i have added a "Movies" section on my home page…i will try to have a little library of short films on photographers and by photographers soonest….i only had one in hand to start this off… it is a short produced by Natgeo…this is a 6 minute version of a one hour production on yours truly working in Brazil…
if you have not seen it, go get some popcorn and beer.. the 50mb file will be about a 5 minute download for most…if this puts you to sleep , then maybe i have done my job for the day!!
of perhaps more interest, there is new work being posted later this evening of some of your colleagues as yet unseen here under the Emerging Photographers section…both as essays and a few more singles…i think you will appreciate this new work and there is even more to come…it has taken us awhile to get all the space we need for this section..
please do not forget that some of your work, now featured here, will be exhibited in June at the Virginia Festival of the Photograph (Look 3…see link), and hopefully at Visa Pour L’Image (Perpignan) this fall…stay tuned….
DAVID,
Moving words.
I just want to say that the reasoning that photography doesn’t have an impact ain’t true. It may not be as big as we sometimes wish, but everything we do (photography or not) has an impact in some way, on a very large scale, from almost insignificant to enormous.
Cheers
JOHN…
oh yes, that is correct…thanks…my vote will go FOR D’agata…sorry Philip….
MARTIN…
i look forward to your new site…i will link to it….
cheers, david
Hah, I just realized I had never dropped this here… http://www.jonikaranka.com/ (it only has two series this far and I was intending to have three before showing to anybody, but it’s too much editing work for the time I have now)
DAVID,
Thanks! I have a short post about your new website and the emerging photographers fund.
I’ve also posted about a photographer named Martin Bogren. Have a look at his website/work if you have the time. It’s for sure worth it!
Reason I started the blog is that there are so many great photographers out there and I want to link to the work.
http://shutterwatch.blogspot.com
Cheers
DAVID:
Thank you for that story and for sharing with us what Philip meant to you….
hugs
bob
p.s. Can i vote FOR Antoine also? ;)))..and the rest of the Lite crew…somehow, i guess, in the end, Philip will cast is vote in favor as well….
David, moving eulogy to Philip. I have his Dark Oddesy book and have seen many of his photographs from Vietnam. I found his Agent Orange photographs painful to view. he cared and DID make a difference. We need people to show the consequences of governments’ decisions.
Would it make a difference if the decision makers had to look at Vietnam Inc and other more recent books covering war before beginning another? I hope so.
One of the issues that troubles me is the use of sanitized photographs in publications. Many are deemed to dreadful to show to the general public. Why? Because the general public would insist that it stop, that’s why!
Philip didn’t just show the bang-bang: he was too intelligent for that. He showed a First World military machine totally out of its depth because it didn’t understand the Third World people or the culture it was trying to “protect”. One of my favorite Vietnam photographs by Philip is of American Marines filling their canteens with rain-water dripping off tree leaves – preferring it to the chlorine-laced water shipped from the U.S. If that does not typify the madness I don’t know what does.
Thank you Philip.
BOB…
YOU wrote the tribute!! i just followed up a bit…sure, in his own way, Philip would cast a positive vote as well…just by be being an integral part of our cooperative he supported the work of photographers whose work he may not have understood…he certainly supported the overall “bearing witness” concept which all Magnum photographers are “about”, despite their various styles or ways of conceptualizing a “story”…..
cheers, david
But you do cast a judgenment on so called nihilism and “fucking”. Id like to know what you meant.
——————
Rafal, that was not about photography. What you do that affects your family does matter. I think you agree.I also do think that life and art/craft are not separate things within an individual, and they do impact each other.
Not a lot I can add to the eloquent eulogies that David and Bob Black have offered up to Philip Jones-Griffiths. Thanks to both of you. But there are a couple things I feel the need to underline about the meaning of his life and work for me, important enough so I will steal the time which does not belong to me, from work that is long overdue, to write them down.
