Click to load a larger image.
Your conversation begins with the photograph to the left and the article by Tom Junod that grapples with it. Read both the image and the text carefully. Then refer to this summation of the Sontag excerpt you read; consider it not a step-by-step commenting guide, but a holistic way to approach your responsive writing.
Now pull out selections and sections of “The Falling Man” and identify them in your comments. Offer your measured responses and insights. Ask questions of your peers; react to the way Junod frames the discussion; use the four ideas gleaned from Sontag to explore the issues this photograph and essay raise; and so on. As always, return here frequently to see your peers’ thoughts and offer replies.
The Falling Man was a very interesting article to read but also very depressing. The part of the article that annoyed me to a great extent was the fact that Eric Fischl created a bronze sculpture of a woman jumping from one of the towers. He entitled the piece of artwork, The Tumbling Woman. I don’t agree with the fact that he thought it was okay to create this sculpture. That woman could have been somebody’s mother and Eric Fischl decided to make it into his art. Richard Drew’s falling man is totally different from The Tumbling Woman. Creating a sculpture and taking a picture, I believe, are two totally different things.
Emily, I definitely agree with you on the idea that taking a photograph and creating a sculpture is completely different. Taking a photograph is an in the moment thing. In this case a person took out their camera to try and preserve the historic moment for any reason, but far from malicious. I think Drew saw something happening and took pictures of it. However, creating a sculpture is very different. This is after the fact. Fischl had a chance to absorb the incident and then make a calculated decision to turn it into art. I am not saying I think Fischl was wrong, but I am saying that his motives were clearly different than Drew’s.
:P matt
P.S. I love blogging and snickers.
Matt, I believe that Fischl creating this sculpture was very wrong. His motives were obviously different from Drew’s and I don’t believe that he did it intentionally, but I feel as if it was way too soon to create such a piece. The artwork was described as “shameful” and ambushed many people creating more sadness than they had already felt.
p.s. I enjoy blogging and snickers too. xoxoxo
I agree here. Sometimes when you take a picture you can’t control what you see. The beauty of the “action shot” is that you are capturing something “in the moment.” A sculpture is completely under the control of the sculptor. They choose what they want to make. I get the impression that most of the pictures that were taken on September 11 were to document a historical event. I don’t think they were trying to win contests or create art out of it. While the events were taking place the photographers knew that history was being made.
By the way, I didn’t read Matt’s comment before I posted so the fact that we said similiar things was not me copying him. It was me neglecting to scroll down.
I agree, to some extent, that there is a clear difference between creating a photograph and a sculpture and I do think that the subject matter is such a highly sensitive one that any depiction of it can insight rage and sadness in it’s audience. But, I also think that, like all national tragedies, the attacks on the world trade center have been engraved in the memories of most Americans and since there is so much emotion to flesh out, I think it’s impossible for an artist not to want to capture that emotion and examine it further (whether their medium is with a camera, in written word, or in sculpture). I think that a national tragedy becomes the emotional burden of the country as a whole, and that shared burden gives them to express their grief (or the grief they have witnessed) in whatever way they can.
I agree that the artists should be able to express themselves and share their grief in whatever mediums avaiable to them. But we also have to think about the audience. I’m not saying that national tragedies should be taboo when it comes to art but I also think there are certain things that should be off-limits in order to spare the feelings of the victims and their families. I’m not saying that there was anything wrong with the sculpture mentioned in this article. In fact, I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with the art that is mentioned in this article. I just feel that artists in general should think about what their art looks like from a victim’s standpoint and accomodate those feelings.
I think it may have been, as the article said, the timing of the sculpture’s release. It was just a little too soon. I think that if it was featured in 2010, the nation would have healed enough to take away some sort of message from the artist other than outrage.
I agree, if it came out now than it would most likely be accepted. I have a good example for this. After Pearl Harbor, there were not millions of people lining up to make art work or movies. However, in 2006 the movie World Trade Center was released. This was only 5 years later, and the movie was accepted by the public. So in time people’s wounds, may not heal all together, but get a little bit better. If his art came out at the time of the movie, I think it would be a different story.
:p matt
To start, looking at this picture and reading about it really was disturbing. What I realized while reading the article is that there are an infinite amount of interpretations for one single photograph. Why he was jumping, who he was, what he was wearing, where he worked were all questions that were brought up with the release of this photograph. A photograph like this is evidence that once the image is captured, it can never be forgotten. Not only is the image disturbing in the fact that at the end of his jump he would reach death but his posture and position in the air is earily in your face. I felt that at that moment, he was content with falling…he did not look like he was affraid.
The overall composition of the photograph was just as important as its message. Everything about the photograph suggested that the man was falling. The lines on the towers ran parallel with the man’s body which emphasizes the focus on the man that much more.
Sontag’s exerpt on photography describes this photograph perfectly. It is a grammar and it is ethics. People who look at this photograph are all going to see different parts of it and react in different ways according to their opinions. Pictures are objects; something that a person can hold in their hands for the rest of their lives according to Sontag. They are proof of what has been done and in this case, the photograph of The Falling Man is a reminder of history that took place during our time.
You bring up the physical value of this photograph noted by Sontag. When you think about it most photographs nowadays are digital, found on the internet or television. Nevertheless, I think this photograph is different. We have already seen it in newspapers and magazines all over the country. The digital version does exist, but its notoriety is derived from the physical photograph from periodicals. I think that physical element is that proof and reality that Sontag suggests.
Erin – You bring up the physical value of this photograph. When we think about most photographs nowadays, we think of digital images, found on the internet or television. This photograph is different. We have already seen it in newspapers and magazines all over the country. The digital version does exist, but its notoriety is derived from the physical photograph from periodicals. I think that physical element is that proof and reality which Sontag suggests.
Sorry about the double comment… technical difficulties
Erin, after your reading your first line, I am not sure disturbing is the right word to use. I think the picture is upsetting, but not disturbing. I think this because it is not gory. You only see the man and the towers in the background. The rest of the image is up to your own imagination. So, if you see it as disturbing you must be finishing the image in your mind and just looking at the one single moment of the photo. I try not to think of the end result because that is disturbing. My feelings for this picture are sad and sympathetic.
