Once Capa stepped into the surf, he seems to have completely forgotten about the battle on shore. Each and every shot was angled at least partly — if not entirely — seaward. This tells me that he was primarily looking for a means to depart. Capa’s picture-taking stopped almost immediately upon LCI(L)-94 showing up in his viewfinder. Which suggests that he’d seen his means of escape and was moving to get aboard. […]
|
Follow me on Mastodon:
@adcoleman@hcommons.social
 |
The question becomes this: does the photo show LCI(L)-94 already retracting after its first landing? These two timelines argue that Capa landed first, and subsequently photographed LCI(L)-94 during its first approach to the beach. […] This would seem to prove definitively that Capa’s account of his boarding of LCI(L)-94 is not accurate. There simply wasn’t time for him to go to the engine room, thoroughly dry off, smoke a couple of cigarettes, pick off all the kapok debris, change film (maybe?) and regain his composure in time to go back above decks and start taking pictures just off the beach. […] At this point there remains just one aspect of Capa’s D-Day adventure left to examine: his departure from Omaha Beach aboard LCI(L)-94 (which stands for Landing Craft Infantry (Large)-94). Let’s see how his description of this phase of his adventure stands up to scrutiny. […] |
 SPJ Research Award 2014All content of this publication is © copyright 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by A. D. Coleman unless otherwise noted. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced for commercial purposes without prior written permission. All photos copyright by the individual photographers. "Fair use" allows quotation of excerpts of textual material from this site for educational and other noncommercial purposes.
Published by Flying Dragon LLC.
|
Springing Forward: Bits & Pieces
Ironic that in the case of Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith an otherwise astute member of the court’s liberal minority, Justice Elena Kagan, should offer a surprising arrogant and patronizing dissent that pretends to art-historical savvy while merely parroting postmodern “theory” and art-market rationales. […]