Vietnam, and what America did there, left its deep mark in one way or another on every single person in my generation. For draft age males such as myself it forced excruciating choices. I won’t go thru all my own personal sordid details, except to say that I did serve in the army for 18 months, was thrown out, and then was active in the anti-war movement in the US. Someday maybe I’ll tell the story in more detail. But for many my age the war never really ended, we lost friends there, we lost illusions there, we still think about, read about it, some write about it, and it is a prism thru which we see the world… especially American military adventures meant to prop up or destabilize regimes in other countries. To me, the most important thing about Philip Jones-Griffiths is not that he was a great photographer, although he certainly was, but that he was one of a very few journalists and photographers there who actually ‘saw’ what was going on… He got it! There were many great photojournalists and print journalists who worked in Indochina, including some who died there, like Capa, like Larry Burrows, Henry Huet, Bernard Fall… What sets Jones-Griffiths apart is that he saw not only the gory details but the larger picture of the tragic folly. As he says in one of the Magnum videos, most of the foreign journalists working in South Vietnam actually supported the war, if not some of the tactics. But only Philip, “and a few Frenchmen” (I’m sure he’d include Bernard Fall and Marc Riboud in that) actually thought the entire American mission not only doomed to inevitable failure, but saw it as a moral travesty and monumental hubris. So yes, he was a photojournalist, and photography was the vehicle he used to speak truth to the world, but the important thing is the truth he understood and the truth he spoke.
And his impact? Did he shorten the war, or prevent any other wars? Did he even change any minds? Clearly the impact of the overwhelming number of images from Vietnam, both still and TV, shortened the war. Whether most Americans learned very much, or anything of use, from our involvement there is certainly debatable. I am not optimistic about most nations’ general public’s ability to learn from history. But ask this question… what if Jones-Griffiths hadn’t made those images, what if he hadn’t spoken out… what if the truth that he saw was never voiced? And that, my friends, is the essence of the moral dilemma that ultimately we all will have to confront, somewhere, sometime in our lives… it may not be in a war zone, and I hope for your sakes it isn’t. It may be in the realm of international politics, or maybe just in the local neighborhood, school, or business… I’m not talking about grey areas, minor corruptions, culture clashes, antagonistic points of view. We juggle those from day to day… but if you keep your eyes open and think about what you see, then eventually you are going to run into a real moral issue that calls for taking a stand or hiding. This takes us back to Bob Black’s story of the 36 guardians on earth. Personally, I hope there are more than 36, and I hope some of them are photographers.
Sidney
Thanks David.
Photography and news reels had a damned lot to do with the course of the Vietnam war, I can’t see how one can deny this.
Of course, it was not “stopped” with a magic wand, and just because a photograph does not stop war, does it forbid to photograph war?
And for guys like Griffiths, don’t they keep doing it for the very good reason that the general consensus is “you can’t do nothing about it”? Where most would just give up, one Griffiths finds the reason to dig in even more and SPEAK.
“Photography rarely changes anything”
Rafal
Do you really thnik that photography changes nothing? Only because we don’t life in “paradise” not mean that protography have not influence as many human activity.
Damn… My bloody engish is not enouht good to explaine this in high level…
Rafal.. look how war was showed before world war I and especialy world war II. How many heros was in art and literature… how beautiful they die, with dignity… how brave!! With hands up, with flags and sings on the mouth…
and look at Griffiths’s photos! What world you see? What war you see? what was happen when vietnam photos was publish in U.S and Europe?
maybe photography not change everything but definitely not anything!!
As I say some comments ago…
Philip Jones-Griffiths, Catherine Leroy, David Burnett, Larry Burrows… this photographers changed my mind and my opinion about war, and I’m sure many other people all over the world.
Photography and television changed this world for sure!
This is what I think…
Everything changes everything, and nothing at all.
We can all just do what we can do with the tools we have … we can stand or hide as Sidney wrote in his eloquent post … and certainly Philip stood tall, strong and defiant in a model of real courage, clarity, brilliance and inspiration. Who can say how many strings of time and history he plucked? Certainly many. But the ultimate lesson of his life, like so many other bright stars in the firmament of human history, may be that he stood at all.
With regards to change…I have this quote I just love….
“Ich kann freilich nicht sagen, ob es besser wird, wenn es anders wird; aber soviel kann ich sagen, es muß anders werden, wenn es gut werden soll.”
