The reason why I found this piece quite moving was because of the hidden meaning behind it. I believe it is hard to make conclusions when one doesn’t know the full context to a situation. In the picture of the piece I chose, it looks like a woman is taking a stroll along the river. However, when one understands the full context they’d realize that she is actually being used as a pawn by the Germans to check for mines. Photography of war crimes was not seen as a bad thing during World War Two, but more as a type of propaganda.
13 comments:
I love artifacts like this, it may not drawn in a crowd like the tanks outside, or the ballroom exhibit. It does however give you the chance to knock the socks of your guests mid-tour and that's what gets people to tell stories which really helps your profile.
Kyle, I definitely agree.
It is interesting to see the angle at which the picture was taken. You cannot see very far around the woman which like you said Emily is why it looks like she is just walking in the water. That poor woman must have been just terrified,
I also agree. This picture clearly shows that the photographer (A Nazi) accepted the crimes against the Jews. They were able to justify the crimes by convincing themselves that the lives of the soldiers were worth more than the lives of their prisoners. This is an interesting perspective and it really opened my eyes to another perspective to World War II.
I'm interested in how the photo was taken? My assumption is that it is from a bridge, and that actually leads me to a very important question. Was she walking through the water for mines the Germans knew were there, or was she walking through the river to discover mines? It's likely that most of the forces would have taken the bridge the solider is standing on.
I was also really interested in this picture. I like what you said Emily about how important context is. What struck me as odd about this photo though is the fact that it is taken from a higher angle say a bridge. This makes me wonder if the women was force to do this out of necessity by the perpetrators or for something worse.
Keir makes a great point regarding the water as the calm of her surroundings is what makes it so fascinating, giving the image the ability to place you in her shoes/her position making it nearly palpable.
I agree. The image almost seems as if two opposites are being compared since the image without context could appear to be a woman walking through peaceful water however with the context we know that the woman is in danger for her life as she is being used as a test subject to search for bombs in the water. If you had to name a caption for this photo, what would it be?
Vince, I remember our guide saying something about how sometimes the Nazis knew where the mines were, they just made civilians walk across them more or less for fun. I find that quite sickening. I also agree with Keir, when I imagine walking through calm water, I think of being relaxed and stress free. I can't imagine what she would have been going through. I'm assuming it was also a way to mentally hurt the people as well. I'm sure that if she had survived that walk, walking through the water would not be the same for the rest of her life. They had turned a task that people would do for recreation and enjoyment into something that they would fear for the rest of their life. Brooklyn, if I had a capture for this photo it would probably be 'No More Peace and Quiet'. That would allow the viewer to really think about the origin of the photo before making assumptions.
I think you missed the point of my question. Our guide stated that they would send civilians into places with mines as a form of punishment (or entertainment), but they also would send them through areas that they did not know mines were present but thought that there may be. My question was do you think they sent her through the water knowing there were mines (even though they obviously controlled what appears to be a bridge right beside), or did they send her to confirm that there were no mines around the bridge. Thoughts?
I feel like they sent her through the water knowing where the mines were. As you stated, they must have controlled the bridge right beside thus they probably scoped out the place already. I think they sent her just to mentally hurt her if she did not end up physically hurt.
Emily, I'm glad you made the comment that I was just about to make myself: how the Nazi's made people walk through rivers and the like, even though they themselves perhaps knew whether there were or were not mines in the area, but got the people to do it anyways. How do you feel about this, and the fact that they chose to use humans in order to execute this search, instead of using other means if it were possible?
Post a Comment