On Wednesday 27th November 2013, an image appeared in The New York Times that caused wide scale debate in the US. However, on this side of the Atlantic there barely was a mummer. In fact, if I hadn’t been forwarded the piece it would have passed me by unnoticed.
The front page on 27th November featured an image of a female torso. The head is cut off – the frame cuts through her neck. She is placed at a slight angle with a garment covering part of her chest. On one side her shoulder is exposed and the garment covers part of her breast with the top most part of the areola exposed. Above this a scar, and above this, on the indentation of the shoulder, is a Star of David tattoo.
The story is about a push to screen for breast cancer in Israel. A World Health Organisation report has identified Israel as having one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the world. Jews from central and eastern European regions have a high risk of carrying genetic mutations for both breast and ovarian cancer.
The image gives us this message clearly:
Woman – shape of body
Jew – Star of David tattoo
Scar – medical procedure/injury
Breast – relating to this part of the body
Black – death
The image is stark. It strikes you, the viewer boldly. The tattoo, scar and partly exposed nipple vie for your attention. There is no face, no eye contact with the subject; she is anonymous. We are seeing an image that confronts us with the evidential scars of both the subject’s medical history and religion.
The image does have other connotations, it references on many levels, and it has struck a nerve in the USA. For the readership of the New York Times, it caused a reaction strong enough for many to voice an opinion and to warrant a follow up piece in the paper, explaining more about the image and a comment from the subject of the photograph.
Many of the later comments defend the image choice but even within the New York Times newsroom the image provoked discussion on its use.
So what is it, in this image; that has provoked the reaction.
For some the reaction could be around the tattoo, the use of religious iconography which some refer to in the comments as branding and a reminder of the atrocities of the Holocaust. For others it could be the hint of the breast that is seen, but the photograph hardly seems to be pornographic. Is it the scar itself, the cutting of tissue in the breast that causes the sensitivity.
Or is it caused by the lack of identity with the subject. We can’t see her; there is no facial recognition. Compare this to images of women that stand out as prolific photographs, three spring to mind straight away – Lange’s Migrant Mother, Nick Ut’s image of Kim Phuc from Vietnam and Steve McCurry’s Afghan Girl. All feature ‘ordinary’ women not celebrities, whose visual identities have become part of our history. They all gaze out of the frame whether it is directly or indirectly and we can picture their faces clearly in our minds.
Another image appeared on the front page of the New York Times five days earlier and gives us further insight into the reaction. This time the story is on the shooting of Michelle O’Connell.
Like the previous image, there is no face for us to identify her; the dismemberment is to save the viewers from the gore of her untimely death. The frame again cuts through the neck as her body lays twisted on the ground. There are guns by her side, providing a clue to how she died. At the top of the frame, a bag, purse and shoes, which along with the carpet provide the evidence of a domestic setting. To the right hand side a figure stands, the legs and shoes evident.
Again this image has drawn strong comment for its use on the front page. For some of the commentators the two images, within the same week have proved too much.
In an image saturated world, where death and destruction are commonplace it would seem that it is headless women that cause consternation.
This post originally appeared on the WeAreOCA blog.