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg – Schriftsteller/Experimentalphysiker – 1742 – 1799
or in English (something like this…Oliver you can probably translate this better than I)
“I can certainly not say, if it would be better if it was different, but this much I can say, it must be different, if it is going to be good”
peace,
jarle
Sidney: :))
that’s a wonderful and as Tom wrote eloquent testament. Someday, I would love to hear the story of your experience of the army during the war and your involvement in the Peace/Anti-War movement. You are a fine writer and I would love to listen to your experiences.
And by the way, I absolutely believe too there are more than 36 who shoulder the world. I’ve met a few of them, from all walks of life, and I cannot imagine a world, suffering-filled and black as it often is, without their light.
cheers
bob
Jarle,
Very decent translation! I would make two minor changes to put it in proper English:
“I cannot certainly say, if it would be better if it were different, but this much I can say, it must be different, if it is going to be good”
Gruss Gott!
Sidney
By the way, if you havent seen the Magnum-In-Motion about Philip, take a look:
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/warsgriffiths.aspx
By the way, if you havent seen the Magnum-In-Motion about Philip, take a look:
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/warsgriffiths.aspx
Bob/Sidney/Mr. Harvey,
those are beautiful eulogies to a great man. As for whether or not a photograph (or anything else) can stop war-probably not. War, much as most people do not want to admit it, is a byproduct of the human condition and as long as you have human beings involved in the matter then the possibility for conflict will always exist. What a photograph or a novel or almost anything else that you may want to think of can do is point the way to a different way of thinking. In The Treason of the Intellectuals, Julien Benda points out that
“…Peace, if it ever exists, will not be based on the fear of war but on the love of peace. It will not be the abstaining from an act, but the coming of a state of mind. In this sense the most insignificant writer can serve peace where the most powerful tribunals can do nothing.” Did Philip Jones Griffiths stop a war? No. Did he, like the writer Benda speaks of, add his bit to the eventual coming of peace? Time will tell.
It is good that we go a bit further than eulogy and talk about what this is that someone like Griffiths was tryng to do, and can it still be done?
In the Magnum movie, back in Vietnam, some officer lets Griffiths in the action because he is “only a photographer”, despite another saying “we can’t let him see what we are doing” .
What are the chances this dialogue would take place these days, when the state apparels of control are so sophisticated?
Yet, almost oppositely, The Abu Graib prisoner ordeal was shot by the perpetrators, they are snapshots, their crudeness, the simplicity of the purpose (“Hi, I am in Irak, we are having fun”) is, to me, more impactful and bothering than anything I have seen shot from Irak, that is with an attempt at “serious” photography?
9/11, as far as being on location, is a clear draw between the common man snapping and the photo-journalists there that day. What does it mean? Where is the legacy of someone like Griffiths in all that, nowadays?
Just questions.
Last, Griffiths’ s Vietnam was not just about the war when it happened. For myself, I hope the snapshots of the kids affected by agent orange will be the photography bearing witness for this war, in history.
It is easy to decry the horror of war, then be glad it’s over, and even witness some redeeming (like the naked girl fleeing her village become an american well-balanced and educated woman, or Elie Wiesel, a Nazi camp survivor become Peace Nobel prize).
But these kids, their pain it’s unredeemable as far as the society, the country that allowed this to happen.
PJ Griffiths’s legacy is not just a legacy for other photographers, a professional legacy, but a profoundly human one, going beyond the craft. At least, I hope so.
In that sense, isn’t the greatest praise we can give him and other unblinking photo-journalists, that, in the end, despite the great craftiness/artistry, their names are the least important thing.
Isn’t the greatness of photography, beyond our cirsle of afficionados, residing in the instanteousness of the moment taken, making us see as if we too, are/have the eyes of the photographer, taking his/her place?
DAVID…
I know I can’t ask you for anything especialy for that, so I just suggest… you added new galleries on your website, maybe you could create new gallery with unpublish and usseing but yor favorite photos?
It is just suggestion… It will be great pleasure for me and for all I suppose.
You know, I’m sentimental…
peace
JONI K. NAILED IT:
“…You have swarms of photographers in Iraq, but where are the documents of an era showing the build up of paranoia after 9/11 that leads to that war? We knew then and everytime we have more clues showing all the lazy judgements and bad loose arguments that lead to the invasion, but no proper photographic document (as far as I am aware) has been produced.
