Citizen Journalism - Agoravox
The site is www.agoravox.it, where everybody can enroll, submit an article and/or a photograph.
I chose an article by Francesco Cecchini ( www.agoravox.it/Riabilitazione-fucilati-della.html accessed on 16/2/2017), about the political debate if rehabilitate or just forgive the 1100 Italian privates who where executed (some without regular trial) during the First World War.
They say (but there are divergent opinions about) that they were mostly executed in order to give an example to Italian privates of what could happen if a private was acting against the security of his group. They say that this was an official order by General Cadorna, who was considered a though and hard soldier: an hero, according to general opinion and public history.
They say (but there are divergent opinions about) that they were mostly executed in order to give an example to Italian privates of what could happen if a private was acting against the security of his group. They say that this was an official order by General Cadorna, who was considered a though and hard soldier: an hero, according to general opinion and public history.
I analyzed then two pictures, claimed to be found in the almost chaotic documentation of those years (1915 - 1918):
 |
| The big massacre of 15/18 |
I keep in mind that, in this period, armed forces were abusing of their power.
In this first picture I notice that the photographer took a definite point of shooting. From that position the viewer cannot see any face: the big number of (soldiers?) in front of the two sentenced privates suggests that the few were condemned by the many, if not all, sending the message that the sentence was "just". But the execution place is not a public square, it is a muddy field, suggesting that the two were executed just after the facts, after a hasty trial or without a trial at all.
Nevertheless this was the war-law, at that time.
It is quite probable that the photographer was pushed to take a shot before the execution, otherwise he should have been in the line of fire.
I find the picture real but not objective, because of what I wrote before and because the general perception is that the photographer (or who commissioned the photo) was clearly trying to transmit a message of "justice". A propaganda shot.
Nevertheless this was the war-law, at that time.
It is quite probable that the photographer was pushed to take a shot before the execution, otherwise he should have been in the line of fire.
I find the picture real but not objective, because of what I wrote before and because the general perception is that the photographer (or who commissioned the photo) was clearly trying to transmit a message of "justice". A propaganda shot.
I believe that no picture can be objective, to the extent that the photographer, in front of an event, takes a position for or against, and cannot be neutral. His/her position is projected on the composition, the content, the way of shooting.
For opposite reasons, this is the same case for the following picture:
 |
| The big massacre of 15/18 |
First of all I do not believe that this picture is real.
The quality of light, focus, faultless composition, content, ambient, location, make me think that this "scene" was fabricated and then shot.
However the intent is clear: to send a message of injustice and extreme abuse of power. In this picture there are all the themes against this abuse. There is the wounded one (how can it be that a wounded private is a coward or a threat to security?); the priest (the three guilty are sons of God, like all the other innocent); the blinded, desperate one (maybe he is pleading for mercy, for his family, and children); the proud one (how can it be that a private, so proud in front of death, is at the same time a coward?).
The quality of light, focus, faultless composition, content, ambient, location, make me think that this "scene" was fabricated and then shot.
However the intent is clear: to send a message of injustice and extreme abuse of power. In this picture there are all the themes against this abuse. There is the wounded one (how can it be that a wounded private is a coward or a threat to security?); the priest (the three guilty are sons of God, like all the other innocent); the blinded, desperate one (maybe he is pleading for mercy, for his family, and children); the proud one (how can it be that a private, so proud in front of death, is at the same time a coward?).
