What about all the photographs nominated for the Pulitzer price that were actually taken? .
The concept of what is right always implants itself based on the altering social values. It is not the problem whether one knows what is appropriate, rather, it is how one chooses to act. Everybody owes respect for the society, yet the threshold is usually confused. Aren't the Pultzer winners usually gain their prizes through a suffering face or a figure in agony Is it not a way of having a privilige over another's misery? Can taking a photo of a little girl ,whose mother has been just died because of a fatal disease, crying beside her mother's corpse be legitimized by a reason of reflecting the moment?Is the little girl willing the whole world to witness this moment of agony or does she really want that moment to be endless by photography. What will she feel if ever has the chance to see that photo again when she's grown up? On the other hand, textual things are insufficent to inform world about the atmosphere of places in war and miserable conditions. Maybe this is the photographer's dilemma.
Besides,seeking abstraction showed itself in photography as it did at other braches of art. Nowadays, besides shooting the moment, stabilizing a dramatic incident, some photographers avoid being self-explanatory. However, most of the pictures that are appreciated, still have some sentiment at their bases apart from the visual material. This unfortunately results the drama to be an influential tool. Thus, it seems vulgar to be shooting pictures of suffering, pain and sorrow, etc. .
Violence, pain and that other themes of wickedness are broadly used in different parts of art. Since, no other art is as reflective as photography, they are not reacted against. This flaw is the strength of photography. Dramaticism, therefore, is not a tool, but a way to reality. It is not the photographers" fault if people need to stay arrogant.