Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Response to Previous Post

I definitely agree on your first point about the photographs – they help us to have a greater, more well rounded, perspective on what it was actually like to fight in this war. As you were saying about the picture of trench foot that went around the class last Monday, one can not realize the horrors of the war without viewing what it was like, and the only way to do that, 100 years later, is through photography.


Blogger Lisa Moxon said...

I wouldn't say that photography is the only way to realize the horrors of war. Literature, I think, gives a much more rounded view than we can get in a photo because it can appeal to more senses rather than just the visual aspect we get from photography. The visual aspect, though, I find very important for reasons expressed in my last post.

Other ways we might better understand the horrors of war could be through personal narratives, music (as we learned in last week's presentation), news articles, statistics, etc... The list is endless (now that's the historian in me speaking).

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Kirsty said...

I actually meant that the only way to see the horrors of the war is through photography. I agree that literature can present a more well rounded perspective than photogrphy, but as Dr. Ogden said at the beginning of the course, "it is impossible to overstate the horros of World War One." I had read about trench foot but until I saw the picture, I didn't realize how awful a disease it was. I just meant that it is hard for us to imagine how bad it really was without the aid of photography.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:19:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home