William Howard Russell and Roger Fenton were among the first people to document wars in their respective area of expertise Russell was a journalist who communicated written war reports via telegraph back to Britain, while Fenton took photographs of the warzone, which were then sent back to Britain.
The work of Roger Fenton can presented as realistic as his work was like a documentary because he was “telling it how it was” (source 4). This means that by using real pictures of real soldiers who were fighting in the Crimea, Fenton provided primary evidence to the British public. As it was primary evidence it had not been manipulated by others’ accounts or recollections and was an accurate representation of the war by this means, thereby defining …show more content…
His work was displayed in galleries within London (predominantly) and his work was officially supported by Prince Albert. This is a supportive factor as the Royal Family would be unlikely to intentionally cloud the truth from their citizens. Roger Fenton’s work can also be viewed to provide an unrealistic portrayal of the Crimean war to the British public because he only took still, staged photos due to the photographic technology of the being unable to capture action shots. In addition it is said in source 4 that Fenton’s work provided a new feeling of “empathy towards the military”, this could be seen as a pro-(British) army movement as it tended to only show the ‘positive side of the war’. As this was a unbalanced view of the war, having been instructed not to photograph injured or dead soldiers, the work of Fenton can be seen as a unrealistic portrayal towards the British public. Fenton also went to the Crimea towards the start of 1855, having missed the harsh winter. Fenton’s work can be seen as an unrealistic portrayal as he could have been used as a tactic to divert public attention away from the harrowing scenes described in William Russell’s documentation reports of the winter (1854). If this were the reason for Roger Fenton’s involvement in the documentation of the Crimean war then his work would be extremely
The work of Roger Fenton can presented as realistic as his work was like a documentary because he was “telling it how it was” (source 4). This means that by using real pictures of real soldiers who were fighting in the Crimea, Fenton provided primary evidence to the British public. As it was primary evidence it had not been manipulated by others’ accounts or recollections and was an accurate representation of the war by this means, thereby defining …show more content…
His work was displayed in galleries within London (predominantly) and his work was officially supported by Prince Albert. This is a supportive factor as the Royal Family would be unlikely to intentionally cloud the truth from their citizens. Roger Fenton’s work can also be viewed to provide an unrealistic portrayal of the Crimean war to the British public because he only took still, staged photos due to the photographic technology of the being unable to capture action shots. In addition it is said in source 4 that Fenton’s work provided a new feeling of “empathy towards the military”, this could be seen as a pro-(British) army movement as it tended to only show the ‘positive side of the war’. As this was a unbalanced view of the war, having been instructed not to photograph injured or dead soldiers, the work of Fenton can be seen as a unrealistic portrayal towards the British public. Fenton also went to the Crimea towards the start of 1855, having missed the harsh winter. Fenton’s work can be seen as an unrealistic portrayal as he could have been used as a tactic to divert public attention away from the harrowing scenes described in William Russell’s documentation reports of the winter (1854). If this were the reason for Roger Fenton’s involvement in the documentation of the Crimean war then his work would be extremely