You've all missed the point about this series: they are meant to be photos that achieved change, not photos that simply recorded events.
A photo can be iconic without changing public perceptions and that would not qualify, so the father and son in the cross-fire in Palestine, or the inmates at Auschwitz, or a girl putting a flower in a soldier's rifle, or Che Guevara's face might be iconic and even carry a message but they did not cause people to act to change things.
I'm not sure cannonballs at Balaclava really qualifies, but I suppose they wanted something early. On the other hand, the dying militiaman probably does qualify regardless of whether it was staged.
Also, the Pulitzer prize is for journalism, not art. So it was not crass to award it for the photo of the dying child any more than it is crass to include it in this list.
One glaring omission, that might have put a bit more of a positive spin on this otherwise sad collection was
the first X-ray photograph, of Mrs Roentgen's hand in 1895.
You've all missed the point about this series: they are meant to be photos that achieved change, not photos that simply recorded events.
A photo can be iconic without changing public perceptions and that would not qualify, so the father and son in the cross-fire in Palestine, or the inmates at Auschwitz, or a girl putting a flower in a soldier's rifle, or Che Guevara's face might be iconic and even carry a message but they did not cause people to act to change things.
I'm not sure cannonballs at Balaclava really qualifies, but I suppose they wanted something early. On the other hand, the dying militiaman probably does qualify regardless of whether it was staged.
Also, the Pulitzer prize is for journalism, not art. So it was not crass to award it for the photo of the dying child any more than it is crass to include it in this list.
One glaring omission, that might have put a bit more of a positive spin on this otherwise sad collection was
the first X-ray photograph, of Mrs Roentgen's hand in 1895.