At least we have the BBC:
http://novakeo.com/?p=131…”
(But now try to go out and shoot that in stills.)
Posted by: Joni Karanka | March 20, 2008 at 07:38 AM
JONI K, please, please write more often….
Amazing film…
people check that link above….
thank you JONI K… nothing to add here…
WARNING…
PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THE FILM ABOVE…
IF , YOU HAVE A WEAK STOMACH, OR heart problems…
Don’t tell me later i didn’t warn you!
I use the quote all the time but don’t know who said it before me:
Photographs don’t change the world but the world would be a different place without photographs.
It’s the people who look at them who change the world.
David,
I love how you were able to recognize the essence of this thread, the “big picture” of intent.
To be able to find the common thread in things is a talent that seems essential to develop for those of us who have issues editing our images or writing.
HERVE SAID:
“… The Abu Graib prisoner ordeal was shot by the perpetrators, they are snapshots, their crudeness, the simplicity of the purpose (“Hi, I am in Irak, we are having fun”) is, to me, more impactful and bothering than anything I have seen shot from Irak, that is with an attempt at “serious” photography?
9/11, as far as being on location, is a clear draw between the common man snapping and the photo-journalists there that day. What does it mean? Where is the legacy of someone like Griffiths in all that, nowadays?”
QUESTION FOR HERVE…?
DO SEE ANY CONTROL???? REGARDING ACCESS , nowadays????
Does anyone here believes that PJG could do anything more, or
different than Paoloi Pellegrin, did in the quantanamo essay???
Time’s are a changing…
This is not Vietnam anymore….
The “propaganda” doesnt see the “photographer”….
as “just a photographer”… anymore….
There is no access like “it used to”…
JOHN VINK….
WHAT’S YOUR OPINION ABOUT THAT….???
I agree with Herve… The Abu G… “humiliation- torture”
instamatic snapshots… are the most powerful photos, than any other
pro-photos , that shot in Iraq….
Why????
Does anyone here thinks, that if PJG was in Iraq or Quantanamo,
could have done better than ( the amateuristic, “torture snapshots”) that we all seen and made us sick to our stomachs????
Vietnam and Iraq,
huge difference regarding ACCESS….
John
I totally agree with you. Photography not change whole world but participete in natural chenges for good (war) and for bad (paparazzi). But I like think that for good mostly.
Sidney, thanks for helping with the translation. Lookes much better.
Are having friends visit, so will be unfortunately, not such an active on the DAH blog within the next few days…
But wish you all a great easter!!
peace,
jarle
Marcin,
I said rarely changes anything. I think it can change small things and it can influence public opinion but I doubt very much it had much impact on Vietnam. I dont buy the argument that America got out of Vietnam because of the images (TV or stills). America got out because they finally realized they couldnt win. Look at Iraq. Look at the opposition to this war. is anyone really getting out? Some countries are but the war will go on even if Obama gets in. Look at China. The ONLY reason anything is stopping China is the Olympics. Sure, the images are important but if it was Jakarta 2008 instead of Beijing 2008 you would see much more bloodshed in Tibet even with the images. I dont think images stop war because I dont thinkpublic opinion stops war. War is a money making machine for those close to the powers. It will always be so. You can talk about economic fallout to average Americans but guess what, those close to Bush and Cheney are laughing all the way to the bank. They’ve made billions, trillions of dollars on this war. Do you thinkBush gives a damn what regular people think? Hell, the guy had no idea how much gasoline costs, he’s that clueless and detached from the counrty he runs. So no, I dont think photography or TV change much. Why? Because people who make decisions are ging to be making them regardless. Thats reality.
Amazing: In the midst of all we are discussing…here’s a yahoo news story about a legless photographer who rolls around, often on a skateboard, photographing the people who stare at him:
http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/64390/what-are-you-looking-at
DO SEE ANY CONTROL???? REGARDING ACCESS , nowadays????
