The Pulitzer Prize is an idea; it’s a vote of confidence. Like literature, it exists purely in the mind. —Jeffrey Eugenides
The annual Pulitzer Prizes were awarded yesterday and, as with every year for the past 30, I had just a momentary touch of jealousy. There was a very brief period in my life where I thought I wanted that particular recognition, or at least, the money that goes along with it. The cash would always come in handy, but I no longer truly desire that prize because what one has to photograph to win the damn thing doesn’t suit me particularly well.
If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at the Pulitzer winners in the photography categories for the past ten years. Stop me when you notice a pattern.
2007 Breaking News Photography: Oded Balilty of Associated Press For his powerful photograph of a lone Jewish woman defying Israeli security forces as they remove illegal settlers in the West Bank.
Feature Photography: Renée C. Byer of The Sacramento Bee For her intimate portrayal of a single mother and her young son as he loses his battle with cancer.
2008 Breaking News Photography: Adrees Latif of Reuters For his dramatic photograph of a Japanese videographer, sprawled on the pavement, fatally wounded during a street demonstration in Myanmar.
Feature Photography: Preston Gannaway of Concord (NH) Monitor For her intimate chronicle of a family coping with a parent’s terminal illness.
2009 Breaking News Photography: Patrick Farrell of The Miami Herald For his provocative, impeccably composed images of despair after Hurricane Ike and other lethal storms caused a humanitarian disaster in Haiti.
Feature Photography: Damon Winter of The New York Times For his memorable array of pictures deftly capturing multiple facets of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
2010 Breaking News Photography: Mary Chind of The Des Moines Register For her photograph of the heart-stopping moment when a rescuer dangling in a makeshift harness tries to save a woman trapped in the foaming water beneath a dam.
Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his intimate portrait of a teenager who joins the Army at the height of insurgent violence in Iraq, poignantly searching for meaning and manhood.
2011 Breaking News Photography: Carol Guzy, Nikki Kahn and Ricky Carioti of The Washington Post For their up-close portrait of grief and desperation after a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti.
Feature Photography: Barbara Davidson of Los Angeles Times For her intimate story of innocent victims trapped in the city’s crossfire of deadly gang violence.
2012 Breaking News Photography: Massoud Hossaini of Agence France-Presse For his heartbreaking image of a girl crying in fear after a suicide bomber’s attack at a crowded shrine in Kabul.
Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his compassionate chronicle of an honorably discharged veteran, home from Iraq and struggling with a severe case of post-traumatic stress, images that enable viewers to better grasp a national issue.
2013 Breaking News Photography: Rodrigo Abd, Manu Brabo, Narciso Contreras, Khalil Hamra and Muhammed Muheisen of Associated Press For their compelling coverage of the civil war in Syria, producing memorable images under extreme hazard.
Feature Photography: Javier Manzano of Agence France-Presse For his extraordinary picture, distributed by Agence France-Presse, of two Syrian rebel soldiers tensely guarding their position as beams of light stream through bullet holes in a nearby metal wall.
2014 Breaking News Photography: Tyler Hicks of The New York Times For his compelling pictures that showed skill and bravery in documenting the unfolding terrorist attack at Westgate mall in Kenya.
Feature Photography: Josh Haner of The New York Times For his moving essay on a Boston Marathon bomb blast victim who lost most of both legs and now is painfully rebuilding his life.
2015 Breaking News Photography: Photography Staff of St. Louis Post-Dispatch For powerful images of the despair and anger in Ferguson, MO, stunning photojournalism that served the community while informing the country.
Feature Photography: Daniel Berehulak of The New York Times For his gripping, courageous photographs of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.
2016 Breaking News Photography: Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev, Tyler Hicks and Daniel Etter of The New York TimesFor photographs that captured the resolve of refugees, the perils of their journeys and the struggle of host countries to take them in. Also receiving the prize is the Photography Staff of Thomson Reuters For gripping photographs, each with its own voice, that follow migrant refugees hundreds of miles across uncertain boundaries to unknown destinations.
Feature Photography: Jessica Rinaldi of The Boston Globe: For the raw and revealing photographic story of a boy who strives to find his footing after abuse by those he trusted.
There you have it: ten years worth of Pulitzer prizes for photography. Every one of those entries represents not only amazing photographs, but unbelievable amounts of pain, sacrifice, loss, and incredible risks, including their own lives. One doesn’t get the pictures awarded here without going where no sane person would want to go and taking pictures that, in a perfect world, would never need to be taken.
Therein lies the reason I don’t want a Pulitzer. If I’m winning a Pulitzer prize for photography, it is because someone else has suffered to such an extent that their suffering is visible through the photographs awarded. Of all the pictures on the list above, only the 2009 award for images of President Obama’s first presidential campaign didn’t come with someone facing death, disease, and/or destruction. Yes, we need to see those pictures, and they almost certainly need to be pushed to the front so that we have to visually confront the horrible reality that faces people other than ourselves. We need to know that while we’re complaining about a WiFi signal, Somali refugees are dying by the hundreds in cold ocean waters. We need to see the suffering caused by a pandemic such as Ebola. Without those pictures, we are not able to appreciate the horrible conditions and we are not as inclined to help rectify those problems.
