Hover over the image for navigation and full screen controls
ESSAY CONTAINS EXPLICIT CONTENT
EPF 2010 Finalist
Dima Gavrysh
Insha’Allah
I took a photograph of Captain Harris, the commander of Combat Outpost Tangi, in Afghanistan’s Wardak province, as he was waiting for a helicopter to take him to the funeral of one of his soldiers. While he was covered by a cloud of dust, he seemed lost and overcome by his surroundings the photo turned out to be truthfully despondent. His people are hated by the locals. He hates to lose his people to IEDs. I bet he hates the role he is assigned to play in winning hearts and minds of the locals, and he probably doesn’t believe in it even if he tries.
The photographs I shot through a night vision device had a quality reminiscent of early silver gelatin process and modern video games at the same time. In the first picture of my portfolio, the soldiers portrait acquired a GI-Joe-like quality, with the humanity taken out of his appearance. He looks like a war robot, a part of greater military machinery, and not as an individual human being. There is uneasiness and despair mixed with confusion. No one knows the right way to fight this war and when it is going to end, if ever. All of it looks like some huge experiment, where a civilization is being pushed forward through warfare. It doesn’t seem to work and yet we try.
Bio
Dima Gavrysh is a Ukrainian-born, New York City-based photojournalist. He started his career in the mid-90′s in Kiev, Ukraine. For the past 10 years, he has worked with major news agencies such as Associated Press, Agence France Press, European Press-Photo Agency, Gamma-Press, Reuters, and Bloomberg News.
Dima’s work has been published in magazines and newspapers worldwide including The New York Times, Time, People, Paris Match, Independent, Marie Claire, Stern and Newsweek.
Awards:
AI+AP (American Photography + American Illustration): published in 2008- 2010 yearbook.
2010 PDN Photo Annual Contest: Photojournalism.
International Photography Awards ? Lucie: honorable mention: 2008-2009.
XVIII Eddie Adams Workshop participant: winner of an internship for the Washington Post.com: 2005
Related links
Well, no Anton, I wasn’t dishonest in the least in my reply to David. Certainly no “insult disguised.” And that was a really nasty personal attack, btw, certainly far worse than anything you think I did. Calling me a liar, and a pathetically petty liar at that. I really didn’t expect something like that from you guys. But I’ve been around the internet a long time. Ridiculously wrong (on several levels) personal attacks happen. Happen all the time.
Speaking of being around the internet a long time, you give me way too much credit. Smart enough to control how tone is perceived in a comments section? Man, I wish. I could sell that knowledge and get rich beyond my wildest dreams. If you actually re-read my comments, you can note that I was openly concerned about tone and explicitly pointed out that I didn’t mean it as I feared it might sound. But I think it’s more the jokes that get me in trouble. Cartier-Bresson “emerging” from the grave. Not exactly in the best of taste, particularly in context. Talk about smart? I learned a long time ago that it was usually unwise to attempt humor in these forums. I know I should be much more grey and humorless, keep the pink socks in the drawer and the clown shoes in the little car. Yet I persist. So is it a lack of intelligence or self-control? Of course I flatter myself and say self-control, but it’s probably both.
Even though I know it’s human nature, at least for a lot of humans, I still don’t get why people feel the need to attack someone personally who they perceive disagrees with, or criticizes them. I know you are both aware that I didn’t seriously enter the EPF contest — I actually spoke with David about if you think that entry was something I would pin some kind of hopes on, then you must think me stupid indeed. So why do you persist in implying that I’m some pathetically petty little man stomping furiously a big barrel of sour grapes into bitter wine? And this accusation about something I made no effort whatsoever to try to win? Where’s the honesty in that? Although I hate to dignify baseless ad hominem attacks with a denial, I simply am not that petty, even if I would have entered and hoped to win.
No, I am, as I said, mostly a disinterested observer concerned about the meaning of words.
Am not, you say? Am too.
I actually spoke with David about if you think that entry was something I would pin some kind of hopes on, then you must think me stupid indeed.
