Susan Sontag analyzes how photography has changed over time from an art form to a mass social activity. She discusses photography's role in documenting reality but also in non-intervention. The document examines Sontag's ideas through analysis of the photo "The Agony of Omayra Sánchez," which shows a dying girl trapped in mud. While the photo documented a tragedy, it also illustrates Sontag's point about photographers prioritizing images over helping subjects. The photo had a large impact due to raising awareness about the disaster and lack of aid, showing how context influences a photo's effect.

1. DILA TOPLUSOY
 Analysis of Susan Sontag’s Writing onPhotography and a Critical
Interpretationof a Photograph
“Photographs alter and enlarge our notions of whatis worth looking at
and whatwe have a right to observe. They are a grammar and, even
more importantly, an ethics of seeing.” (Sontag, 1977, p.3) Susan Sontag,
an American human rights activist, journalistand novelist, (Biography,
2015) focuses mainly on the outstanding changes that have occurred in
the perception and roles of the medium of photography throughoutits
history and explains its diverseeffects on people in the modern world, in
her writing ‘In Plato’s Cave’ taken from her well-known book “On
Photography”(1977). Thefollowing paper is going to analyzethe
essential opinions and arguments in the writing and examine a particular
photograph, "TheAgony of Omayra Sánchez" taken by photojournalist
Frank Fournier, through Sontag’s ideas and perspective.
Sontag states that photographs serveas indisputableevidence – if there
is a photograph of something, then there is not a doubtthat it
happened. This feature of photographs can be used in either accusing or
defending something or someonethat is the subjectof the specific
photograph. Furthermore, sheexplains how photography changed in
time and says thatphotography started to be perceived as an art by its
industrialization , which created social uses of photography, for the
photographer. However in the next paragraph, sheindicates that the
majority of people do not practice photography as an art in the modern
world, since it is now a “mass art form”, extensively engaged in, like sex
and dancing. According to Sontag, that it is now perceived mainly as “a

2. DILA TOPLUSOY
social rite”, “a defense againstanxiety” and “a tool of power.” (Sontag,
1977, p.8)
Her firstdefinition is associated with the connection she makes between
cameras and family life. She says that families regard photography as “a
rite of family life”, (Sontag, 1977, p.8) proof of the connectivity of family
members with each other, even though it vanishes in time. The second
definition shegives is related to the close relationship of photography
and tourism. She explains how taking photographs havebecome a main
activity while travelling, to a point wherepeople can’t stop using their
camera when they see something significant for them. Sontag gives the
example of Japaneseand American people, who can be seen as
workaholics, to illustrate how photography serves as a defenseagainst
anxiety. The absence of work during holiday makes the work-driven
people nervous, thus taking photographs fills the gap for them. The third
definition Sontag uses for photography is connected to the fact that
cameras are ubiquitous in the modern world, which implies that there
are things worth photographing everywhere. This supports theidea that
an event should performitself until the end, no matter whatkind of
ethical character it has. This way, it can be photographed and continue
to exist in the image. Sontag criticizes this by saying “While real people
are out there killing themselves or other people, the photographer stays
behind his or her camera.” (Sontag, 1977, p.11) Shecontinues her
argument by stating that photography is basically a performanceof non-
intervention. She says thatnowadays, when a photographer encounters
a situation which requires him to either take a photograph or at least try
to save a life, he chooses the firstoption and this has become

