【时代周刊 20161117】一百张最有影响力的照片 之八

满仓

【中文标题】一百张最有影响力的照片 之八
【原文标题】Most Influential Photos
【登载媒体】时代周刊
【原文作者】Ben Goldberger
【原文链接】http://100photos.time.com/photos/harold-edgerton-milk-drop


没有笑容的小船
艾迪•亚当斯
1977年



难民的悲惨境遇往往不为人所见，他们通常只是数字，而不是活生生的人，从一个遥远的地方迁往另一个遥远的地方。但是一张照片就可以破除这种观念。1977年感恩节那一天的太阳还没有升起，美联社摄影师艾迪•亚当斯看到一艘渔船，满载南越难民驶往泰国。他在泰国海事监察船上，看着这艘摇摇晃晃的船载着50个人在海上漂浮了多天。在美军撤离两年之后，数千名难民从战后的越南逃离共产主义统治，他们分散到东南亚各个国家寻求安全的居住地。他们遭遇到的往往是拒绝。亚当斯登上难民渔船，开始拍照。最终，泰国当局命令他上岸，他猜想，或许他的出现是对难民同情的表现，将会迫使泰国开放对难民的大门。他的照片被送往美国国会，让超过20万名越南难民在1978年到1981年之间有机会进入美国。亚当斯说：“这都是照片的力量。”

无题剧照21号
辛蒂•雪曼
1978年



自从她在70年代末登上艺术舞台以来，辛蒂•雪曼这个人总是和辛蒂•雪曼这个拍摄对象被搞混。雪曼通过创造性的、有意混淆视听的自拍照、人工制作的人们耳熟能详的场景，把摄影变成一个后现代的行为艺术。她的“无题剧照系列21号（城市女孩）”，让人想起B级电影中的一个镜头，或者说是一个早就停播的电视剧中的一个开放场景。尽管这些场景都是雪曼有意创造的，但它们让观众有一种不经意的窥视感。雪曼并不喜欢用快门捕捉真实生活的场景，而是把摄影当作一个具有欺骗性和诱惑性的艺术工具。她的作品成为有史以来最有价值的照片。通过对观众视角和自己身份的转变，雪曼在艺术领域为摄影开辟出一片新天地。她证明，摄影也可以让你变成另外一个人。

莫洛托夫男
苏珊•梅塞拉斯
1979年



苏珊•梅塞拉斯在70年代末来到尼加拉瓜。作为一名年轻的摄影师，她有一双如考古学家般的眼睛，擅于捕捉到长期执政的索摩查独裁政府与社会主义桑地诺解放阵线之间斗争的场景。6个星期以来，他游历各地，记录下一个极度贫穷、拥有优美的自然景观和充满不公正的国家。梅塞拉斯的作品对桑地诺解放阵线寄予同情，随着他们在斗争中逐渐占据优势，她获取了解放组织的信任。在安纳斯塔西奥•索摩查•德瓦伊莱总统逃离之前，梅塞拉斯拍到勃罗•德热苏斯•“贝拉塔”•阿罗兹把一个点燃的莫洛托夫鸡尾酒，丢向最后一个国民警卫队的据点。桑地诺解放阵线掌权之后，这张照片成为革命的标志性形象——一个邪恶的独裁者被穿着牛仔裤、手拿破烂装备的平民士兵推翻。在桑地诺解放阵线的积极推动下，莫洛托夫男很快成为尼加拉瓜无处不在的形象，它出现在火柴盒、T恤衫、广告牌和小册子上。后来，当画家乔伊•加内特把这个形象用在2003年她的一个绘画作品中时，引发了一场有关艺术归属问题的争论。

伊朗行刑队
贾哈吉尔•拉兹米
1979年



在也没有比行刑现场更直截了当的照片了。1979年8月27日，11个被伊朗统治者阿亚图拉•鲁霍拉•霍梅尼判处“反革命罪”的人站成一排，在萨南达杰机场的一片土地上被射杀。当时没有国际记者在场，他们都被霍梅尼拒之国门以外。这意味着，记录神权政府与当地库尔德人血腥冲突一刻的重担，就落在本土媒体的肩上。伊朗摄影师贾哈吉尔•拉兹米恰好在行刑现场，他拍摄了整整两个胶卷。其中一张照片——周围尸体倒地，一个人中抢的瞬间——在伊朗《消息报》的头版匿名发表。几个小时之后，伊斯兰解放委员会的人就出现在报社办公室，索要摄影师的姓名。编辑拒绝了他们的要求。几天后，合众社得到了这张照片，立即传遍了全世界，证明霍梅尼所标榜的宗教政府残暴的本质。第二年，“伊朗行刑队”获得了普利策奖——历史上唯一一次的匿名获奖者。直到2006年拉兹米才被披露为这张照片的摄影师。