Should read “I actually spoke with David about that publicly and…”
Hey Michael,
Yes i have been around the internet since it’s inception too. in all its facets. that is exactly why I call this.
On the other hand, I see from your replies that we are not going to resolve this, and I have no intention to fight you over “semantics” and “tone” forever.
Over and done, next chapter.
Dima is a great guy who I had the privilege to meet for the first time at LOOKbetween, and then again in NYC. Great young talented emerging photographer AND a really great guy to hang out with… at the same time working hard hard hard to make it in this world.
I support him with all my heart in what he does, because after meeting him in person, I believe in him.
cheers,
anton
ON another note I hear spiders are pissed off because people have changed the meaning of webinar
Panos,
Sorry if I got it wrong. I thought all essays published after 1st of July got 500 USD. On the credits AP came up before Dimas name, so I thought I had a legimate question.
When it comes to taboos, I have no problem what so ever if one or all of the finalists are represented by an Agency or Gallery. I am sure some of the non-finalists have represantation as well.
All the best
Petteri
Ps. Excellent work regardless of who owns the copyright.
“To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.”– Montesquieu
I know david alan harvey personally…and i aint a student and i aint a sycophant and david and i have had disagreements and arguments and have always found the respect and energy to support and care about one another, as professionals and as friends.
There is not a truer sense to both David and Anton that that Montesquie quote and in my eyes, they’re both great people and not because they’re photographers or editors or curators or perfect saints but because they’re generous and open to admiration and criticism and remain who they are, standing side by side with people and not above them….trust me, i and stood, sat next to and collapse beside….
and the SOONER we all get over the bullshit about who wins or whether or not they’re worthy the better….all photographers emerge, all photographers, committed, strive for one think alone: to continue the work that they were meant to do…
arguing about photography: great…..
questioning the legitimacy of the effort that people make to SUPPORT ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS (which is what burn/epf does in glorious ways) is just plain selfish….
and Dima: fabulous work! big congratulations!
running
bob
Petteri…
big hug…nature of the internet beast…sometimes something looks like a sarcasm…although it wasnt meant to be…so yes..u brought a great subject on the surface once again…who owns the copyright? obviously Dima owns his…
one love y’all..:)
MICHAEL WEBSTER….
take a deep breath….
now, if Anton came firing out at you with both barrels, i think you really should go back and re-read your missives to perhaps see if, why, and when, our Anton attacked you personally…Anton is a pretty mild mannered man if ever there was one, so you surely did something quite unique to “get his goat”….it seems your words, which you chose ever so carefully, were certainly in the passive/aggressive arena of discourse and surely would have been considered insulting by almost anyone…hardly a curious inquiry as you say was your intent….
alas, there is a pattern to your critiques in general as it turns out…you always always play off what appears as either uninformed supposition or shoot from the hip style verbiage as your brand of humor and sort of apologize later as if none of us got the joke or you should not have told the joke in the first place…ha ha ha…hmmm, not really working for you anymore Michael…that might work once or twice, but not after….now mind you i am not attacking you personally…i like you personally….but i am questioning your attempt at “gee what did i say wrong?” attitude…don’t you see the pattern??….for example, was it your joking brand of humor that had you comparing Dima with Leni Riefensthal?? first you pretty much question Dima as passing himself off as “emerging” when you see him as the most pro photog out there, then you compare him with one of Adolf Hitler’s lovers and key photo propagandist for the Third Reich….again, ha ha ha…i got it…er, huh, hmmm, choke choke, that is just plain weird Michael…
now of course it is totally fair and appropriate and encouraged, as Anton and i both always say, to question what , why, and wherefore with anything to do with Burn…questioning “emerging” is nothing new and a question that is asked and answered quite often here….and surely we all question the ethics of the media and the role they might play in government or military propaganda….our pictures can all be “used” in a variety of ways of course to propagandize one thing or another…all of this fodder for good discussion…but if you are going to play provocateur, then you must also really have done your homework, have all your ducks lined up, or be ready for a bit of backlash…you cannot sling it and then whimper pasa nada….
ok, now let’s figure out how to take your video skills and put them to good use…i am looking forward to a one on one meeting with you as soon as i return to new york…i know your long term project is most likely nearing end…anxious to see that work and to figure out the best way for you to create a really top notch multimedia….
i might from time to time give you a hard time in some ways Michael, but nobody will work harder to make sure you live up to your own dreams either…count on it….
cheers, david
DIMA,
Very, very nice work. Especially 5,9,11.