3. DILA TOPLUSOY
conceivable in our world. “The person who intervenes cannot record,
the person who is recording cannot intervene.” (Sontag, 1977, p.12) She
gives examples from the images of modern photojournalism such as the
“Burning Monk.”
The photograph that will be examined in the paper, “The Agony of
Omayra Sánchez”, is also a well-known example of contemporary
photojournalism, by which the photographer Frank Fournier havewon a
“Word Press Photo Premier Award” in 1986. Thephotograph shows a
13-year-old Colombian girl, Omayra Sánchez, struggling for life as sheis
trapped in mud and wreckage, becauseof a volcano’s eruption in
Colombia. (The Obvious, 2003)In thephotograph, the girl stares at the
camera, her eyes turned black, hanging on to a piece of wood with her
hands. The photograph illustrates Sontag’s arguments about non-
intervention, as the photographer chose to take a photograph of a dying
girl’s last moments in life. Frank Fournier received negative comments
frommany people because of his choice of capturing that moment,
portraying one of the most intimate and privatemoments of a person
overtly. He defended himself by saying “People wereasking: "Why didn't
you help her? Why didn't you get her out?" But it was impossible.” (BBC
News, 2005)
Furthermore, Susan Sontag argues that even though a camera is mainly
used to observe, taking a photograph is morethan watching passively, it
is still a way of participating. Itis supporting the event that is happening
to continue, the situation to stay as it is, until the photographer can take
a picture that he likes – even though the situation involves a person’s

4. DILA TOPLUSOY
misery. This argument is compatible with the photograph under
discussion, as the photojournalistcaptured a moment that was beyond
of involving another person’s pain, in fact it was constituted of it. By
talking about the “good” picture that a photographer wants to take,
Sontag claims that photographers arealways obsessed with the issues of
conscience and taste, even when they are mostworried about
illustrating reality. She gives the example of the Farm Security
Administration photography project, how the photographers took a lot
of pictures of the subjects until they thoughtthat the expressions on
their face promoted their own perceptions of different concepts such as
poverty and dignity.
Moreover, Sontag compares cameras with guns and cars, saying that
cameras are machines of fantasy like them, which can become an
addiction for the person using them. She argues that even though
cameras do not kill, taking a photograph of something has a predatory
side to it. “To photograph people is to violate them… Itturns people into
objects that can be symbolically possessed.” (Sontag, 1977, p.14)
Omayra Sánchez was photographed whileshe was on her deathbed; her
suffering was exposed to the entire world. The photograph, which is
known worldwide, becamea symbolof the event, and thus the subject
of it did as well.
Sontag indicates that photographs strongly stimulatenostalgia. For
instance, an unpleasant or strangesubject can be touching, since it has
captured the photographer’s attention, and got dignified by him. On the
other hand, an appealing subjectmay generate regretful feelings due to

5. DILA TOPLUSOY
the fact that it has aged, deteriorated or disappeared. The subjectof the
mentioned photograph fits with both examples. She is mainly in the
position of an unpleasant subjectin the photograph, sheis trapped in
debris and mud, and her eyes are turned almost completely black,
reflecting pain. However sheis also beautiful, not necessarily in terms of
appearancebut due to the fact that she is a 13-year-old little, innocent
human being that is a victim of a catastrophe.
Furthermore, Sontag says thatthe photographs thatawaken conscience
are always related to a specific historical situation. She indicates that
even if a photograph portrays a known and undoubted suffering, it can
only havean effect on public opinion if there is a convenient context of
opinion and feeling, more precisely, a convenient political perception.
"The Agony of Omayra Sánchez" had a huge effect when it was
published and the Colombian governmentwas criticized globally, due to
their insufficiency in preventing the tragedy and mishandling of the
rescueoperation (The New York Times, 2015) , which shows thatthere
was an appropriatepolitical consciousness for this to happen at the
time.
The moral impact of a photograph of exploited, undernourished or
assassinated peopleis also determined by the extent of familiarity the
public has with these kinds of images. When one encounters the images
of a suffering for the first time, they have the power to shock him and
affect him deeply. However, after seeing these kinds of images over and
over again, they start to lose their power and realism. One of the main
reasons that the particular photograph had such a massiveeffect on