布莱恩•里德利和莱尔•希特
罗伯特•梅普尔索普
1979年



1979年的主流美国文化并不接受同性恋，罗伯特•梅普尔索普在当时，拍摄了一张布莱恩•里德利和莱尔•希特身着全套施虐与受虐狂装备的照片。在工作场所中，同性恋员工往往极为低调。在很多州，袒露自己的性取向属于犯罪行为。梅普尔索普花了十年时间记录不为人知的施虐狂与受虐狂场景——一个完全隐藏在公众视野之外的世界。他的照片巨细无遗向公众展示了这个世界，或许最典型的作品就是“布莱恩•里德利和莱尔•希特”。两个人身穿皮衣，受方身上绑着链子，攻方一只手握着链子，另一只手拿着皮鞭。这两个男人身处于一个装修豪华的房间里，为这种大部分美国人远远无法接受的场景添加了一层常规的色彩。这个系列的照片敞开了一扇大门，一大批摄影师和艺术家开始坦诚地检视同性恋的生活和性取向。

梅普尔索普的作品在十年之后依然发挥着影响力。一次有关他的同性恋和受虐、施虐照片的展览，让辛辛那提博物馆和展览主办方被以猥亵罪名起诉。（梅普尔索普在1989年死于艾滋病。）博物馆和主办方最终被宣告无罪，表明梅普尔索普的遗产是一项大胆的先驱，他的作品应该被空开展示。

门后发生的事
堂娜•费拉多
1982年



佳斯与莉莎的生活平淡无奇，就连1982年一天晚上发生在他们新泽西州家中浴室里的暴力行为，也被人们习以为常。被一点小事激怒的佳斯殴打了他的妻子，莉莎只能缩在角落里。这种暴力行为并不经常出现，但往往发生在私密的场所。这一次，有一个外人在场，就是摄影师堂娜•费拉多。

费拉多在一次以炫富为主题的摄影展上结识了这对夫妇，他知道作为见证者是远远不够的，于是拍了很多照片。费拉多找到几个杂志社的编辑，要求发表这些照片，但都遭到了拒绝。于是费拉多在她1991年的书《与敌同眠》中发表了自己的照片。这本标志性的作品详细记叙了家庭暴力事件及其后果，包括化名为佳斯和莉莎的这对夫妇。他们的真实姓名是伊丽莎白和本特，这是《时代周刊》在编辑这篇文章时首次披露出的信息。费拉多在与诸多女性共同生活时，拍摄到警方看不到的暴力事件和受害者。她的作品让针对女性的暴力暴露在阳光下，迫使政策制定者直面这个问题。1994年，国会通过了“防止对妇女施暴法案”，并且开始培训警方将其作为严重的犯罪行为。感谢费拉多，私下的悲剧造福了大众。

雌雄同体（六男六女）
南希•波尔森
1982年



摄影是记录历史的完美工具。但是在南希•波尔森的作品“雌雄同体”问世之前，摄影在预测未来的领域还是一片空白。在利用数码摄影技术来改变形态的技术出现的二十年前，波尔森与麻省理工学院的科学家合作，开发出一项技术，让她可以把六个男人和六个女人的面貌合成在一起。结果是革命性的。突然之间，摄影可以被用来表现某个人未来的样子，而不仅仅是过去的样子。波尔森的合成作品让她最终开发出一个具有开创性的软件，通过数字化的方式展现年老的面孔，人们第一次可以通过猜测以外的方式来获取未来的影像。联邦调查局拿到了波尔森的软件，用它来产生多年前失踪人口的当前面容，并因此找到了多名失踪人口。

