photographers: observer or active participant?

Are photographers observant witnesses, or do they play an active role in the situation they're recording?

This New York Times article on the role of photographers during last month's Mumbai train station attacks stopped in me in my tracks for several reasons.

The first, because of personal curiosity, a particular photographer "...invoked the name of Ganesh, a Hindu deity, for protection when he had to use a flash." Ganesh is revered as god of the arts - at least he is in Thailand - it's interesting to note that this photographer appealed for protection from this god of all the other possible Hindu gods. I would like to have read more information about this particular choice; if it was because of Ganesh's direct connection to the arts (photography) or if there was another reason for it. If he needed protection, is he an observer or participant?

Another section that jumps out is the one beginning "Surprising in an era of camera phones and point-and-shoot pocket-size cameras, there are very few images from the attacks aside from those taken by Mr. D’souza and Mr. Prabhu."

This seems a tad 'western mindset' to me. What the writer is describing is "citizen journalism," something that has emerged over the past few years because easy access to digital recording devices, whether it be a cellphone with photo and video capability, or a Canon 5D. These things are easy to buy now - and cheaply (relatively) in America. However, it's not so much the issue of having these devices ready at hand but in my opinion the issue of, were people in Mumbai felt compelled to record such a tragic event as it was happening? When it comes down to it, is it a question of getting the shot, or of survival? It brings back the image of the Japanese photographer, lying in the streets of Burma, getting shot by police as he, ironically, got his shot of the massacre.

But really, it comes down to this - are photographers observant witnesses, or do they play an active role? I'd like to think that the last part is the truth, but the article quotes "Both photographers were tormented by the passivity of their jobs — recording the bloodshed without any power to stop it." This troubles me, since I can't even imagine what it would be like to be in their situation, to be witness to the deaths of 163 people without being able to stop any of it.

I've often struggled with the role of the photograph - it captures a moment, but does it compel any action? I don't know the answer, but this line helps me to think that there is importance to photography, "...millions of pixels of evidence that will remain part of the indelible record... Their photos, some of them unpublished, provide detail and precision that is lacking from other witness accounts. "

You can view some of Sebastian D'Souza's images from this terrible tragedy, along with other photographers accounts, here.