For me I prefer to see more photographic not only journalistic stuff.
I mean, own style it is what I do not see.
visual game.
But this is my opinion only.
you have very good eye, and for sure you will made a great carrier as a journalist.
Wish you the best.
errata:
and for sure you will made a great carrier as a photojournalist.
I emerged from the shower this morning and I was reminded of the great Malaysian photographer Izzi E. Murjin and the way he merged such humour and pathos in his seminal images of margarine.
But i digress. So, once more with feeling, congrats Dima. I’m sure you’ll go far…
Yes, David, thanks, and fair enough. Of course I recognize that my tone was way off in those posts, and apologize. I think both the tone and the frequency are a sign I need to step back a bit and I will. Still, I was genuinely surprised at the personal nature of the response. Even if you read my questions about your definition of “emerging” as harsh criticism, which although not my intent, is understandable given the tone, it would have been professional criticism, not personal. I know no excuse justifies that kind of thing, but it was one of those “it’s a bad week to quit drinking coffee” type weeks. And unfortunately, regarding the jokes, I yam what I yam. Comedy is inherently dangerous. I will no doubt err again. Anyway, once again, apologies.
I’m sorry about the tone in the photo critiques as well, but not the substance. Although quite harsh to Dima as a professional, nowhere did I engage in any speculation as to what kind of person he is. I laid out a series of facts and opinions based on those facts. Essentially: given the hundreds of thousands dead, millions suffering, millions displaced, disappearances, secret prisons, torture, murder, war crimes, billions, if not trillions, wasted, democracy degraded, etc., I think it’s wrong to collaborate with the government to produce pro-war propaganda. Then I argue that this piece is pro-war propaganda based on the premises that the government/army provided access and control and got the story they wanted. I quit there because I knew I was going too far for polite discourse, but would have added that the story that they wanted and got is, at least as I see it, one of heroic camaraderie in the face of the hardships and tragic losses of war, a story governments and armies have approved of for as long as there have been governments and armies. And if you accept the premise that horrible war crimes have been committed, then the example of Leni Reifenstahl is arguably germane to the discussion (I just assume that all of you have seen “The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Reifenstahl.” If not, you should. Fascinating stuff for photographers). She was actually tried for war crimes because of photographs she took before any war. I think her example pretty much has to be considered in any conversation about photographers collaborating with governments/armies during wartime.
Of course there’s plenty of room for argument in all of that. You can legitimately challenge many of my premises and certainly all of my conclusions, but can you really challenge the idea that it’s important to consider these issues in the context of this work? And this war? I know it’s got to be unpleasant for the individual who produced the work, but we’re talking about professional war photography. Real lives are at stake. You’ve got to expect some scrutiny. I weigh my concern for the feelings of an individual against this massive horrible clusterfuck of a war and the profession of journalism which I love, and come out of it with the belief that war photographers, and this war photographer in particular, need to hear and consider this kind of criticism. It’s not personal.
Anyway, peace. Out.
Michael you are making a mountain out of a mole hill most of the world’s people will not see, not care or give rat’s arse about your propaganda angle ………. can’t see too many people losing sleep over the images either.
I remember someone saying in a workshop I was in that they would measure our work against the best of what’s out there and critique accordingly. It was gloriously brutal but not unkind. It’s good to see the EPF finalists setting the bar so high and, to me at least, it renders any debates over career level categorical definitions as inconsequential, at best. If I were submitting work to EPF, I would expect nothing less than to be up against the best and if I didn’t make the cut, then I would relish the work presented, smile, and say, damn this work is good, this is what can be done, I can get there, I can get there if I really commit my life, my heart, everything, risk everything, and I am sure all the finalists have.
Damn this work is good.
(Michael, don’t let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.)