迈克尔•乔丹
科•伦特米斯特
1984年



这或许是一张最著名的剪影照片。雅克布斯•“科”•伦特米斯特在为《幸福》杂志拍摄的迈克尔•乔丹的照片中，捕捉到这位篮球明星跃在半空扣篮的瞬间。他的双腿展开，就像一个芭蕾舞演员，左臂探向空中的繁星。一张绝美的照片，但如果不是耐克公司按照照片中的姿势为它旗下的年轻体育明星设计了一个标志，这个形象恐怕也不会持久发挥影响力。在为第一代Air Jordan运动鞋寻求设计灵感的过程中，耐克公司付给伦特米斯特150美元，作为临时使用这张照片的费用。很快，“飞人”的形象被印在运动鞋、服装上，出现在全世界家庭的墙壁上，最终成为有史以来最成功的商业形象之一。耐克公司通过飞人标志开创了新的营销模式，运动员本身就是极富价值的商业资产。Air Jordan品牌——如今也有其他超级明星代言——在2014年创造了32亿美元的收入。与此同时，伦特米斯特把耐克公司告上法庭，声称版权遭到侵犯。无论官司最终的结果如何，他的照片把至高无上的体育明星与一项数十亿美元的生意联系在一起，一直持续到今天。

尿浸基督
安德烈斯•塞拉诺
1987年



安德烈斯•塞拉诺说，他1987年把基督受难像浸泡在自己尿液中的作品不带有冒犯的意味。实际上，当它第一次在画廊中被展出时，并没有引起什么不满。但是在1989年，“尿浸基督”在弗吉尼亚州展览时，引起了一位牧师的关注，很快国会也开始关注。参议员阿尔•达马托和杰西•赫尔姆斯对于塞拉诺得到国家艺术基金会资助的事实深感愤怒，他们推动通过了一项法令，要求国家艺术基金会在发放资金时要考虑“基本的道德标准”。甚嚣尘上的争论把“尿浸基督”推上了80年代和90年代文化战争的风口浪尖，与塞拉诺站在同一阵线的还有罗伯特•梅普尔索普。这场争论纠结于政府是否有权利干涉艺术。

针对“尿浸基督”的争论给后世带来了双重影响。把这张照片列为大众接受范围之外的决定让它名声大噪，很多艺术家开始进一步挑战公众的底线。但是这些人不大可能得到政府的支持了，道德标准法律在1998年得到了最高法院的支持。

坦克人
彼得•怀特纳
1989年



略。


原文：

Boat of No Smiles
Eddie Adams
1977

It’s easy to ignore the plight of refugees. They are seen as numbers more than people, moving from one distant land to the next. But a picture can puncture that illusion. The sun hadn’t yet risen on Thanksgiving Day in 1977 when Associated Press photographer Eddie Adams watched a fishing boat packed with South Vietnamese refugees drift toward Thailand. He was on patrol with Thai maritime authorities as the unstable vessel carrying about 50 people came to shore after days at sea. Thousands of refugees had streamed from postwar Vietnam since the American withdrawal more than two years earlier, fleeing communism by fanning out across Southeast Asia in search of safe harbor. Often they were pushed back into the abyss and told to go somewhere else. Adams boarded the packed fishing boat and began shooting. He didn’t have long. Eventually Thai authorities demanded that he disembark—wary, Adams believed, that his presence would create sympathy for the refugees that might compel Thailand to open its doors. On that score, they were right. Adams transmitted his pictures and wrote a short report, and within days they were published widely. The images were presented to Congress, helping to open the doors for more than 200,000 refugees from Vietnam to enter the U.S. from 1978 to 1981. “The pictures did it,” Adams said, “pushed it over.”

Untitled Film Still #21
Cindy Sherman
1978

Since she burst onto the art scene in the late 1970s, Cindy Sherman the person has always been obscured by Cindy Sherman the subject. Through inventive, deliberately confusing self-portraits taken in familiar but artificial circumstances, Sherman introduced photography as postmodern performance art. From her Untitled Film Stills series, #21 (“City Girl”) calls to mind a frame from a B movie or an opening scene from a long-since-canceled television show. Yet the images are entirely Sherman’s creations, placing the viewer in the role of unwitting voyeur. Rather than capture real life in the click of a shutter, Sherman uses photography as an artistic tool to deceive and captivate. Her images have become some of the most valuable photographs ever produced. By manipulating viewers and recasting her own identity, Sherman carved out a new place for photography in fine art. And she showed that even photography allows people to be something they’re not.

Molotov Man
Susan Meiselas
1979

Susan Meiselas traveled to Nicaragua in the late 1970s as a young photographer with an anthropologist’s eye, keen to make sense of the struggle between the long-standing Somoza dictatorship and the socialist Sandinistas fighting to overthrow it. For six weeks she roamed the country, documenting a nation of grinding poverty, stunning natural beauty and wrenching inequality. Meiselas’ work was sympathetic to the Sandinista cause, and she gained the trust of the revolutionaries as they slowly prevailed in the fight. On the day before President Anastasio Somoza Debayle fled, Meiselas photographed Pablo de Jesus “Bareta” Araúz lobbing a Molotov cocktail at one of the last national guard fortresses. After the Sandinistas took power, the image became the defining symbol of the revolution—a reviled dictator toppled by a ragtag army of denim-clad fighters wielding makeshift weapons. Eagerly disseminated by the Sandinistas, Molotov Man soon became ubiquitous throughout Nicaragua, appearing on matchbooks, T-shirts, billboards and brochures. It later became a flash point in the debate over artistic appropriation when the painter Joy Garnett used it as the basis of her 2003 painting Molotov.

Firing Squad in Iran
Jahangir Razmi
1979

Few images are as stark as one of an execution. On August 27, 1979, 11 men who had been convicted of being “counterrevolutionary” by the regime of Iranian ruler Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini were lined up on a dirt field at Sanandaj Airport and gunned down side by side. No international journalists witnessed the killings. They had been banned from Iran by Khomeini, which meant it was up to the domestic press to chronicle the bloody conflict between the theocracy and the local Kurds, who had been denied representation in Khomeini’s government. The Iranian photographer Jahangir Razmi had been tipped off to the trial, and he shot two rolls of film at the executions. One image, with bodies crumpled on the ground and another man moments from joining them, was published anonymously on the front page of the Iranian daily Ettela’at. Within hours, members of the Islamic Revolutionary Council appeared at the paper’s office and demanded the photographer’s name. The editor refused. Days later, the picture was picked up by the news service UPI and trumpeted in papers around the world as evidence of the murderous nature of Khomeini’s brand of religious government. The following year, Firing Squad in Iran was awarded the Pulitzer Prize—the only anonymous winner in history. It was not until 2006 that Razmi was revealed as the photographer.

Brian Ridley and Lyle Heeter
Robert Mapplethorpe
1979

Mainstream American culture had little room for homosexuality in 1979, when Robert Mapplethorpe photographed Brian Ridley and Lyle Heeter in their full sadomasochistic regalia. At work, gay employees were largely closeted. In many states, expressing their love could be criminal. Mapplethorpe spent 10 years during this era documenting the underground gay S&M scene—a world even more deeply shielded from public view. His intimate, highly stylized portraits threw it into open relief, perhaps none more so than Brian Ridley and Lyle Heeter. Both men are clad in leather, with the submissive one bound by chains and the dominant partner holding his reins in one hand and a riding crop in the other. Yet the men are posed in an otherwise unremarkable living room, a juxtaposition that adds a layer of normality to a relationship far outside the bounds of what most Americans then considered acceptable. The picture and the series it was part of blew open the doors for a range of photographers and artists to frankly examine gay life and sexuality.

Nearly a decade later, Mapplethorpe’s work continued to provoke. An exhibit featuring his pictures of gay S&M scenes led to a Cincinnati art museum and its director’s getting charged with obscenity. (Mapplethorpe died of AIDS in 1989, one year before the trial began.) The museum and its director were eventually acquitted, bolstering Mapplethorpe’s legacy as a bold pioneer whose work deserved public display.

Behind Closed Doors
Donna Ferrato
1982

There was nothing particularly special about Garth and Lisa or the violence that happened in the bathroom of their suburban New Jersey home one night in 1982. Enraged by a perceived slight, Garth beat his wife while she cowered in a corner. Such acts of intimate-­partner violence are not uncommon, but they usually happen in private. This time another person was in the room, photographer Donna ­Ferrato.