:p matt
Matt, I think this picture is disturbing because of the fact that it is representative of hundreds of other lives that ended in the exact same way. People who jumped from the towers were forced to. They knew their fate and just thinking about what was running through their minds as they were about to jump is actually disturbing. So I stand by my opinion because for me, the photo is representative of the event as a whole not just that split second in time.
Matt, I understand your point of the photo not being disturbing. However, I believe that when Erin wrote this, she wasn’t referring to the visuals of the photo; rather, she was referring to the concept of the photo. The photo is aesthetically pleasing, and in no way disturbing. However, when you realize the concept behind it, the photo gives you the chills because of the disturbing nature. Its hard to comprehend a situation that bad, that you would make the decision to jump out of a building.
Alright, let’s look at the infamous Falling Man photo using Sontag’s ideas. If we think about the “Grammar” of the photograph, I would say that this photo certainly is well layed-out and the contrasting imagery lends itself nicely to an overall powerful photograph. The “Grammar” of the photo is… acceptable? Well done? The photograph itself is well-arranged in an aesthetically pleasing manner, if we are purely discussing the physical layout. Let’s lay aside the ethics of this particular photo, as that is an entire discussion in itself, and move on to the photographer’s role. The photographer’s role here is fairly obvious: an onlooker, unable to do anything to intervene in any way. I wouldn’t say that the photo is neccesarily self-effacing, but I would argue that the photo shows the photographer in a light that aserts his inability to do anything but watch. Finally, we come to the message (which is actually the point of this whole paragraph). We are supposed to ask what the photograph “means” and what it does. Honestly, I don’t really have an answer.
This photo was obviously chosen for a reason, as multiple photos were taken. The “Grammar” of the photo was very nice, but I really don’t think that’s the reason. The photographer’s role doesn’t really change in any of these photos, as far as I can imagine, and the ethics are still aside for now. So what is it? In the article by Tom Junod, he raises a very good point: photographs lie. In the paragraph that begins with that statement, he discusses how the man in the photo did not fall straight down, accepting his fate and savoring the last few moments of his life as he fell through the air like an arrow. No. In reality, the man was falling “desperately, inelegantly.” “In the rest of the sequence — the eleven outtakes — his humanity stands apart. He is not augmented by aesthetics; he is merely human, and his humanity, startled and in some cases horizontal, obliterates everything else in the frame.” Mr. Junod’s words would lead me to believe that the reason the photograph was chosen, is due to the grace the man in the photograph has in that particular shot. He doesn’t appear to be falling like a ragdoll, or spinning out of control; no, he instead appears at peace.
If we assume that the photograph was chosen because it presents us with the horrifying reality of the situation, and yet it sort of comforts us. We see the man appear to be at peace, whereas any other shot would perhaps show him spiraling out of control. The layout of the shot makes one feel a sense of acceptance, much like the man in the shot. But why? What does the photograph mean? What message is it trying to convey to us?
James, I believe that photographers can intervene to some extent. In the case of the falling man ther is obviously nothing th ephotographer can do to help. There is no way to stop him once he falls. But if we look at this idea in terms of Kevin Carter, there is something to be done. Kevin Carter could have helped the starving girl to the feeding center. He could have prevented her death and all of his guilt.
I also don’t think that this photograph is a lie. I think it was chosen out of a sequence of other photos but the photographer chose this one because of its artistic appeal. He wasn’t trying to hide the other photos. The other photos were just more disturbing.
It’s funny you bring that up, Eileen (actually, it’s not all that funny, that was my attempt at conversationally introducing my blog reply— I’ll stick to the substance and less of the pleasantries) because a few of my friends had a heated discussion about the ethical line in the sand when it comes to photography. I told them about how the falling man photographer had also taken photos of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination as his wife begged him to stop (now THAT image is haunting). One of my friends frowned immediately saying that the act (as well as photographing the world trade center falling) was disrespectful, which I could agree with considering this man has absolutely no fear in documenting the macabre and the depressing. The other said that there’s a difference between photographing an event that the photographer could potentially intervene in– saying that he was wrong to document Bobby Kennedy‘s assassination because he was close enough to help him.
That launched my argument that the photographer’s work as a journalist (to collect and report the unaltered facts of the story) would be discredited. Morally, photographing another’s suffering isn’t considered right and that sort of guilt could rest on a man’s conscience, but a photographer couldn’t possibly deliver the actual circumstances of the moment if he had intervened. It’s like with the photographs and videos of starving children in those infomercials that are on at four in the morning; the video crew/photo crew can’t actually intervene because that would allow their audience to believe there would always be a bleeding heart camera crew to fix the world’s problems. The goal of journalism is to make an argument for change and there must be objectivity in that practice.
When mentioning the role of the photographer, I think that it’s also important to mention that he withstood some degree of danger in order to take this photograph. After all, jumpers would have killed any unfortunate victims that were under them as they made their decent back to Earth, and the article mentioned that a fireman was killed in such a way. Granted, the photographer was probably a good distance away from the building, but when people jump from such a high distance, their landing area is almost unpredictable. (That is, unless you’re some major Physics geek.)
The Falling Man is embodies the principles Sontag discusses. As Erin and James said, photographs like The Falling Man are “a grammar and an ethics of seeing”. The photograph is almost surreal. People who witnessed the attacks on September 11th hold images in their memory forever. Everyone knew someone who was in New York or was at the World Trade Center that day. Some were graced by God and spared of their lives; others were not so fortunate. As we look back in history the falling man allows us to see the world. The photo is a snapshot of history. The Falling Man, as shown in Junod’s article, has been interpreted in many ways: rude and tasteless, inspiring and patriotic. It’s degrading to the man pictured and to all people who were killed that day. It is an omen of the power of death, his body souring straight like a missile or spear. It is a sign of hope for the American people who refuse to surrender to terrorism. Sontag discusses these mixed emotions some see in photographs. We always hear that phrase, “a picture speaks a thousand words.” This old saying is clear from this photograph, yet we clearly see the words are not all the same. Even in the case of the Tumnling Woman, the words that art and visual objects convey are up for interpretation. Images are “miniature realities” that can be absorbed and analyzed in any way, shape, or form.