——————-
It’s so well that John Vink has been barging in, because I forgot to mention his last entry in the Magnum blog section (3/17), where he points out how the photographs are simply kept outside of the proceedings of the Khmer rouge trials. John could certainly better answer your quetsion, becaue he is living that kind of restriction every day.
PS: Rafal, thanks for sharing this with us. may I ask you how Poland, but most especially, polish people were set free of the constraints of belonging to the sphere of soviet influence, which was that “reality” you talk about then? Thanks.
HERVE , you nailed it…. !!!!!
read that Magnum blog….
right on…
Thank you Herve….
I’m not trying to say that it was easy to photograph a war or ANYTHING… back then ,at PJG days…
It would be rediculus for me to say … it was “easy” to get ACCESS.
for “Vietnam” or this or that….
but i feel that back (60′s , 70′s, ), the photographer was respected…
at least , more than today…
( especially after photoshop, days…
photos barely accepted in a courtroom, as evidence… if at all…
photography TODAY, became the “art of the poor”…
a charlatanism…
THINK OF TWO OF, the most important recent things,
regarding the “war”
Saddam’s hanging – SHOT WITH A CELLPHONE- video, &
shocking photos from prisons in iraq, shot with a small compact camera…
… and then you to look at the “quantanamo by Pellegrin,
that I TOTALLY ADMIRE, BUT THERE WAS NOT EVEN ONE GOOD PHOTO IN THAT ESSAY…,
yet, powerful, i have to admit…. but you see, Paolo had no ACCESS….
so you see,… I LOVED THE FLASH in JOHN VINK’S PHOTOS… I READ THE MAGNUM POST… honesty, honesty, I SEE IN THIS MAN..
PHOTOGRAPHY SUCKS TODAY
except of ,
ONE AGENCY OUT THERE…!!!
AND THAT IS “MAGNUM”..
peace
Well, Im not sure what role photography played in it but there were many factors to consider. Rise of Solidarity coinciding with a strong reagan administration taking a strong stand against moscow. Gorbachev being determined to change things in the USSR which pretty much meant there wasnt going to be war over it. The Pope’s election which fueled Solidarity’s boldness and gave it a higher purpose. Factor in a pretty much collapsed economy everywehere East of the Iron Curtain and its a big set of circumstances, a “perfect storm” if you wish that took down communism. Yes the people were a big reason for things changing but take away the Polish Pope, elect Carter instead of Reagan, have a hard liner in Moscow instead of Gorbie and I tell ya, things might not have changed at all.
John Vink,
yes! BUT the people who do change when looking at photography dont have millions and billions of dollars invested in PREVENTING change and unfortunately those are the people in power. SO, while people change the world doesnt because the RIGHT people dont change. And thats my point. But photography is important as a vehicle to raise our awareness of reality. Nobody can really tell me that if you showed the most moving anti-war books to the junta in Burma, the murderers in Beijing, the psychos in Sudan or the bush clique that suddenly things would change. Abhu Gharaib images were powerful….so what happened? Bush is still in power, Gitmo is still standing and Bush is still listening in you YOUR phonecalls. Nothing changed.
Panos,
Abu G images are powerful precisely because they are snaps. I ofcourse love documentary photography,Magnum style, but what really tickles my fancy as of late are personal photodiaries done in snaps shot aesthetic. Why? To me they create a real feeling of intimacy. And thats what I see in those Abu G shots…snaps from the REAL inside. Theres such a sadistic truthfulness to them that no PJ could really do, including PJG. They are powerful because they are bad and they are bad because they are real…that reality makes them so good….we cut right through the whole quality discussion and get right to the meat of the matter: the content.
RAFAL,
“…snaps from the REAL inside…”…. i atotally agree.
“…Theres such a sadistic truthfulness to them that no PJ could really do, including PJG…”,……………. i agree but also DISAGREE…
i need to believe that ALL MAGNUM photogs…
and even you or me or marcin or herve… CAN DO “BETTER” IN ANY
PHOTOGRAPHIC CHALLENGE… than the average citizen of any country in this earth…!…
… but the question that burns me alive is ???
Is it “harder” to get “access” today, than BACK in the day ????
Or is it the SAME ????
Or , it doesn’t matter ???
Does the media count ????
