• “ They show a suffering that is outrageous, unjust, and should be repaired. They confirm that this is the sort of thing which happens in that place”(chapter 4, pg 71). → This quote was speaking to the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 between Hutu and Tutsi people. What makes this quote even more striking is the knowledge that the UN leaders and major national leaders were in line with this reasoning of that kind of thing happens there. Only later did the majority of the public become aware of the atrocities and most probably felt a sense of “thank god I don’t live there”. I think that response is used heavily to act grateful for a certain area they might live in and a way to push the suffering of the other group out and chalk it up to a dangerous “uncivilized” area. How do we get people who live in “developed” countries to understand that they could very easily be in these situations? It was pure luck that they were born in a certain area; they had nothing to do with it. Is there a way to expand personal ties to places where suffering, war, and horrific events occur?
  • “ Transforming is what art does, but photography that bears witness to the calamitous and reprehensible is much criticized if it seems “aesthetic”; that is, too much like art” (chapter 5, pg 76)→ Brings in the discussions we’ve had about the separation of art and reality, what makes art good, bad, able to be understood, etc. This quote implies that photography has different realms of use; one could certainly be art, but context and the subject need to be considered. Is photography art if it captures the changing color of leaves in autumn or the sea of people walking to work in New York? Is photography not art when the subject is war, pain, or suffering? However, a painting depicting war is art, is it because the work was done in reflection to an event and not in the present as the event was taking place?