Gee, Michael, try concision…..
Tom Hyde – totally agree with you.
If you don’t measure your own and other’s work against the best that is and was out there, there is no point in measuring at all.
MICHAEL WEBSTER…
back when i had hair it was long and i was an activist anti-Vietnam War hippie civil rights movement righteous poet photographer etc etc…so one war replaces another and i have not changed my views one single bit and would most likely agree with you on everything anti-war and yes yes all issues concerning integrity are important and up for discussion…..however, i simply would not kill the honest messengers….too many of them have been killed at least trying to give the rest of us a sense of the senseless…
cheers, david
Beautiful essay. I don’t see it as propaganda at all.. I think Dima did an extraordinary job turning his access in Afghanistan into an artistic statement on the nature of the occupation. I think the photos that some are interpreting as photographs of camaraderie, or advertisements for the war, are actually photographs about alienation. To me, the night vision shots represent a degree of separation between soldier and war. Long gone are the days of looking at your enemy eye to eye. The essay is far from the sleek and sterile images the Army would use for their recruitment campaigns.
That said, the essay reminds me of the Army’s old advertisement slogan: “An Army of One” Though in this essay the solitary soldier appears despondent as opposed to empowered.
Congrats on the publication.
DIMA :))
sorry for the very quick, succinct and very un-bob black-like comment about the work :)))..but it is just that: fabulous…
but, i wanted to add a bit more for you. In truth, this essay and many of the photographs reminded me, powerfully, of visual brothers to Michael Herr’s brilliant and iconic book on vietnam DISPATCHES. It’s all there: the visual delerium and confusion, the fatigue and ennui with bursts of madness, the hurly-burly environmental orientation with replaces one’s natural bearings. the ‘explosion’ pic is just extraordinary as are the haunted, hypercaffinated red/green pics….it all speaks to me the way Herr’s wilding prose does….someone mentioned PJG’s Vietnam, INc (a book dear to my heart) though i see Dima’s work not related to Inc so much as Dispatches….Inc is a level headed, enraged and steely focused depiction of the horror of vietnam, while dima’s work, to me, is much more closer to a psychological portrait of the men in a particularly environment….in a sense, to me, it’s more about the madness and disorientation than about the war, or the politics of war, per se…again, another important story…..and done with visual imagination as well….all the stories contributed about war are important and necessary and i hope and trust they align our senses of the futility and the loss, immense, and consequences of war….it’s alienation and reckoning…….absalam, absalam…
congratulations again dima on powerful, thoughtful work….
that the american/western public tend to get images of the american/western coalition over the ‘enemy’ or the civilian is in fact not a fault of the photographers, but a problem of the audience and a more important condition: we must recognize and contextualize what it is WE are seeing….there are and there will be story tellers that contravene (thank god) the american version, just as there are folk to put the fire to the behavior of the former controlling interests in afghanistan, but these issues are larger and more significant than 1 photographer…i think Michael, it is a shame that you equate dima (or any embedded photographer/writer) with Reifenstahl. To begin with, though a remarkably talented filmmaker and decent photographer in her own right, she knowing understood the useage of her films (and the films she’d been an actress in). Her later ethnographic work in africa suggests the same. Moreover, at the heart, and beyond the visual intelligence of Reifenstahl’s 2 Nazi-era films, of her work lay a clear and obvious suggestion about the superiority of a constructed philosophy and order and that her work adhered to (including it’s aesthetic) to that political idea. Dima’s work is simply focused on 1 story in a particular theatre and is not had all focused on legitimizing or defending the american presence in afghanistan. To the contrary, he was given a specific task, which was to tell the storie of those men in women in that theatre and doing so attempting to share with the audience what is being endured by them.
