06-10-2012, 07:52 AM
Henry good question - I've wondered that too.
I think a contributing (or exacerbating?) factor may be that only officiallly approved photos (and printed matter for that fact
) could be used in publications. In that the State controlled the entire information process from photography to censorship to publishing we don't see any "unpublished" or newly discovered from the war, or other unpleasant periods such as the Ukrainian famine, Katyn massacre, etc.
If a publisher knew an image was officially sanctioned, but only a second, third, or higher-hand copy of it was available, the publisher could use the image to get the point across, but was captive by the repetively used, poor copy.
Only my guess...
I think a contributing (or exacerbating?) factor may be that only officiallly approved photos (and printed matter for that fact
) could be used in publications. In that the State controlled the entire information process from photography to censorship to publishing we don't see any "unpublished" or newly discovered from the war, or other unpleasant periods such as the Ukrainian famine, Katyn massacre, etc.If a publisher knew an image was officially sanctioned, but only a second, third, or higher-hand copy of it was available, the publisher could use the image to get the point across, but was captive by the repetively used, poor copy.
Only my guess...