I’ve known Pulitzer prize winners over the years, though, and those people don’t come out of long-term assignments like that without a few scars, both physical and mental. Not all of them are able to continue. Ghosts of their subjects, some of whom have died in the photographer’s arms, haunt them every time they raise a viewfinder to their eye. Nightmares of bombs going off or people in need tugging at their clothes prevent them from being able to sleep. Some winners refer to the prize as a curse for they can never shake those images and the heart-wrenching emotions that go with them.
Maybe my pictures of a little girl sitting on a stump and being silly are not earth-shatteringly important. Maybe my pictures don’t open people’s eyes to horrible conditions around the world. Maybe my pictures are sometimes simplistic portraits of people who hold no other significance than just wanting to have their picture taken. I’m okay with that.
There are photographers whose pictures are frightening, whose pictures bring your worry, and whose pictures maybe even induce some level of guilt. Those are the ones that win Pulitzers. But if my pictures make you smile, give you a reason to feel confident or good about yourself, or bring back a happy memory, then is that not its own prize? And most the time, I’m not at risk of contracting a deadly disease and dying six months later. I’m good with that.
However, should you feel the need to give me $10,000 for my effort, I won’t turn it down.
Time To Kill State Legislatures
The frame of mind in the local legislatures seems to be exerted to prevent the federal constitution from having any good effect. —Henry Knox
We must overhaul our state governments if we hope to preserve basic human rights and prevent stupidity from running amock
Our founding fathers could never have imagined what has happened to our state legislatures. When the United States was founded, the concept of state government was that decentralization of power would prevent a totalitarian regime, such as presented by the British monarchy under King George, from taking control. From their perspective, smaller, more local governments would be better able to respond to and appropriately address the needs of the people living within the region. The concept was one that made sense and largely worked for the first 80 or so years of our existence.
The situation surrounding the Civil War demonstrated the danger in allowing states to have too much control, however, and it became obvious at that point that some restrictions were necessary to address those issues where state legislatures might pass laws contrary to the federal constitution or in violation of other federal laws. While some laws were passed, though, the concept of states rights is so deeply embedded in our political culture that anything far-reaching that would have any real impact has always been struck down.
What our founding fathers could not have imagined is a set of conditions we currently face. We now have a population that is extremely mobile. It is quite rare for anyone born in the last 60 years to not travel more than 50 miles from their birthplace. Instead, we move all over the place, from one coast to the other, on a regular basis. Our travel, whether for business or pleasure, has us moving through, or over, multiple states at a time. We now have a society where laws passed in one state not only affects their own citizenry but can have a direct and immediate effect on those living outside the state.
Unfortunately, at the same time, we also find ourselves in a position where partisanship at the state level is stronger than it has ever been and the desire on the part of state legislators to further their own political ambitions overrides the needs of their constituents. Laws are more likely to be written by lobbyist and corporate marketing departments than any legislator or anyone actually accountable to the people of the state. The result is that state legislatures are producing a plethora of bad laws that are not only a disservice to the people in their state but in many cases they have a ripple effect for the entire nation.
Space and time prohibit me from being as exhaustive as I would like, but here are just a few of the more recent examples of state legislatures going where they have no business:
Mind you, this short list isn’t even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ridiculousness of state legislatures. They’ve done things such as prohibit even considering or researching things such as alternative power sources, mass transit options such as high-speed rail, and limitations on the dumping of chemicals into state waterways. State legislatures have literally taken food out of the mouths fo their poorest citizens with restrictions on accessibility to federal assistance programs such as food stamps. Even with the passage of federal health care laws, state legislatures have found ways to limit services and coverage for the poorest of their citizens. In all 50 states, the list of misdeeds and offensive legislation is long and sickening.
And while state governors and legislatures are quick to scream all about states rights, they certainly don’t mind exercising authoritative control over city governments. Laws passed in the past two years at state levels have prohibited cities within those states from raising or setting a minimum wage, expanding voter accessibility for city elections, protecting citizens from various forms of discrimination, and opting out of ill-conceived statewide testing for students.
We have no reason to continue supporting such a dysfunctional form of government. The condition of state legislatures across the country in no way resembles what our founding fathers intended. We need to completely overhaul the system from the very ground up and completely eliminate the opportunity for the level of legislative stupidity that has become commonplace at every state house across the union.
How might we do this, you ask? After all, it is a fool who complains without offering a solution. You should know me better than that. Here’s what I’m thinking works:
Obviously, there are details underlying those statements that need a great deal more thought and attention than I have space here to give them. Consider this a starting point in the conversation. We cannot continue to tolerate the current idiocy of state legislatures and their current construct defies any significant change regardless of who might be elected to those positions.
We no longer live in a country where people are isolated to a specific geographic region. When one state fucks up it affects us all. The time has come for a more comprehensive and nationally cohesive approach to lawmaking. Kill state legislatures. Reform the system. Move forward.
Share this:
Like this: