Road killed
Sorry If this shot may offend or disturb some of you.But road killed animals problem is growing faster and should be considered seriously.
35 responses
-
judy fouse said (29 Dec 2007):
There is no redeeming factor for this photo. You should be ashamed. Did you kill the kitty?
-
James Wei said (29 Dec 2007):
Errrrr!!! This is a photo that is really having an impact on me.
Alive? -
Gary Fudge said (29 Dec 2007):
I agree with Judy.
You're message is important, but this is not the way to air it!! -
Richie Booth said (3 Jan 2008):
Disturbing but bold none the less. Truly makes you stand out as a photo journalist. Good work.
-
Johanna Billings said (21 Feb 2008):
It is not a pretty picture. Disturbing actually. As a cat lover, I really want to turn away. I can't look at it without feeling uncomfortable and sad. But that's what I believe makes this a compelling photo. Not all art is intended to be pretty or make you feel good. This photo makes a statement and has an emotional impact. So while I don't "like" it, I commend your work (and the statement you made in the caption).
-
Travis Middleton said (21 Feb 2008):
strong photo. but u have to realize that it comes down to cat or carwreck. sometimes u dont c the animal or it runs out in front of you. theres nothin you can do. For instance me and my bro were headin home from skool one day and a hawk flew out in front of us. that hawk is now dead. not our fault. we werent plannin on it to happen. it just does. Still a strong photo :) jus stating my view on it
-
Sana Ibrahim said (21 Feb 2008):
Disturbing but bold. You've captured reality.
-
Steven Fylpaa gave props (21 Feb 2008):
perfect for the theme, enough said.
-
Arndt said (21 Feb 2008):
Probably would have been a stronger photo if you captured along with it the automobile. Either the one that hit the cat or otherwise. Because, as an aspiring photo journalist, without that part of the story this photo quite simply is that of a dead animal.
-
Katy Powell said (21 Feb 2008):
Yes the photo is disturbing but this is the kind of stuff people need to see. This is a picture that can help people wake up. If people tried to help animals instead of hinder, such as dont get a pet if you cant take care of it and spay and neuter your pets. Stuff like this wouldnt happen if we just took a moment to care. Thank you for posting this and I hope it can cure someones apathy.
-
Coupdelumiere said (21 Feb 2008):
Judy fouse and gary fudge..How dare you call yourselves documentarians or photographers. If you dare call yourselves artists, heaven heal your souls...Photography is not about the agreement upon a moral stance. If art was about staying within guidelines, it would cease to be art! It would become predictable and boring. I mean really....Get over yourselves!! This is worthy of capture simply because it does evoke the emotion of repulsion! Art is supposed to hit those chords...Or is it all supposed to be about pretty little things that make us feel good?! Are you built so incomplete that pleasure is your only emotion?! After reading this, i bet it isnt!
-
Peter Koziol said (21 Feb 2008):
Wow. This picture is incredibly hard to look at, but it must have been even harder to take. As far as the people who think you should be ashamed of this photo, well they have the immature and childish mindset that art is nothing more than a pretty picture. Thank you for creating such a powerful photograph.
-
Joel Aron said (22 Feb 2008):
art, yeah. documentary photojournalism, maybe. belongs in print on the pages of a world wide publication, not a chance.
This is the classic holy war between art and photography. This image puts everyone at the fence. Do you talk about it? Do you remove it? You pretty much can't do anything, but let it be there. It's freedom, but I honestly have to say that it does not have a place here.
So stop the arguing on this images comment thread, and think for solid minute.. can you honestly see this image printed on the pages of JPG magazine? Post this image on 'flickr'. That's your target audience for this kind of discussion. Publication of a dead cat hit by a car, in a theme based on 'human impact' on our environment.. is a far reach. I don't even think Aperture would even touch this topic, and that's all about the art of journalism. -
Coupdelumiere said (22 Feb 2008):
Responding to Joel Aron:
I never argued that this photo is the best representation of 'art' or that its even worthy of publication in this magazine or any other for that matter. It does, however, deserve the right not to be gated. it deserves the right for a moral judgement of the author, due to the photographs subject matter, not to be a contingent in its ability to compete . If any who view it believe that it doesn't belong here, let them not vote for its publication. As simple as that! But to say that the author should be ashamed for capturing the image is a direct affront to the freedoms that are constitutional in the existence of all artworks. -
kellen Henry said (22 Feb 2008):
All these long comments...and emotions. that is what a great picture is about...not, if or if not it should be art. but, the common reaction of thought...and reflection...A frozen moment that never says the same thing twice....just for the simple fact so many people dont like it....that is art....what everyone likes is commercial. Great work
-
Sandi Szauter said (25 Feb 2008):
thanks a lot - now I have to explain to my two year old (who was admiring the photos on the comp) why the kitty is "bleeding".
Death is not art. Thanks for shoving it down my kid's throat -
Yassine Hakimi said (25 Feb 2008):
It's just a close view on reality .It's entended to evoke emotions to make you aware of atrocities which happen everyday still they are neglected .
So I would not classify it , neither as art nor as photojournalism... It's just a reminder of what's happening. And whether you like it or not doesn't matter ,It's the impact of it that does.
(To Sandi Szauter: I don't think JPG site is appropriate for 2 years old children.So don't blame it on me or on the shot).
-
Joel Aron said (25 Feb 2008):
To Coupdelumiere's comment:
Woah there. Where did I mention 'the author should be ashamed for capturing the image' ? To make myself clear, I feel, as well as possibly a few others here, that this image may not be the art that some are expecting to see here. I'm sure that if JPG were to print this image, they would have to have a very long talk with their legal representatives to make sure that they will not be lambasted by cat owners, and offended photographers around the globe. Being a professional in this industry, I know first hand that art and freedom to express it go very far, but there is a limit when you know that your final product is going to sit on a shelf where a child may start flipping though it. I may be wrong, JPG just may print this image, and if they do, they would of made sure that they have a legal gauntlet thick enough to keep pulse of their business alive, and the financial contributors like Sony, Apple, etc, connected to their funding.
To Yassine's comment to a mother of a 2 year old. It's ok to apologize that you upset her child.
So... all this being said, Yeah. Great work. The reality is pure. Your point is still very unclear. An image should not need words to explain it's content.
-
Coupdelumiere said (25 Feb 2008):
JOEL ARON:
It wasnt you who said that the author should be ashamed. it was judy fouse (see first comment on page). that is who that particular point was addressed to. furthermore Yassine, it is NOT your responsibility to apologize for ANYTHING or to ANYONE..including a two year old. Legalities are for COMMERCIAL photography or COMMERCIAL art forms. TRUE ART IS FREE. It doesnt care who it offends!!! Simply put! -
Stephanie Marie Hatch said (26 Feb 2008):
So sad! It breaks my heart whenever I see an animal killed on the road, but life isn't a happy fairy world (like some JPGers seem to think.)
I CAN imagine this printed in JPG. Animals are killed all the time due to human carelessness, and it's horrible! While driving accidents do happen, so many of these animal deaths are due to recklessness. This photo makes people really think about the tragedy of animal deaths, and hopefully will inspire some safer driving. Animals have no defense against our industrial advances, and we are the only ones to blame in road kill instances.
There is no reason for you to help people hide in their shame or denial by removing this photo. If they don't like it, they can easily push the "Nah" button and move on to the next photo. It's not so obscene that it should not be allowed on JPG.
However, your description is a bit redundant (and has some grammatical errors); some editing could make your message more concise and direct.
-
Lizzie Morrison said (26 Feb 2008):
pretty amazing shot.
-
Tracey Tracey said (28 Feb 2008):
:-(
-
Paxton Banker gave props (28 Feb 2008):
i hate seeing a dead cat, but road killings area serius problem, you're right about that..it has to stop!
-
James Wedge said (29 Feb 2008):
I feel that this is not the right photo to show, this may well have been a loved pet. I understand peoples comments on this page but still I don't think this is quite right. Sorry
-
Eric Raines said (1 Mar 2008):
I think it is powerful and well done. Photography is not always flowers and kids with lollipops. Art is anything you say it is. You obviously have talent, you got my vote. Good job.
-
Serge Neri said (2 Mar 2008):
1st of all. Thank you for having enough courage to post this, and take crap from people. Out of all the comments on here the one that bothers me the most is Sandi Szauter. Goodness forbid you have to do some actual parenting and put things into context for your child. GOD forbid you have to help your kid make sense of this world of hard realities.
I'm glad people have such a strong reaction to this picture. Maybe they will get educated about why roadkill occurs. IF they are so outraged by this. Maybe they will take time not just to bitch about you showing them the realities they ignore, but do something about JUST 1 of the thousands of reasons roadkill occurs.
A car would have helped your story. but this picture is truly HUMAN IMPACT. you got yourself a vote. -
Gabriel Hernandez said (3 Mar 2008):
This is an excellent photo. No, it isn't pretty or beatiful, but it is real and that's why I like it so much. I wish one of my photos had so much controversy as this one. I understand why people may not like this picture but I just want them to remember this page slogan: "BRAVE new photography," and I think this photo is pretty brave. Congratulation!
-
Gabriel Hernandez gave props (3 Mar 2008):
I forgot to say: you got my vote!!!!
-
Gabriel Hernandez added a link (3 Mar 2008):
-
Megan Brimm said (4 Mar 2008):
Disturbing. Truely. Bold photo and a strong message. Way to be daring.
-
Beth Ingle said (5 Mar 2008):
I agree, this is a disturbing capture but it is real. When a photo evokes this much emotion from people it is art. You got my vote. ** There are many photos on this site that are not appropriate for children Sandi, maybe you should think twice at letting your child look at photos on this site and have him look at a picturebook of cute bunnies instead
-
Peter Finnie said (6 Mar 2008):
I think the above comments have shown this photo to be a meaningful one. Art that is widely agreed upon becomes boring quickly... I wouldn't hang it on my wall, but it has served it's purpose - to photo-document an event... albeit a sad and disturbing one.
-
D. Azzabi said (10 Mar 2008):
It definitely is a disturbing photo...
Beyond the road accidents...The cruelty depicted in this picture might express the cruelty of the human impact on nature: Destruction! -
Jeannie Nguyen gave props (27 Mar 2008):
Whoa you're brave to take/post this pic! Props to you!
-
Emma Johansson gave props (29 Dec 2008):
Well, there isn't that much blood, but it is still very powerful. you're very brave!
Also by Yassine Hakimi
