September 15, 2006

Dueling bloggos...electronic salvoes. This week, various online columnists have been examining the myriad layers of meaning in (or potential misinterpretations of) a photograph that was taken on 9/11 by Thomas Hoepker and then not published in the U.S. until it appeared in my book, more than four years after the attacks. (See photo in September 10 entry, below.) Today, the most blogged-about entries in this debate: a thoughtful piece by Hoepker (for Slate); an item on Hoepker's piece (on Gawker); and a follow-up column by the sage who got everyone squawking in the first place, Frank Rich of the Times.

Here is a link to Rich's Web-only piece, posted late today. (Alas, I'm not savvy enough to know how to swipe long passages from behind firewalls, so, if you want to read Rich's latest, you'll have to go here and register for Times Select.) Rich, like Hoepker, defends ambiguity in pictures. He quotes Auden. He tamps down the fuss, explaining that he was merely suggesting what the photo suggested -- not imposing a political or psychological agenda on the subjects depicted in the photo. He mentions another 9/11 photo -- revealed in my last post, directly below this one -- a picture published here for the first time. He even takes a moment to call Watchnig the World Change "surely the most original treatment so far of the cultural impact of the day that changed everything except that it didn't." Brilliant guy, that Rich.