The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center stands as one of the most horrific events in American History. Ironically, the photograph Junod chose to publish is beautiful. It is serene, symmetric, rebellious, and overall aesthetically pleasing. This juxtaposition of the photograph with the image seems to almost alter reality. As Molidor wrote in his response to Sontag, “Sontag sees that photography, leveling everything, also beautifies. Let the subject be what it will – pollution, death, war … photography will tend to make it look aesthetically pleasing.” A photograph’s ability to alter reality gives it the function of a tool, as well as the function to recount history. Junod’s photograph tells the story of the people who jumped from the towers that day. However, the Falling Man does not match up with the accounts of eyewitnesses at the scene. The people jumping were not a serene sight. On the surface, the photo seems to inaccurately depict the horrific scene that the jumpers manufactured that day.
The Falling Man represents the strong will that a nation and its people exhibit even during a time of crisis. The Falling Man represents freedom, and the people’s desire to hold on to it. And finally, the Falling Man represents the hope that this act of Terrorism would not defeat us. Although on the surface Junod’s photo does not seem to accurately depict the scene that day, his photo does accurately depict the ideals that Americans use to depict September 11th.
I feel like there is one major determination in whether a photograph capturing such a horrific scene is ethical or not: identity. In this photograph, the identity of the man is certainly not clear. However, if someone is able to identify the identity of that man, I believe it is unethical for those close to the victim for the image to be published. It is disturbing to them, and is wrong to put them through more pain by publishing the image. If the identity is not clear, one can argue that they have the right to publish the image because the identity can not be traced. The person would be more symbolic. However, one could also argue that an unknown identity is just as unethical because it could be anyone who died that day. Therefore, the image could be potentially disturbing to anybody who is connected the tragedy. So really, is there any way to ethically photograph a tragedy with humans in the frame?
I think the anonymous nature of the photograph makes it ethical. As you said, there is no family left behind to see their loved one in such a horrible situation. We don’t know who the Falling Man is, so we, as Americans, start to view him as a national hero. His unknown identity makes him an icon for freedom and a stand against terrorism.
Chris, I agree that the anonymous nature of the man does allow him to serve as an icon. However, this does not really address whether the photo is ethical or not. The anonymous nature of it leaves the identity open for interpretation, which would mean that anybody could potentially believe that the Falling Man is their loved one who died that day. Therefore, the image could be disturbing for a lot more people than if the photograph wasn’t anonymous in nature.
XOXO Jordan
Jordan, I would agree that anonymous nature of the man does not necessarily mean that showing of the photo is ethical. Granted, this may not hold true in every case, but I think it isn’t something that should be written off. However, with this particular photograph, I don’t think we ever had a choice. I believe that showing this photo may not be ethical, but it was something that needed to be shown and so it was. The photo was spread all over the world and the question of whether or not it was acceptable to show was probably moved to the side. It may not have been okay, but it happened, and we have to live with that. I’m just making the connection myself, but the photograph sort of parallels the ideas it represents.
Personally, I think that the most controversial thing about this photgraph is when it was released to the public. After all, it was rleased almost immediately after the attacks, before everyone was able to comprehend what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. (In fact, there is still not a consensus on those three things today.) If this photograph was released 12-15 years after the attacks, then it its release would have probably been more accepting to society. However, it wasn’t, and as a result, a lot of people oppose it, including me.
Jordan, I have to say I semi agree with you on this one. I think the fact that there is no identity does make this photo ethical. However, what if the identity was known and the family wanted this photo to be shown? What if the family feels the man would want the world to see the photo. I think in this instance it would make showing the photo ethical. However, with that being said another person could argue they think it is unethical because of how it will make other families feel. I guess the question of whether or not the photo is ethical is too ambiguous to answer. It will be unethical in some eyes but not in others. So, to answer your question, there is a way to ethically photograph a tragedy, but that will depend on who you ask.
:p matt
Matt, you bring up an interesting point to discuss. I feel that a photo as disturbing as this one can only be ethical if the identity is known. That way the publisher can ask for permission to release the photo. Only if permission is granted would the photo be ethical to show. However, it would be impossible to ask permission of all those effected if the identity was not known.
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ XOXO Jordan
That is very true. Think of this real quick. What if instead of asking a specific family, a poll was conducted and asked the people. Polls are conducted all the time by various universties and news reporters. If the general will, said it was ok, would it be?
Matt, I don’t think it would be ok. The chances that the public unanimously accepts the picture to be published is nearly impossible. As long as one person is affected by the photo, I don’t think that the photo should be show. You can’t just ask the general public because everyone is going to have a different opinion. Everyone has a different relationship to the event. I personally would have wanted this photo published but that doesn’t matter. As long as someone is against the photo because it is disturbing to them, I don’t think one could argue that it is ethically correct to publish and show to the public.
I honestly do not think that it is possible to capture history such as that of 9/11 in an ethically correct way. Nothing about the situation is “right.” I think that as both Matt and Jordan said, the reaction that somebody has towards the photograph depends solely on their relationship to the event. Someone who lost someone in the World Trade Center attacks would more likeley have a negative reaction towards the picture that just the average American would.
xoxoxox erin?
The attacks on the twin towers on September 11th, 2001 can easily be considered the worst attack against America in her history. I want to look at the falling man from a different prospective than others are. The falling man is the perfect image for that day. I say that because it demonstrates how the innocent American was attacked. This was not like Pearl Harbor because the military was not attacked. Instead regular everyday Americans died on that fateful day. It was a mommy, a daddy, a brother, a sister, an uncle, and a regular American. The falling man is actually all of those people just listed. This falling man represents how a piece of America died that day. However, the picture has an attitude. The perfect pose of this man says something to the world. It screams that we cannot be killed as a whole. By accepting his fate, that man is letting the world know that Americans can think rationally and accept a situation. While on a personal level my heart goes out to this man and his family, I believe that he has shown that America is strong minded. The day was miserable, the image is graphic in a sense, but that photograph captured much more than a falling man.
Matt, I agree with what you are saying. The difference between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is exactly what you said. During Pearl Harbor, they were attacking our military…during 9/11, they attacked people. It could have been anyone. The picture summarizes the entire event, just like you said.
Matt, I agree with you completely regarding what the falling man symbolizes –the entirety of America rather than simply a man wearing an orange t-shirt. That is why, as I explained below, I think the speculations regarding his identity are fruitless.