Back in “Vietnam” era… there were no cellphones…
But “saddam’s death”, was recorded on a phone…
Does that count ??? Is this …form, of shooting or recording HISTORY ??? photojournalism ???
????????????
But they cant. Why? because they arent inside. These photos are so good because they were shot by the criminals doing the torture. Instead of being a reportage they are a diary and thats whay makes them good. Pros just by not being insiders wouldnt be able to get that impact, even if imbedded in the situation. So yes, while a Magnum photog would take much better, more beautiful, better composed photos that would actually make them less impactful in a way.
Maybe its different access, panos….while prose may not have as much access cheap tecnhology gives opportunities to those who already have it, the amateurs. id LOVE to see some amateur stuff, even cellphone stuff, shot by the taliban or Al Qaeda…wouldnt you? Who was it that collected studio photos of the Taliban from Afghanistan? I think it was a Magnum guy…I dont think he shot them but he found a bunch of posed portraits of taliban fighters from some studio in Afganistan…what was so cool was how natural they were and how they opened up to the camera…thats access, its not Magnum accessing it but maybe that makes it better. It was interesting how these guys looked so effeminite in many of these portraits.
It was interesting how these guys looked so effeminite in many of these portraits.
—————–
That’s what bonding under duress does to men. Maybe….(I have no idea…. I swear!!!) :-)))
Rafal, it’s all a bit mixed at this point. not all our points are about photography, or about stopping war dead in its track. If Abu Graib, the wanton humiliation/killing of men by US soldiers, is off the map, and quicker because of the snaps, I won’t spit on that just because the war ain’t over yet.
I also think you named an awful lot of individuals as concerns the fall of communism. Even a president of the USA, just a couple decades ago. Without going about Reagan deserving or not credit, I think it shows even high up (pope, Gorby, Reagan) it’s not as rotten. Did they do it because they had power leverage? yes, but they were not born with it. So something does happen to individuals that they can make a difference. Even lesser ones, power wise, Walesa, Havel, guys who could have given up after too much intimidation, they truly refused to be pawns of the “machine”. Then, maybe he is a priest, or a writer, or a photographer…It’s a rich world!
I surely don’t think that now Bush has been 8 years at the helm, it’s all over for changes for the better and individuals making a difference. I am a bit worried, but not really by one guy, and certainly not him.
As far as photography, we are probably in a slump at this point, on many accounts. Access, privacy, image surplus, war News fatigue on the part of the public, there is an enormous force of gravity on that whole media. But it’s a sign of the times, I do not think it’s due to limitations of the craft itself.
It’s hard to pinpoint where it excatly makes no, a little, a little more, or a big difference, but photography is one of the most inspiring, and arresting medias.
but photography is one of the most inspiring, and arresting medias
—————
Yes, and one of the most versatile. On this we agree 100%:)
As far as communism, I didnt name many:) I could start with 10 million Solidarity members but writing 10 million words is Bob’s forte, not me LOL. Im kidding. But the point is that it was the perfect storm with so many things happening almost at once. Sure, it was crumbling for a long time but these things can last without an end, look at North Korea which has been “collapsing” for years and still stands….things have to happen almost at once for huge change to come about.
Rafal: Thomas Dworzak. The Taliban pictures were collected by him.
John,
thanks.
Panos, “Is it “harder” to get “access” today, than BACK in the day ????” Yes: if you want to photographanyone in the “media”.
Dirk Halstead (see The Digital Journalist website) took a photograph of Nixon on the campaign trail giving his signature “V for Victory” salute – stood just behind him – now you stand where you are told to stand (he still got Bill and Monica). Bruce Davidson said that Joan Crawford invited him in to her home for cookies but that “today you would have six different public relations people protecting these stars. You’re not going to get any cookies now” (quote from Photoicon magazine issue 4). Everyone is more aware of the power of photography now.
As for Vietnam, photographers were given free reign to wander almost at will. they used their access well and showed the horror.
During the Falklands war the British media were restricted to only a handful of photographers and it took days to get your photographs back home.
Iraq and Afghanistan require photogs to “embed” and agree to ground rules
Having said all above, they still had to get initial access and that required them to have credibility or reputation. So perhaps, for the rest of us, the question is how do we approach people and seem genuine and credible? Those first few moments are SO important.