Just as tim hetherington’s remarkable photography and remarkable new film Restrepo is not propaganda but a thoughtful, urgent and necessary story about what it means to experience battle and the consequences of that, just as Taxi to the Dark Side give us the truth about the failures in Afghanistan….the public needs all stories from all sides and must be thoughtful enough to understand what they are seeing/reading and to search for the ambiguous and contradictory truth that is both war and geopolitics….if not, is to perpetuate the suffering…..
cheers
b
and i thought i might add this….it’s from Kyo Maclear’s blog on Yoga practice….and intensive month long yogo retreat with michael stone….here Kyo’s speaking about Basho….it’s applicable to the discussion…maybe all discussions ;)))
“Basho is asked by a passerby: What is your practice?
He answers, “Whatever is needed.” In other words, situational ethics. In each moment we’re responding, there are no eternal laws or truths to be followed which hold true at every moment for all time. Instead of following edicts, the heart of non-violence is to enter into any situation without one answer, the only response is your presence, to act ethically and creatively. The point is to take life in all its variety, just as it is, with its 10,000 opposites. To let things be, instead of getting in their way, to allow each person, and everything, a meaning and purpose distinct from my own. The conditions are always changing.”
-kyo maclear
http://summersangha.wordpress.com/
cheers
b
I think there is more to the personal attacks on Burn than meet the eye and feel the thinking behind permitting it to continue is erroneous. Sometimes it is necessary to adopt an aggressive tone to deal with authors who put themselves above “the people”. Now I see Bob on here quoting Montesquieu – “To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them ” which really has me laughing and given the vast amount of ‘propaganda and cheesecake’ that CONTINUES to put out, fully understand Mahatma Gandhi’s: “I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers!”
I have not read the full discourse on here by the way (just the page above) and unfortunately do not have time to study this particular photographer’s entire life’s work before I make the following statement:
Dima: Congratulations on your work! Your images are very interesting and some of them are incredibly powerful – that last one in particular. It cries out to be shown as a single and I wonder whether its power may be being diluted by being positioned at the end of the sequence. It simply says it all – or rather captures my own feelings about war.
I also love the images that remind me of video games and think a sequence where all but the last image were in that vein would be immensely powerful especially as a gallery piece – IF the last image were to show a man (or woman) in all his/her humanity.
If the images were presented in these ways, perhaps it would be more obvious to ALL that message is anti-war and not painting those who take part in it, for whatever reason, as heroes.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” Ernest Hemingway
By the way, the comment about ‘propaganda and cheesecake’ was not referring to this title.
I am not sure why Dima Gavrysh said the Captain looks confused?
War is never nice or good looking. The images you captured are ok. The comments that “you” presented seem a little slanted toward the negative, negative of the soldiers fighting a war that they did not start nor can they stop.
Soldiers come home soon.
Ane
“seminal images of margarine.”
there is a lesson here for all of us.
DOMINIK …YOUNG TOM HYDE…
yes, i just do not know where or how to create a measuring stick that somehow would fall below what i feel or perceive to be the highest possible standards…sure subjectivity is always a part of photography judgment calls as it is in judging Olympic ice skating performance or best dog at Westminster..i honestly would not know where or how to draw a somehow “lower line” nor could i respectfully ask for the quality of the jurors we have had for the last two years to come in and jury anything other than first class applicants…none of the 12 or so jurors we have had in the last two years even once said to me or to anyone connected with the EPF that what they were seeing was anything other than the best of the unknown but “should be soon known” photographers….they know an emerging photographer when they see one…
cheers, david
David :)) If you don’t mind my stating the obvious, you and Anton and whomever else is helping behind the scenes have done a hell of a good thing here. I am so glad you have kept it all real, but again, I know you could do nothing else. It was amazing to have been there at the inception. I am sorry to have not been around more but I’ve been riding the waves up and down. Seas calming, fog parting, horizon coming into focus. Time to start rowing again. I hope you keep the EPF around long enough for me to submit something worthy, and I hope that won’t be too long. Thanks again for keeping it real.
DAVID…
The work shown on BURN is an inspiration to me every time I look at it. It broadens my horizon. It pushes my hunger. And I don’t mind some subjectivity – photography is nothing like an exact science. (Thank God!!!) Knowing that your measuring is done against the best that is and was – that’s what brings out the best dogs (not only from Westminster). So cheers to you and Anton, we have a great pack here. Hug, d.