It reminds me of the blog post I put together regarding the Michael Jackson advertisement. When an iconic image involves death (in the case of michael jackson being an icon long before his death and as he will most likely continue to be long after), what is chosen to be showcased is not the entire story. In this case, the identity of the falling man and all the worldly facts of his life aren’t as important (in terms of the picture) as the people he left behind and their reaction to his tragic death (or the death of America, as you so poetically put it.)
I personally fail to realize why the “Falling Man” is so special. Over 2,500 people died due to the 9/11 attacks, and because of the media, many of their deaths were probably captured directly. I just fail to notice why his specific death is notarized, while everyone else who died seems to be “forgotten” to America. It might be because his identity is not known, nor will it ever be. If his identity was known, or is ever discovered, I would bet his family and friends would sue anyone who released this picture to the public. It’s not only degrading to the family, but it’s degrading to the nation too.
Matt, his death is not notorized while others are forgotten; his death represents the people who died that day in order to help us remember them. This picture is a silent memorial to everyone we lost – everything we lost – in that tragedy.
Yeah James I completely agree with you. The fact that they searched for the true identity of the Falling Man almost ruins the purpose of the photo in a way. As many have stated, the photo is iconic, and discovering the Falling Man’s identity would relinquish the photo of its iconic status. I feel that if the identity was ever truly discovered, the photo would be of less importance.
It’s hard for me to precisely speak about the Falling Man because honestly, I have no idea how I feel about the picture itself. Is it okay to look at? Is it a memorable photograph, or just a sad one? I can’t decide.
For those of us who were in APLAC last year, looking at this picture may remind us of the ethics of photography, which we studied last year. And with that, I raise the question again; do we have the right to view this photo?
I say both yes and no.
For some, the photo represents a man that is at peace with his death. He is elegantly flying through the air, letting his faith come without trying to escape it. The picture does indeed capture this. It shows the bravery of all of the men and women who tragically died in the September 11 attacks. Well, it does in this frame anyway. And in this frame, looking at the picture as symbolic, gives us the right to see it. We do need reminders of that day, and how brave everyone was. And this frame does that exactly.
But as Sontag said, photographs lie. This is one frame. it was one instance in time where the man was free falling towards his death. In the others, he was flipping through the air, quickly dropping to the floor. The Falling Man was a normal man, who was pushed from the building windows; just as many others were. He wasn’t necessarily a brave fellow, embracing his death. He was just falling. And for this reason, I really hate looking at this picture for too long. It makes me sad. I feel as though I am just merely looking upon his death, rather than looking at it, and embracing the way he is falling as a symbol.
Though I never really answered my own question. This is how I feel about it; confused.
Marcella, I completely get your yes/no logic and I do believe that when we look at the man in the photo as anything other than a symbol, the photo can tread on the edge of violating the privacy of victims and their families. But, I also think we don’t merely have the right to view this photo, but that it’s our duty to view the photos that describe the emotions of our nation in a turmoil filled time.
Through this careful study, we can unpack the information and find closure or take away wisdom from them. I think that the violent, immoral and intrusive nature of a photograph that capture’s a man’s death makes it all the more necessary for the viewer to truly examine it; there could be a “voyeuristic” motive behind the photo or simply a need to examine what had been seen. The photographs featured in magazines and newspapers aren’t too different from the ones in a family photo album in that respect; they capture the moment and allow relevant parties to look back and reflect. Isn’t that type of reflection one of the more sincere way of remembering a tragedy of this magnitude?
Matt, I have to disagree with what you said stating “By accepting his fate, that man is letting the world know that Americans can think rationally and accept a situation.” While the leisurely pose is the picture does can be taken as an undefeatable attitude, suicide is looked upon from many as a sin and a sign if giving up. In a whole I don’t completely disagree with you, but playing devil’s advocate, the picture can be taken to the complete opposite extreme than thinking rationally. Actually how can one even be associated with thinking rationally when there killing themselves becasue of impaired judgement in a high-pressure situation? If anything one might associate this picture with irrationality just beacuse it conveys the aspect of giving up. Reguardeless of the contradiction of suicide being rational you do raise a good point, in the way that by not conveying any visible fear, it can stand for americans staying strong under traumatizing events. The way how the falling man can be taken actually does largely depend on how the photo portrays him. From another angle this picture might not seem so full of integrity.
Good point, Andrew. My only arguement would be that we don’t know the circumstances surrounding the man’s departure from the window. For all we know, he may have been thrown out of the window in a blast, meaning that his fall was not suicide.
I agree with you James. When I was reading the article I felt that it wasn’t fair for the audience to judge the person in the photo for their actions because we don’t know what was happening before, during, or after the photo was taken. For all we know, like you said, he could have been blasted out of the building. In the article when the daughter said, “that piece of shit is not my father” I really felt bad for her. I interpretted this statement as her being so overcome with grief that she couldn’t think rationally about the situation. It may also be possible that the man in the picture was already dead when he was falling or close to being dead. He could have died and then have fallen out. Maybe that’s a bit of a stretch but it is definitely a possibilty. We’ll never know for sure.
I actually never considered this, at all, and it’s interesting that all of you borught up such a fascinating point. (I was always sold on the “suicide” idea, but now may think otherwise.)
If the “Falling Man” was blasted through a window, then he probably would have been already dead as he was falling, which would explain why he was “at peace” during his fall.
Regardless if he was blasted through the window or not though, I’m pretty confident that he was dead by the time the photgraph was taken, or was at least unconscious, most likely due to inhaling of smoke. It’s simply impossible for anyone to be this calm when falling at speeds approaching 100 MPH.
I think the interpretation of the photograph’s ethical value is going to be up for argument regardless. People have different morals and experiences that sway their views. Personally, I think we should look at the ethics of the photographer. Richard Drew captured this photograph with his camera. He couldn’t have been far from the scene, yet what did he do. Is it noble for him to watch and record history? Or should he have tried to help save the lives of others? Personally, I can’t say whether or not I would have had the courage to go towards the falling towers (as many brave men and women did). Nevertheless, is it moral to photograph tragedy before avoiding tragedy?
