Visual Rhetoric Thesis Statement

http://pulitzerprize.org/photography/kevin-carter-1994/

This photograph won the Pulitzer Prize in 1994 for photographer Kevin Carter.  Three months after publishing the photograph, Carter committed suicide. The event not captured by the photography is that which is called to question.  There is a very fine line drawn between professionalism and morality.  At what point does an individual move away from simply doing their job and tap into an emotional pull in order to do the "right thing"?  Kevin Carter consciously made the decision to play on objectivity and leave the setting without so much as calling for assistance for the child shown.  Kevin Carter chose professionalism.  Kevin Carter committed suicide three months later, undoubtedly due to his inability to move past the regret and grief he felt in knowing that he allowed a child to die such a torturous death.  Kevin Carter ended his life with morality.  The two traits conflict mankind on a day to day basis, as exemplified by the last three or so months of Carter's life.  Ultimately, there is no "right" decision when choosing between a professional stance and a moral stance.  To each is his, or her, own choice.






Reasoning behind image choice:

The first time I viewed this photograph was sometime during my high school career.  My first reaction, and lasting impression, was how disturbed I quickly became.  The photograph itself is quite breathtaking, but what startled me most was the caption listed.  It reads, "Kevin Carter’s Pulitzer Prize winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudane famine. The picture depicts a famine stricken child being stalked by a vulture. The child is moving towards a United Nations food camp, located a kilometer away.  Three months later, and only weeks after being bestowed with the Pulitzer prize, Kevin Carter committed suicide."  Immediately, I was left to wonder if Carter made the correct decision.  After quite a bit of contemplation, I was left to conclude that there really can be no correct decision.  Had he helped the child, there is no guarantee that it would have survived that much longer.  There is no guarantee that the child had not already contracted some life-threatening disease that would have led to a much more detrimental death than that which was captured in the photograph.  Carter allowed nature to take its course. The child's fate played out as was intended had Carter not been present.  On the other hand, the photographer could (and I assume was) scorned forever with the decision to abandon the child.  He viewed the suffering first-hand and walked away.  He dismissed every bit of goodness he could have offered this creature.  But does that make him wrong in leaving?  Does that make him right?

The power of choice took a toll on Kevin Carter.  He chose to photograph the child.  He chose to leave it.  He chose to publish the image.  And eventually, he chose to take his own life.  But what in that series of events may be constituted as being "right" or being "wrong"?  In an act of professionalism, one's morals may be put into question.  Then again, in an act of strong ethical code, one's professional career may be at stake. It is my belief that "right" and "wrong" are left to that of the individual.  Granted, many individuals follow the guidelines put forth by mass culture.  But even still, how are those standards judged and confirmed?

Kevin Carter, just as all human beings, makes decisions daily.  He, just as the rest of the world, must learn to live with whatever consequences and repercussions may follow.  There is no one way to be certain of which decisions are right or good and which are wrong or bad.