Best,
Mike.
Rafal: “BUT the people who do change when looking at photography dont have millions and billions of dollars invested in PREVENTING change and unfortunately those are the people in power”.
Yes sure the powerfull rule about content. Even more so when the content producers provide them with what they want/need. But there are more people (MANY more) without billions of dollars and they are not necessarily interested in the same content. And today there are ways to provide content to them. That was not possible before…
Less access, less outlets? For those topics the powerfull THINK they need to rule: yes…For the rest not so sure… There is always a degree of blindness with the powerfull because of their arrogance. Go for their weak spots: they are quite accessible… Don’t play their game…
Thanks for this movie. It is very interesting to see you in action. I’ve always thought that the manner a photograph moves around his subject is a part of his style.
John,
I very much appreciate your comments here, practical and succinct good thoughts to ponder, we are in your debt. And your most recent Magnum blog post fits this discussion well.
In thinking about the issue of access and control in todays’ hyper-managed media savvy world there is perhaps no better example than the Bush White House and the Presidential campaigns. How can anyone get a meaningful frame in this environment? But some do … the ones who “don’t play their game” as John wrote.
Christopher Anderson’s much-discussed Mitt Romney photo through the snow posted on the Magnum blog is a good example. In my mind it captured some of the absurdity of the campaign, if not the candidate himself. Of the photo Christopher wrote, “It is as if throwing too much light on it might somehow expose these campaign photo ops for what the really are. The designers of these events want us to make a pretty picture. but a pretty picture to me felt like something that would be false to this event. I almost thought of the flash as being like an xray that would reveal what I really see at an event like this.”
And the work of Christopher Morris, both within the Bush White House and on the campaign trail, is brilliant in my mind. One photo in particular, of a glassy-eyed young man in an audience, looking up with such unquestioning, and unthinking, devotion may well sum up the post-911 nationalistic fervor which has led to such tragic consequences. Just brilliant work, and scary, and maybe hardest of all, simple yet full of meaning.
So confine a good photographer, super glue him to a taped X on the floor, but never expect you will ever control him if he can really see.
Good morning all,
Another famous thread, thanks…Philip-Jones! ;-)
I just want to say that nothing stays the same, nothing is fixed, there is maybe “That’s today”, but never “that’s reality”. No one, no machine, no civilization will ever have a full grip on humanity. Even, ahahah, God, lets us run things pretty much as good or messily as we wish.
the ride is not over… There are a few shots left worth taking!
right on HERVE!!!
Michael;
You’re right about access. Remember that Don McCullin was prevented going to the Falklands, probably because they didn’t want his “type” there….
As for photography changing events, I feel it did help bring about the end of the Vietnam war. Sure their were other factors too, but the images, both still and moving, shocked everyone.
It’s no coincidence that Vietnam was the first and last war where photojournalists had pretty much free reign to go where they liked & to send whatever they shot back to the newsrooms. Those in power knew what those powerful images did to public opinion…
I was born in 63 so was pretty young when the Vietnam war ended, but the images remain with me to this day.
I can vividly remember the TV helicopters landing on the US Embassy as they evacuated everyone, & of those same helicopters being pushed overboard after.
As for the Vietcong execution image (Eddie Adam’s I think) & Nick Ut’s well they are emblazoned on my consiousness, even though I was very young at the time….
The problem with human nature is that there will always be despots who need to feed their egos. And know they have the technology and the means to do it much more efficiently…
It must be incerdibly hard for the James Nachtweys of this world to stay motivated and not become cynical…
Take care everyone..
Ross, friends, maybe you are familiar with this next link. Pretty much, we can leave the last word on the matter of what changes can photographs possibly make nowadays to none other than James nachtwey. If I remember, he tells for each shot what were the consequences of publishing it:
Panayiotis! You out there?
The Che wine is… not horrible. Glad I only spent 10 bucks! But seriously, it’d be a decent drink with a burger or pasta or some crappy cheez-its…which is what I’m drinking it with right now! I’m not proud.
Peace,
-M
Herve–
your last post…a nice coda. Thanks.