Katrina Aftermath: And Then I Saw These

Sep 27, 2005

Update: 7.28.05 12:31 a.m. PST: Due to the keen interest in this series, all the photos have been reposted at a larger size, and numbered for easier reference. Also, Alan Chin welcomes all questions via the comment thread -- critical or otherwise.)

Until last night, I thought the news images we had seen from New Orleans during the worst days of Katrina were fundamentally unvarnished. And then I saw these.

Among his peers, Alan Chin is regarded as one of the finest photojournalists in the field -- and I say that not just because he is a friend of this site. What these photos do is bear witness to much of the information that was reinforced through the written word. At the height of the disaster, we saw scenes of suffering, but were primarily told how bitter, annihilating and incomprehensible it was. We saw death, but were told it was everywhere. Also, we saw scenes of dignity and of contempt -- but not quite as boldly as this.

Two of these images ran in the September 19th issue of Newsweek, and Alan has graciously made the series available to the BAG. Speaking to him last night, he felt it was vitally important that people understand how serious a failure of government had occurred in New Orleans. "I mean," he said, "the Indonesians had a tsunami, and they still handled it a hundred times better."

From the standpoint of this site, and my focus on visual politics and media, I asked Alan if he thought there had still been a "filter" on Katrina. I asked because these pictures seem that much more raw. Not surprisingly, his answer illuminated the difference it made that most of the news photos were in color. Chin explained:

"I shot it in black-and-white because we live in America, so no matter what happens, we always have visual elements that are very distracting. I was one of the only people who did this in black and white. I felt it should not be distracted by color, by the fact someone might have been wearing a hot pink t-shirt. I didn't want that irony in it. I wanted to get to the heart of the matter -- to the crucial thing."

If you were following the BAG last June, you might recall the intellectual equivalent of a brush fire that broke out here over a photo Alan took for the NYT. (The link is at the top of the "Double Takes" section to your left.) Chin had been included in a joint American - Iraqi raid in the town of Mahmudiya, and BnN readers had a lot of questions about the success of the operation, the coherence of the military strategy, the procedures and ethics of embedding journalists, and even the production value of the photo itself. But what made the discussion so worthwhile was that Alan suddenly popped up in it, burning up the keyboard from various Baghdad safe houses over several days, taking on all matter of civil (and even some less-than-civil) questions and comments.

Once again, Alan has kindly offered to make himself available to discuss his work. Therefore, as you comment, feel free to offer him any question you like regarding any and all the photos, what he saw, or how they were obtained. Alan emphasizes that he is not shy about criticism, so say what you will. Of course, I thank Alan for trusting his images to the BAG.

(For more on Alan Chin: Portfolio. Kosovo Diary. Contact: alanschin@yahoo.com)

(Gallery: Click for larger version) Link Here

Blinded By The Light?

Certainly, most of the Katrina images last week were unvarnished and pulled no punches. At the same time, however, I'm wondering how much of what we saw was still edited according to the taste of a mainstream viewing audience (MSVA?) that tends to alternate in disaster preference between sensationalism and denial.

To illustrate, I go back to where I began in focusing on the Katrina disaster: The New Orleans Superdome. Years from now, when the country looks back on "the events of August 28th; 29th; 30th, etc.," I wonder if they will recognize The Superdome (in combination with the Convention Center) as the "ground zero" or the emotional epicenter of the disaster. To what extent will this site still be recalled as a monument for the failure to stand up for the country's most weak and vulnerable? Alternatively, we might also ask how much and for how long the Superdome might even remain a significant part of the recollection. (If you look at the latest cover of The Economist, for example, notice how the Superdome and the Convention Center merge with the city in a gauzy background.)

In questioning whether the painful memory of the Superdome will be honored and preserved, I can't help wondering if the recording and preservation of the event was largely inhibited from the start.

Because I was focused on The Superdome from the beginning of the crisis, I scanned the media every day for visual evidence of the trauma, fear and squalor inside that stadium. (And Now We Are In Hell -- Link). Somehow, however, I just never came across images of the despair as so painfully described in the written accounts.

Finally, on Saturday morning -- coinciding with the near-total evacuation of the building -- I decided to go back through the YahooNews photos (using the search terms "Katrina" and "Superdome") to find the images I must have missed which would illustrate "life" inside that building over those past five days. Starting from Saturday and working backward, I went through all 200+ newswire photos until I arrived at Monday, August 29 -- which was the point at which people began filling up the stadium.

What I discovered was disturbing but not surprising.

All I found were more of these beautiful (some might even say almost spiritual or mystical) depictions of the sun's rays piercing the dome (with most evidence of decrepitude or suffering left to the margins, usually at "ant size" scale). Beyond these remote, long angle shots, I only came upon a single close up from inside the building after Tuesday. (The picture showed a fairly clean man posing while holding up a sign for help.)

So my question is, weren't any "non-romanticized" photos taken inside the Dome after the first day or so? And if so, why haven't we seen any? And if not, why not?

Certainly, there were quite a few news photographers inside the building throughout the week. Would these intrepid people argue that photos could only be taken from a symbolic Green Zone?

And what about amateur images? I understand most local residents arrived with next-to-nothing, but what about those tourists who still had their luggage? In light of the images that emerged during the London subway attacks, is it possible there weren't even any cell phone photos?

Or, is it that the media (serious or tabloid) didn't care to offer the cash to uncover such pictures?
Finally, I had a few observations about these poetic images themselves.
Considering the almost biblical nature of these pictures, I couldn't help wondering what happened to the major voices of the Christian right last week. Watching the wretched scenes from the outside of these fated buildings, I thought: If there ever was a moment (let alone, a whole week) where the terms "Pro-Life" or "Compassionate Conservatism" came into play, it was this one.

Regarding the mass media, I applaud the efforts of journalists, editors and correspondents (many working for heavily anesthetized Bush-era news organizations) who stuck their necks out further and opened their eyes wider than they have in a long time. However, intense trauma is always going to disturb a lethargy. Short of that, the inclination to convert inhumanity into art or spectacle is something one must fight every day.

As I look at these haunting photos, however, there's a place in the back of my mind that keeps thinking about Abu Ghraib. Marveling at these beautiful beams of light -- like the fingers of God -- I wonder how things would have differed if the Abu Ghraib photos had been taken on a brilliantly sunny day, next to windows, from at least fifty yards away.

LinkHere