To bring up my other point, to be fair to the photographer, there was really nothing he could do for the Falling Man or the other “jumpers.” There was no way for him to help prevent this tragedy. He could have helped recover survivors after the attacks happened but as far as preventing it, he couldn’t have stopped the planes. He couldn’t have saved the “jumpers” before they hit the ground. He couldn’t have stopped the towers from collapsing.
This situation, of course, is an extreme one. There are certain situations in which the photographer could have intervened for the better. (I hate t bring up the Kevin Carter photo again but I feel that it is relevant here) This whole debate reminds me of these videos we watched in 7th grade science class. Disney went into the different biomes of the world and recorded the daily lives of certain species of the animals that lived there. The one sequence that I remember (besides the gross snake crawling sideways *shudder*) was one of a turtle stuck on its back. The audience watched as the turtle struggled to right itself; its life depended on it. I can’t remember if the turtle ended up living but I remember someone asking if the camera crew would have flipped the turtle back over to save. I remember my teacher saying that the camera men didn’t want to disturb natre nad they believed in letting nature run its course. I always thought that it wasn’t right for the camera men to just ignore the struggling turtle. To this day I believe that idf something can be done to help it should be done. It is the same situation with Kevin Carter and his photo of a starving girl. He shoul dhvae intervened. With September 11th however, there was hardly anything the photographers could do.
While the leisurely pose that the picture portrays can be taken as an undefeatable attitude*
I was in the 3rd grade when September 11th happened. I didn’t even live in Brewster at that time and being so young I really didn’t understand what had happened. As a result of this I guess I’ve never really fully felt the emotional effect of this event, until I read this article and saw the picture of The Falling Man. The one thing that Sontag mentioned that stuck with me in this article is ethics- “what we have a right to observe”. In some people’s opinions they shouldn’t have aired the attack on TV while it was happening or taken pictures of the people who jumped. But now that I have seen this photo and read this article I understand the violence that happened during the attack. I can’t imagine being one of the families whos loved one was unrecognizable by their remains. Yet, 7%-8% of the people who died in New York City that day jumped from the burning towers.
Another part that stuck with me after I read this article was morality. Tom Junod talks about all the families that had been involved with figuring out who the “The Falling Man” was and you find that each family had a different opinion. On page seven of the packet paragraph four the author writes “The Hernandezes looked at the decision to jump as a betrayal of love–as something Norberto was being accused of. The woman in Connecticut looks at the decision to jump as a loss of hope–as an absence that we, the living, now have to live with.” At first this section made me angry at first because I thought the families were being selfish by still holding their loved ones to such high standards when they weren’t even there. When I talked to my mom about this article she said that she thought that people were just choosing their way to die. i
As far as how the article is set up, I enjoyed it. Although I’m sure it took over a year to finally figure out who The Falling Man was it was a process and I felt his process through his writing.
Andrew, you bring up a good point. However, I don’t view this as suicide. Instead, I feel like it could be viewed as the Falling Man wanting to die on his own terms, and not dying the way the attackers wanted him to die.
Well said Jordan, I agree. I can’t imagine what it must have been like inside the towers if there were people that felt that their only way out was to jump. It’s terrible.
Yeah, I completely agree with the fact that the man in the picture could have possibly wanted to die on his own terms. The point of the terrorists was to murder and destroy the two towers and the people inside of them, and by allowing that to happen, (although there was little to do to stop it) makes them successful. I think the fact that this man could have “jumped” could be based on the fact that he didn’t want the attackers to “win” and kill him the way they wanted to (just a possibility.) Also, if the man did choose this death, then so be it; it would probably be more of a peaceful death. If I were put in this situation, I would want to feel some sort of freedom before leaving earth, and falling through the air, seems a lot more graceful than burning in a fire for me.
And as for feeling okay looking at this picture, it’s such a debatable topic. Typing that “If I were in the situation….fire for me,” was actually extremely uncomfortable. Death is a strange thing to talk about, yet it happens everyday, and will happen to everyone. But when it is intentional and cruel, there’s a completely new spin to it. While I was reading this article I got the chills; it’s so shocking reading the stories that you see on movies on or on T.V and thinking that this was actually real, only an hour away from where most of us live, and millions of people were affected. The “falling man” made me feel really weird because at first I didn’t even think it was a photograph. I thought it was a drawing of some sort, so reading that it was an actual man who was “falling”, or “jumping” or whatever term to say, out of a building on the way to his death, made me so sad.
I think the publishing of it can be viewed in many different ways, but the matter of the fact is, it’s reality. It really did happen and people may not need to see it, but pictures, videos and all sorts of things are out there, and will be seen. Like most of you said, there are pictures of almost every horrible event, it’s a part of life. When it comes down to an extreme panic, sometimes ethics and morals disappear. The rush of a situation can change you and your actions, and sometimes we do things we would never think to do with a clear mind. I don’t really know what the photographers purpose was. I think that documenting history was his main purpose, yet who knows what the shock of a situation can do to you. The pictures only make the twin towers seem that much more real, and remind people that this actually did happen. But is it horrible that these types of pictures were captured? Is it horrible to try and connect with the picture and feel for and pray for the person in it or is it already horrible enough just knowing that the fact that it even happened? I think this picture gives tons of people mixed emotions, and with different relationships to the happening comes different feelings, like with every situation.
Andrew, well thought out point and I think it has a lot of value. Our disagreement comes from the fact is that I do not view this as suicide. While it is easy to say the guy jumped out of a window it is suicide, I see it differently. I think this man is choosing between two options. Die slowly and painfully at the top of a tower, and possibly burn to death before it falls, or understand and accept his fate and avoid the unnecessary pain that the terrorists were trying to force on him. In my opinion, it was a well calculated choice not suicide.
:p matt
I believe that it was the mans choice to jump. When he did jump, I’m sure he had many things on his mind. I don’t think that he was thinking that jumping was him committing suicide just a way to avoid possibly a more painful death.
When I first read Junod’s article and looked at the picture I was personally outraged. What gave Lyle Owerko (the photographer) the right to photograph someone’s last breaths on Earth? Personally, I felt he had no such right and began to feel guilty because I was simply observing his work.