DIMA…
I didn`t even comment on your brilliant essay – excellent work that hits my nerve. You can really see and feel the disorientation and confusion. Congratulations!!!
A couple quick notes since so many people have addressed me directly. I’ll try to be more prosaic, if not exactly concise. After this, if anyone wants to continue the discussion, you can skype me (mweb202) or trade emails or otherwise take it elsewhere.
First, questioning the results and ethics of embedding is not some kind of off-the-wall pyscho nonsense. J schools study it. Journalists and academics write articles about it. Several books discuss the practice extensively. The overwhelming consensus is that embedded journalists practice extensive self-censorship to maintain their relationships and, on average, produce more sympathetic coverage of the war and its perpetrators than independent journalists. This example from the book Weapons of Mass Deception describes a big part of why it works:
“Sheer genius,’ commented US public relations consultant Katie Delahaye Paine….The sagacity of the tactic is that it is based on the basic tenet of public relations: it’s all about relationships. The better the relationship any of us has with a journalist, the better the chance of that journalist picking up and reporting our messages.” (Rampton and Stauber 187).
And look what might happen to those who don’t get with the program.
A funny, not funny, thing (which supports your point Imants) is that almost all these academic discussions about embedding occurred soon after the start of the second Iraq war. Everyone agreed that embedded reporting is, as intended, a powerful weapon in the military’s propaganda war, then apparently accepted the practice and forgot all about its ramifications. Of course it’s possible, if not likely, the issue will come up again if the war goes badly, particularly if Republicans regain power and ownership of their war. Human rights grounded military critics have been such softies under Obama. There are several scenarios in which that could well change.
But just because the great majority of journalists get snookered doesn’t mean that all journalists do. Michael Hastings, the reporter that broke the “General McChrystal is a treasonous twat” story was, and still is, embedded in Afghanistan. He hasn’t lost any access over it, at least so far. Of course it might be different if everyone from the marine on the ground to the President of the United States didn’t hate McChrystal. Pissing off the people protecting you might be significantly different. Hastings actually caught more flack from his colleagues than he did from the government. The soldiers thanked him and treated him like royalty. Still, his case is evidence that embedded journalists don’t always compromise and won’t necessarily lose access for pissing off the military commanders.
I keep those contravening facts in mind, you know. My opinions are not necessarily fixed regarding embedding in general or Dima’s essay in particular. I’ve looked at it many times over these past few days, considered everyone else’s opinions, tried really hard not to see what I see. Believe me, I’d much rather be with the majority on this.
Finally (please), my intention is not to shoot the messenger. My concern is with the objectivity of the message.
I think that covers it. Gonna have to.
Same, but not the same:
http://magazine.viiphoto.com/story/show/270
michael
just a quick follow up….questioning embedding IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUES, INDEED!…in fact, it’s been discussed and SHOULD be discussed and many many question/argue the nature of being embedded and the inherent conflicts of that including the relationship and the bonds formed with military…most thoughtful journalists wrestle with this (I’ve personally had discussions a bunch of friends who have made their names covering the wars as embeds…like Teru, Eros, Tyler, Louie, Erin, michael, Rita, etc)…in fact, i recommend the book Unembedded…one of my personal friends, rita, is a contributor….but, in truth, there is now OBJECTIVITY within the gaze of a photographer…it is born, a priori, by their heritage and background and the reasons as to why they’re covering the war….it is still all slanted perspective and any descent reader of war understands that and takes, with both umbridge and salt, the visual and written text of all stories….the question, should be I think, a simpler one: does one story render one perspective to the reader that allows the reader to pick at their own understanding and feeling for the meaning of what is happening….sometimes yes, sometimes no…..i have friends who would never embed and some friends who have embedded and the irony is that, in many senses, both end up with the same perspective….
the cost of war is most greatly taxed upon the heads and shoulders and limbs and organs and lives of the innocent….the civilians….and that is something we should all remember, regardless of orientation or perspective…
cheers
bob
p.s. here is the link to Unembedded….important book and it was a powerful exhibition too
http://www.unembedded.net/
Thanks Bob, wow