you even bothered to look at either of my links.
Like I said, I see your ad hominem accusations of hostility as projection - you clearly don’t like your initial emotional reaction to be questioned. Who does? But you have to understand, I don’t think your reaction is wrong. Just clearly naive.
Question, for my own edification - are you a parent?
The “foreigner” is a well-known photographer who was actually there in Japan at the time. I will take his judgment over your uninformed speculation. Oh and the “military influence” phrase comes from the website not the photographer. It doesn’t shape my perception of the photo.
What I find curious is that you seem to be persistently searching for some vantage point to assert the superiority of your opinion without actually having any superior and relevant knowledge. Googling some photos in 5 seconds isn’t nearly as impressive as you seem to think it is and I have seen many of those photos before. And no I am not a parent.
As an occupier…and speaking years later.
Thanks for the reply.
I don’t think the Allies were the aggressors there, even if they were “occupiers”.
Now, as far as “sad photos”, I’d say this one of a father having to look at the hand and foot of his dead child from the rubber plantations of the Belgian Congo probably qualifies.
(If there’s a Hell, Leopold II is being slow-roasted, after being dipped in ghost chili sauce.)
That one is right up there. Truly horrifying.