Sontag mentions the “ethics of seeing” in her work, what we do and don’t have the right to see, what is acceptable, and tasteful, to the human eye. It’s obvious that this photograph is tasteless. Anyone who is interested in seeing someone about to die isn’t a human themselves, and that’s something that most people would probably agree to; and we simply do not have the right to see someone’s last ditched effort to get some fresh air before they become a disfigured corpse.
However, something that I must take into consideration is just how biased I am when viewing this photograph. I believe that we all are and that could interfere with our analysis of it. After all, while we may have been little, we all lived through the 9/11 attacks, and we all are still suffering the consequences today; consequences varying from the death of loved-ones to the inconvenient 4 hour lines at the security checkpoints in airports. If this photograph depicted a person jumping off a building in Russia in the 1960s, then our interpretations of it might have been different than what they are now; but this person died during our lifetime, in our country, in a way that had no way of being prevented, and because of that, the picture becomes personal to us, even though we have no idea who he is.
I just realized a major typo. I meant to put Richrad Drew for the photorgrapher and not whatever name I wrote down. I’m not exactly sure what I was thinking… :P
(Addition to the end of my second paragraph.) I also think that the picture of The Falling Man displays a message that everyone took differently. This picture is to show how in so much chaos someone found peace. All those families thought horrible and negative things, and yes it was oppropriate but when I think about that horrific day and all those people who jumped- I feel their freedom.
(Addition to the end of my my third paragraph.) Unfortunately, I don’t think the photographer had any real purpose when he took the picture of The Falling Man. He was taking a picture of all the people jumping and through one of his frames he found the one in the article. As it says in the second page first paragraph “He was standing between a cop and an emergency technician, and each of them cried, ‘There goes another,’ his camera found a falling body and followed it down for a nine- or twelve-shot sequence.” He didn’t take this one particular photo he took pictures of all the people falling, to document the horrific day.
Gwen, I agree that the Falling Man wasn’t a picture taken to convey the messages we saw exactly. When the flash went off, no one knew what was going to appear when the film was developed (or the photos were loaded?).
But, I do believe that it was taken with a real purpose. The purpose was to, as you said, document the horrific moments as they happened so that the american people would look back (whether it is days, months or years) later and find something to take away from it. That’s about as much of a purpose a photographer can ask for: a chance to document history as it happens.
I completely agree with you Kaitie. I am completely against this photo, but I’m also biased because I lived during the time period that it took place. Pictures of lynchings in the 1800s/1900s, or of the Holocaust in the 1930s/1940s seem to be a bit more acceptable in my eyes because the events they portray didn’t happen in my lifetime, despite that the photographs from these two time periods tend to be a lot more graphic than “The Falling Man.” Granted, I’m still horrified from such pictures, but not outraged.
In advertising, we learned about the association principle, and I believe that the same thing can be applied to photographs. I am not an African American, so I am not outraged from pictures depicting lynchings because lynchings specificly targetted people of the Afircan American community. I am not Jewish, so pictures depicting events that took place during the Holocaust do not bring feelings of rage to me. However, I am an American, and the 9/11 attacks targetted America, and more specifically, its people. And as an American, I am outraged when I am seeing another American die by the hands of a terroist organization, even if it’s just a photograph.
To elaborate on this association principle theory I have just created, it’s also important to note that 9/11 happened during our lifetime, more importantly, our childhood, when discussing my feelings regarding this photograph. Not only am I an American, but I (indirectly) witnessed these horrific events. Therefore, there’s an even more complex association here between me and this photograph, not only am I an American, but it happened during my lifetime.
James, it could have been a blast that sent the man flying out of the window, however alike most of the other “suicides” that occurred that day, most were premeditated choices to die. Although I cannot prove that this fall or deliberate jump was premeditated, it only seems fair to expect it as a thought out choice when putting yourself into the same situation empathetically. If the building is on fire and you have a choice to burn slowly until demise or take a ten second plunge to peace, obviously human instinct would desire you to jump. When keeping all aspects and possibilities of that situation at hand, anything is possible and it would be stupid to eliminate any possibilities.
Andrew I like the way you describe the experience of the jump as a “ten second plunge to peace”. I also agree with the human instinct, that’s one thing that stuck with me throughout the article is how the families interpreted their love ones jumping. Judged them even and all I could think was- you weren’t there how could you know?
Andrew, I happen to believe that none of these “jumpers” should be classified as suicides or “premeditated choices to die” (in fact, I don’t think these people shouldn’t even be referred to as “jumpers”) for the simple reason that the only other choice was a nearly instant death on their other side. To refer to these deaths as something that was premeditated is a stretch because none of these people had the desire to jump out of that building. They were forced by the explosion and thus they should also be classified as victims of the explosion.
To add to Katie, it also can’t be considered premeditated because none of them knew that these attacks were even going to happen. Some of the “jumpers” only had a matter of minutes to decide whether or not jumping was there only way out. When I hear premeditated I usually consider it a carefully thought out plan. Most of the desperate decisions made that day were spur of the moment ones.
Yes, I agree with both Katie and Eileen. Whenever I think of suicide I think of it as being premeditated. But it’s true that they had to choose what way they wanted to die but in someways I think they just wanted to survive. Now I know you must being thinking- how could you possibly think you would survive from that fall? But if the adrenaline is pumping all you do is want to get out of there. I hate to us a pun on words but human instinct is “Fight or Flight” and unfortunately all those people died because of it.
The one line of the reading that stood out to me the most was when the daughter of a man who was believed to be the falling man shouted to the photographer that “that piece of shit was not [her] father.” This line was powerful in terms of what we have the right to see and how a photograph can be observed. Photographs tend to be frozen or removed from time, disregarding the past and future of the subject.
While the subject of the photo is a man falling to his death, it is a frozen moment in time between the horrors of what sent him from the building and the tragic death below where, if only for a brief moment in time, he looks at peace or, as many of my classmates have said, even leisurely. The image is disturbing when the audience recognizes that they are witnessing the nearest possible moment to a human death and to not acknowledge the humanity behind the photograph would severely decrease it’s efficacy, but I tend to think that the identity of the man shouldn’t be confused with his humanity– if anything, the relentless search for the man’s identity stripped the picture of it’s power and turned it into something more offensive. I think the photo is more powerful when the man is a nameless and tragic loss to the American people, because he becomes every American touched by 9/ll.