6. DILA TOPLUSOY
people was due to the fact that it was one of the firstphotographic
examples of suffering and death of a person, portrayed so explicitly, in
history. (TheObvious, 2003) Susan Sontag argues thatnowadays, the
huge amount of photographs thatshow agony of people made the
atrocity morecommon, unremarkable, and even unavoidable. According
to her, the “concerned” photography has diminished the conscience of
people, as much as it awakened it.
Sontag indicates that photographs can be more unforgettable than
shifting images as they are preciseportions of time. She compares
television with photography, gives the example of “The Napalm Girl”
photograph to argue that it had a much more big impact on reinforcing
the public reaction, than television did. In 1985, television cameras also
recorded the suffering of Omayra Sánchez, however thephotograph
became very famous and symbolized the tragedy, instead of the videos.
Susan Sontag points out that most of the photographs losetheir
sentimental chargein time, except the photographs of misery that are
considered as “ethical reference points”, such as "The Agony of Omayra
Sánchez". Sontag explains how photography, after its industrialization,
got involved quickly to the bureaucratic forms of controlling the public.
For example, mostof the essential documents are considered as invalid
if they do not include a photograph of the specific person.
Moreover, Sontag says that each photograph has diversified meanings.
“Photographs areinexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation and
fantasy.” (Sontag, 1977, p.23) For example, mostof the people thought

7. DILA TOPLUSOY
that Frank Fournier was a vulture and taking a photograph of a dying girl
was unethical, however Fournier indicated that it was his duty to report
it and he interpreted the image as powerful. (BBC News, 2005)
Susan Sontag states that accepting the world as the photographs show
us is the contrary of understanding, which begins from not
acknowledging the world as it appears to be. She continues by saying
that even though the photographic knowledgecan incite moralsense, it
can never be political or ethical knowledge. The knowledgethat is
obtained fromphotographs will always havean emotional side to it; it
will always be an appearance of knowledge. "TheAgony of Omayra
Sánchez" undoubtedly aroused consciencein people, however the
knowledgethat people gained through that photograph regarding the
event was mixed with strong emotions - mostly anger, sorrow or shock.
Sontag, in the conclusion of her writing, draws attention to the fact that
nowadays peopleare addicted to taking photographs in order to prove
their experiences. This means that, eventually experiencing something
becomes equal with capturing it, and engaging in an event starts to
become identical with seeing it in a photograph. “Today everything
exists to end in a photograph.” (Sontag, 1977,p.24)
In conclusion, Susan Sontag’s ideas, her main arguments and the issues
she puts an emphasis on, regarding the medium of photography were
closely examined in the paper, and the specific photograph “The Agony
of Omayra Sánchez” by Frank Fournier was analyzed in relation to
Sontag’s arguments. "TheAgony of Omayra Sánchez" exemplified

8. DILA TOPLUSOY
Sontag’s theories remarkably, as Sontag put a great emphasis on
photojournalism, its examples, and its effects on people throughouther
writing and this photograph is one of the most recognized and debated
examples of the field.
Bibliography
BBC News (2005) BBC News| Picture power: Tragedy of Omayra
Sanchez. Availableat: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4231020.stm
(Accessed: 28 May 2015)
Biography (2015) Susan Sontag –Biography. Availableat:
http://www.biography.com/people/susan-sontag-9488814 (Accessed:
27 May 2015)
The Obvious (2003) Photographsthatshock the world: Omayra Sanchez.
Available at:
http://obviousmag.org/en/archives/2008/08/photographs_that_shook_
the_world_omayra_sanchez.html (Accessed: 28 May 2015)
The New York Times (2015) Colombia’sRescue Operation DrawsDivided
Assessments. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/24/world/colombia-s-rescue-
operation-draws-divided-assessments.html(Accessed: 28 May 2015)

9. DILA TOPLUSOY
World Press Photo (no date) 1986 | World Press Photo. Availableat:
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/context/photo/1986
(Accessed: 28 May 2015)
Sontag, S. (1977) On Photography. New York: Farrar, Strausand Giroux.