Ferrato, who had come to know the couple through a photo project on wealthy swingers, knew that simply bearing witness wasn’t enough. Her shutter clicked again and again. Ferrato approached magazine editors to publish the images, but all refused. So Ferrato did, in her 1991 book Living With the Enemy. The landmark volume chronicled domestic-­violence episodes and their aftermaths, including those of the pseudonymous Garth and Lisa. Their real names are Elisabeth and Bengt; his identity was revealed for the first time as part of this project. Ferrato captured incidents and victims while living inside women’s shelters and shadowing police. Her work helped bring violence against women out of the shadows and forced policymakers to confront the issue. In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, increasing penalties against offenders and helping train police to treat it as a serious crime. Thanks to Ferrato, a private tragedy became a public cause.

Androgyny (6 Men + 6 Women)
Nancy Burson
1982

Photography is a perfect medium for recording the past. But until Nancy Burson’s Androgyny, it was useless for predicting the future. Two decades before the shape-shifting enabled by digital photography became ubiquitous, Burson worked with MIT scientists to develop technology that let her craft this composite image of the faces of six men and six women. The effect was revolutionary. Photographs could suddenly be used to project how someone would look, not just how they once did. Burson’s composite work led her to develop pioneering software that could digitally age faces—the first time these images could be based on more than guesses. The Federal Bureau of Investigation acquired Burson’s software to create present-day images of people who had gone missing years earlier, and it has been used to locate numerous missing persons.

Michael Jordan
Co Rentmeester
1984

It may be the most famous silhouette ever photographed. Shooting Michael Jordan for LIFE in 1984, Jacobus “Co” Rentmeester captured the basketball star soaring through the air for a dunk, legs split like a ballet dancer’s and left arm stretched to the stars. A beautiful image, but one unlikely to have endured had Nike not devised a logo for its young star that bore a striking resemblance to the photo. Seeking design inspiration for its first Air Jordan sneakers, Nike paid Rentmeester $150 for temporary use of his slides from the life shoot. Soon, “Jumpman” was etched onto shoes, clothing and bedroom walls around the world, eventually becoming one of the most popular commercial icons of all time. With Jumpman, Nike created the concept of athletes as valuable commercial properties unto themselves. The Air Jordan brand, which today features other superstar pitchmen, earned $3.2 billion in 2014. Rentmeester, meanwhile, has sued Nike for copyright infringement. No matter the outcome, it’s clear his image captures the ascendance of sports celebrity into a multibillion-dollar business, and it’s still taking off.

Immersions (Piss Christ)
Andres Serrano
1987

Andres Serrano said he did not intend his 1987 photograph of a crucifix submerged in his own urine to offend; indeed, when it was first displayed in galleries, no one protested. But in 1989, after Piss Christ was exhibited in Virginia, it attracted the attention of an outspoken pastor and, soon after, of Congress. Angry that Serrano had received funding from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Senators Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms helped pass a law requiring the NEA to consider “general standards of decency” in awarding grants. The uproar turned Piss Christ into one of the key fronts in the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s, alongside the work of Serrano’s fellow NEA recipient Robert Mapplethorpe, and divided a nation over the question of whether the government had the right to censor art.

The battle over Piss Christ has left a dual legacy. The campaign to place the picture outside the boundaries of acceptable art contributed to its fame, inspiring other artists to push limits even further. But those provocateurs are less likely to do so with help from the government: the decency-standards law passed because of Piss Christ was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1998.

Tank Man
Jeff Widener
1989

On the morning of June 5, 1989, photographer Jeff Widener was perched on a sixth-floor balcony of the Beijing Hotel. It was a day after the Tiananmen Square massacre, when Chinese troops attacked pro-democracy demonstrators camped on the plaza, and the Associated Press sent Widener to document the aftermath. As he photographed bloody victims, passersby on bicycles and the occasional scorched bus, a column of tanks began rolling out of the ­plaza. Widener lined up his lens just as a man carrying shopping bags stepped in front of the war machines, waving his arms and refusing to move.

The tanks tried to go around the man, but he stepped back into their path, climbing atop one briefly. Widener assumed the man would be killed, but the tanks held their fire. Eventually the man was whisked away, but not before Widener immortalized his singular act of resistance. Others also captured the scene, but Widener’s image was transmitted over the AP wire and appeared on front pages all over the world. Decades after Tank Man became a global hero, he remains unidentified. The anonymity makes the photograph all the more universal, a symbol of resistance to unjust regimes everywhere.