So the man in that photo was no longer a man who was a father, son or brother with a name, address and social security number; he became a symbol. The only thing offensive about this photograph to me is the public response to it.
I agree with you Katie, this family really made me mad when they were so angry with their father for jumping. Everyone just decided to call it a mass suicide but like I said in my blog and other comments these people didn’t have any other choice. It takes a lot of courage to jump out of a window on the 106th or 107th floor. That’s what I would want people to remember about them- not that they were commiting suicide but that they all had courage.
The last couple of lines on the first page of the Junod article stuck out to me the most. “He is, fifteen seconds past 9:41 a.m. EST…keeps dropping until he disappears.” i was intrigued by the attention to detail. I find it absolutely crazy that we can pinpoint a human’s EXACT location just by a series of photographs. Physics is brought into this analysis as well, with the Falling Man’s rate per second and milse per hour. I wonder how Junod knows the FM’s exact acceleration and mph from a photo. That part doesn’t make sense to me. But I like how at the end of this small section the description of the FM turns almost poetic when they discuss his “life outside the frame.” It amazes me how a good writer can take a tragedy like September 11th and another tragedy like the death of the FM and turn it into give us such vivid images.
I also noticed that Junod relied on repetition in this article. on page 2 alone he repeted “they jumped” and “it was the sight of the jumpers.” This repetition is effective because not only does it remind the readers that there were in fact people jumping on that day. It appeals to pathos because suicide and September 11th are both emotional issues for most people. With Junod’s repetition we are reminded that people did jump out of the towers on that day. We are remind and therfore feel sorry for the victims and their families.
What I find to be the hardest thing to grasp when it comes to looking at the photo is that it is so aesthetically pleasing. It’s truly uncanny. It reminds me of the photos in Pokemon snap (bear with me, I have a point) where the photo is considered perfect because the object is the appropriate size for the frame and it appears symmetrically in the center of the frame. The photo is pretty. And,\ I really don’t want to admit to thinking it’s pretty because of it’s content. I actually think it looks almost unreal. When I remind myself that it is a real man and not a cartoon or a sketch, I feel a little sick to be honest. But, in terms of it’s colors and it’s frame and the pose of the man, it creates this beautiful balance. I could easily imagine this as a pop art painting (if it wasn’t surrounded by the tragedy of 9/11) and that’s what makes me so uncomfortable. As others had said before me, the juxtaposition between the beautiful photograph and the ugly and terrifying circumstances makes a statement about the American people.
Katie, you bring up a point that I have not thought of before. All of my previous comments have been about the content of the photo. I never gave a real thought into the photography behind the photo. In many ways you are right. It is like a perfect photograph. The man is falling perfectly vertical in line with the towers behind him. There are no distracters in the photo take your attention away. The man is falling right down the middle of the photo. In sight it is the perfect photo. In content it is sad and upsetting.
Katie – I have to agree with you as well. In the past we have analyzed the aesthetically pleasing nature of symmetry. People like things that are symmetrical, even if the deeper meaning holds something filled with pain and sorrow. I think the Falling Man’s unusual posture is something to look at. Without context, one could see this man as being some type of superhero, souring down the side of a building to save the beautiful girl who was thrown from the roof by an evil mastermind. That posture demonstrates some kind of confidence and courage in the Falling Man’s identity. Nevertheless, like we said, it’s the situation and the knowledge we have about the photograph that makes it so eerie.
** I suppose that statement could be that the American people will rise from the ashes of the tragedy and find the beauty (in terms of a reflection nearly a decade later).
Or, in terms of how we felt back in 2001, it could demonstrate the solemn suffering shared throughout all fifty states in the aftermath.
It could also simply be seen as moment during the fall of an innocent victim: A photo in a series of hundreds that had an aesthetically appealing look that would draw a little bit more attention. The statement should be found through the reflection and careful consideration of the viewer.
Another conversation I would like to start, hopefully it is not too late, is to think what you would do in this man’s position. I know on a personal level I probably would not have jumped. It would be too much for me to actually bring myself to jump out a window where I know I have a definite death. I must say that being at the top of the tower; I too, would have come to terms with my fate. However, it is not my personal style to know the exact time I would die. I would have rather stay at the top, providing I wasn’t burning to death, than jump out the window. What are your thoughts?
Honestly Matt, I can’t imagine having much of a choice in any of what was going on. A plane hits a building, fires start, smoke fills the rooms, floors collapse, things explode, things fly in all directions, etc; honestly, you’d be one of the lucky ones if you happened to be near a window and not get knocked out or killed by some other means. I don’t think that all of these implied suicides were actually suicides. And even if they were, they were chaotic, irrational decisions made by people under extreme duress. There are too many factors to rule out anything, but I don’t think that I would have jumped either. I probably would have had no idea what was going on, knowing myself, and probably wouldn’t have even known the plane was going to hit the tower until after it did. As far as what I would do next? I haven’t the slightest. My brain would probably be shut down and my flight mechanism would be in control. I do have to admit though, if I knew I could survive the fall I would definitely have done it. I have to imagine that the fall would be pretty awesome, at least until the ground showed up. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making light of any of this, I just enjoy the idea of skydiving and I think the city locale would make me feel like a superhero.) I would probably try to do whatever it took to get out alive, not assure my own death, and I can’t imagine those people weren’t thinking of their families first.
James, first off I agree that these were not acts of suicide, but more a decisions made, like you said, in a time of duress. You brought up an idea that I had not thought of before, when you said, you would try to get out alive and not assure your own death. All along I have been talking about accepting fate and moving on from there. I guess, in that situation more people are thinking about how to try and stay alive rather than how to die. Also, you are right about the families. I have said previously that that is someone’s mommy or daddy. Well, I would have done anything imaginable to try and get home to my family. They would be the only people on my mind that day. The bell just rang got to go.
:P Matt
I don’t know if I could’ve jumped. I can just imagine the butterflies that people get in their stomachs from that “falling” feeling. I think I would try to find a way out knowing I’d probably die on the way. I said this is in a comment I left for Katie- the people who jumped had courage. They came to terms with their fate and jumped.
That is just a moral question that not many people could provide with one straight answer. People always say that in life or death situations, instincts will lead you to the right fate. On September 11th, the Falling Man’s instincts told him that he wouldn’t survive if he stayed, and so he jumped. Unfortunately, his ultimate fate was inevitable.
I don’t think I would be able to get myself to jump. I believe I would have done whatever I could to at least try and escape, even if I was going to die trying. Although I feel jumping would be a much less painful way of dying than burning to death, I don’t think that I ever could get myself to jump.
I find this photograph disgusting for many reasons (others I have already mentioned in other posts). However, I do find the juxtapositon of the photograph’s “message” to be the most disturbing thing about it. September 11, 2001 was a terrible day in American history. Before that time, it was over 50 years since America was attacked on its own soil. People died, and they died quickly; it was just a matter of how they died. Some decided to take a dive outisde of the World Trace Centers, while others sufficated to death from the smoke. When they went to the WTC that day, they had no intention of dying, and the “Falling Man,” a human being, was no exception. 9/11 wasn’t a peaceful day, it was a day of chaos, death, and destruction, and I take personal offense of this photo, not as a victim of 9/11, but as a citizen of the United States of America.
Very very interesting other Matt. I disagree with you strongly in the sense that as an American I do not take great offense to this photo and there are a few reasons. When terrorists tried to take away our freedom we proved we stay have it. How? It is because we live in a land that allows us to publish photos like this. We can express ourselves even if others do not agree. We can post a picture like this around our country and not have our government say no! They cannot. We as Americans can have the right of opinion, and this photo shows it. The photographer thought that this photo needed to be seen. Matt, you do not. Well let’s look at the beauty, that the terrorist did not take that fact away from us that day. If I agree with this photo or not, it does not matter, because I have the right to my opinion. So, as an American I am proud someone stood up for the rights and captured and published a photo they wanted to. That is being an American. This idea goes back to Voltaire and his quote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” You may find this photo disturbing and just bad. I may or may not agree, but this photo shows why America will always stand taller and above the rest.
:p Matt S.
Matt S, I completely agree with you because of the circumstances of the death. If this was just some man jumping out of the World Trade Center on an ordinary day, the photograph wouldn’t be shown. Because of the circumstances of the day, this photograph needed to be shown, despite the ethical ramifications and disturbing nature of the photo. As matt said, the photographer wanted to provide a sense of hope to the American public, that although we were attacked, we, in no way, would lose to the Terrorists.
But I just feel that we essentially did let the terroists “win” because we made such a big deal of the attacks. We are letting them “get the best of us” as a result of the numerous memorials we created. However, I could see the counterargument to this as well. It could also be argued that we would have been seen as a weak country and gutless country if we did nothing in response to the attacks on 9/11.
Matt– While I get the “letting the terrorists win” argument, I don’t agree with it. I think that subscribes to the theory that an emotional reaction (which a national affront like this will typically cause) constitutes weakness. To deny the emotional turmoil caused by such an attack wouldn’t make a country seem stronger (or not weak) just heartless.
To your first point regarding the memorials–
the memorials are designed to help the survivors cope with the loss. If we remember everyone felt a bit of a loss that day, whether it was someone they knew or simply the depressing air that surrounded our communities. The memorials didn’t let them “get the best of us”, but they did preserve “best of us”, keeping the national morale up during dire times.
Is your second point talking about fighting in the war? If not, disregard what I’m writing next.
— I think that the choice to go to war wasn’t based upon how the Americans were perceived as a country so much as the desire for revenge. At that point in time, the president had one of the highest approval ratings ever and the people were all hurting and the decision to go into Afghanistan was unanimous. Whether we had “guts” or not didn’t really matter; we just wanted to spill guts for the bloodshed that took place on our homefront.
One last thing I’d like to add. I was looking through the 100 Photographs that Changed the World, and saw this in a caption under a photograph of three American soldiers dead on a beach in Papau New Guinea:
“Why print this picture, anyway, of three American boys dead upon an alien shore?” Among the reasons: “words are never enough . . . words do not exist to make us see, or know, or feel what it is like, what actually happens.”
Katie, I’m reffering to your comment after mine, (sorry it’s so late). I was thinking that as well. That the photo of the falling man is just a photo; a moment of time frozen. It’s no different from the ones in a family album. It’s a picture from a time that we should always remember, and keep it as a memorial of the day and of the victims. And that’s exactly what it is; a memorial.
But does the fact that the photo is of a man falling to his death change anything? What if it was a picture of the towers themselves falling? Does the actual photo matter, or does the instance in which it happened the only thing that does?
I think the fact that the picture is of a human being, about to die, is what changes it a little for me. Now that I see the picture, I think of the day and of the people, and do keep it in my mind as a memorial. But, when I look at it, I feel bad for seeing the man as a victim in a photo. Not as an individual.
I do believe now that we have all the right to see the picture and should keep it in our minds as a memorial. But, what about the man? He’s a part of the photo. Do we have the right to watch him die in the photo? Or should we mearly see it as just a picture.
Katie, sorry if I was misleading when reffering to the “jumpers” or victims (not that they can’t be both) as having a premeditated decision to die. What I meant was that it was most likely a choice and although it is clearly one that seemed logical at the time and they may have been forced to do it, killing yourself is still by definition, suicide. I am in no way denying that they are in fact victims, however when you state ” the only other choice was a nearly instant death on their other side” the key word that sticks out is choice. So by defintition, although a very cruel way to think about it, if one has a choice to have their life taken or take their own life, and they choose to take their own life, it is clasified as suicide.
I wasn’t saying that you denied them as victims, I just disagreed with calling it a choice (the use of “choice” in that sentence is more of a misuse). I tend to think that being blown out of a building is being blown out of a building.
Yes, i think of being blown out of a building as being blown out of a building as well, however I’m not talking about those blown out of a building, but rather those who chose to leap to death rather than to burn to death. I’m not calling them bad people or anything, but to say all of them were blown out of the building is false. It’s a given fact that many jumped to their demise rather than burned in the buildings. With that said I don’t understand what you mean by my misuse of “choice”. If someone has an option (although not a very good option) they have to make a choice, therefore those people did not choose the inevitable faith of dying but instead chose the way they would cease their existence.