Papercut
Well-known
Thanks for posting the link and the inside information. I have Seamus Murphy's A Darkness Visible: Afghanistan and Moises Saman's Afghanistan: Broken Promise and it's interesting to compare the images in terms of content, technique, and even (I'll admit to it) gear.
Some of Thomas Stanworth's shots definitely have a humor or joy to them that is absent in the other two. (Murphy I found totally compelling in every way; Saman is poorly executed technically, in my opinion.) My one criticism of Stanworth's gallery was that so many of the images were in the same locations -- the empty pool was one that was over-utilized for me. More breadth/variety would have been stronger.
Some of Thomas Stanworth's shots definitely have a humor or joy to them that is absent in the other two. (Murphy I found totally compelling in every way; Saman is poorly executed technically, in my opinion.) My one criticism of Stanworth's gallery was that so many of the images were in the same locations -- the empty pool was one that was over-utilized for me. More breadth/variety would have been stronger.
i am pretty sure it was 6x7 and a 43mm?
inside information
Phantomas
Well-known
Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed looking at those photographs. To me they are fairly unique. i spent some time looking for photos of everyday life in Afghanistan and all I could find was either amateur snapshots or something related to war/misery. This series is refreshing.
I much prefer to look at these photos than " skin tones of a beautifully lit nude, or a great street scene" - wow, how original!
I much prefer to look at these photos than " skin tones of a beautifully lit nude, or a great street scene" - wow, how original!
starless
Well-known
Does anybody really think war/conflict photography has changed anything? Have less people died in wars since the 1850s, when it all began?
Phantomas
Well-known
Yes.
No need for The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters blabla
Ducky
Well-known
In fact, we cannot know how much WORSE things could / would be if there weren't people recording the tragedies as they occur
Hiroshima
nagasaki
Rowanda
Rhodesia
Ground zero
Yeah, those early photos helped a jot.
no need to even admit the "truth" of such records, let alone actually do anything.
Do what, Kevin:
I vote
I have two grandsons in the military, one in Afghanastan (he's not taking pictures).
I served in my time.
Do what, kevin????
Hiroshima
nagasaki
Rowanda
Rhodesia
Ground zero
Yeah, those early photos helped a jot.
no need to even admit the "truth" of such records, let alone actually do anything.
Do what, Kevin:
I vote
I have two grandsons in the military, one in Afghanastan (he's not taking pictures).
I served in my time.
Do what, kevin????
robklurfield
eclipse
not interested in joining a debate.
my two cents-worth: I liked the images and appreciate emraphoto sharing the link with us.
if it's true that everything that can be said has already been said, then why wake up in the morning?
my two cents-worth: I liked the images and appreciate emraphoto sharing the link with us.
if it's true that everything that can be said has already been said, then why wake up in the morning?
javimm
Established
I can't understand, well, in fact I makes me sick that people think that "war pics don't change anything and they don't help". Are you serious?. OK, so go back to see bumblebee macro shots and sleep well.
People HAS TO KNOW that something really nasty is happening in this planet. Thinking in the same line, you can say that TV shouldn't air war images, and just air beautiful landscapes.
Those images must be made public. They have a real value. At least they make me think and make me hate war every time I see pics of wars.
Those atrocities must be known. That's why a lot of governments don't want photographers and TV cameras. They want to hide what they are doing to their citizens.
Does people still think that "Ignorance is Strength"?.
People HAS TO KNOW that something really nasty is happening in this planet. Thinking in the same line, you can say that TV shouldn't air war images, and just air beautiful landscapes.
Those images must be made public. They have a real value. At least they make me think and make me hate war every time I see pics of wars.
Those atrocities must be known. That's why a lot of governments don't want photographers and TV cameras. They want to hide what they are doing to their citizens.
Does people still think that "Ignorance is Strength"?.
benlees
Well-known
Some truly excellent photographs. I thought all photos of the Russian pool were great. I thought the photos of the children were repetitive; too many and did not add anything to the theme of the coming and going of imperial power. Afgans and kites, wasn't there a movie about that?
His website is overtly one that represents the photos as art. There were no links to aid organizations, woman's rights organizations, taliban resistance organizations, or veterans organizations, or even a website like Democracy Now!. The blog was one about wedding photography!
As such, the photos have little to lend them as agents of change or truth. The only context we see them in is one of personal expression.
His website is overtly one that represents the photos as art. There were no links to aid organizations, woman's rights organizations, taliban resistance organizations, or veterans organizations, or even a website like Democracy Now!. The blog was one about wedding photography!
As such, the photos have little to lend them as agents of change or truth. The only context we see them in is one of personal expression.
Ducky
Well-known
Unbelievable response.
I'm almost done here.
Will someone point to a single, actual instance where a photo of suffering stopped suffering, or of war that stopped war.
During the Spanish Civil war the same photos of destruction and dead children were used by both sides, each blaming the other for the same event. They were used to stir up the willingness to fight, not stop the war.
Yes nice photos of people playing in a deserted pool while bombings were killing people in downtown Kabul.
That's my only point, don't tell me photos of war are of any social value.
And no, I don't like macros of bumblebees.
One instance of change and I'm satisfied.
emraphoto
Veteran
what i found really interesting is the proximity and intimacy of the photographs. it is extremely difficult to work in regions with such unstable security situations. i look at photographs such as Tom's and i can imagine the amount of work, trust and often sheer conviction/bravery that went into creating the images. these are not the 'drive by' fair or laden with the shadows of security teams/soldiers (both literally and not). these were obtained by going out into the city/countryside amongst those living there.
often projects such as this take years of work before one even gets to the location. Tom has done an excellent job seeing it through. outside of an embed.
often projects such as this take years of work before one even gets to the location. Tom has done an excellent job seeing it through. outside of an embed.
Papercut
Well-known
Ducky, I am not accusing you personally of anything. I said that the pessimism can easily be a blind for certain attitudes, not that it MUST be. Please read what I wrote, not what you THINK I wrote. With that said, I believe complete pessimism is misplaced, and is actually dangerous attitude (see below).
I admitted that it's a statement of belief on my part that photography CAN BE a positive influence, but it's a belief that has some supporting evidence. The fact is that photography's "influence" on warfare or human violence/oppression must be looked at on a case by case basis, of course.
In the case of Japan's colonial adventures (1905-1945), (state-sponsored as well as some popular/social and news) photography played a role in helping whip up a fervor for war and bloodshed. In the case of Vietnam, I believe that war journalism (including photography) played a role in turning US public opinion against the war, which arguably could / would have continued on much longer without graphic visual documents of what was happening there. There is no one-size fits all conclusion.
Your post seems to imply that unless photographs somehow make war obsolete or end it entirely that it's useless. That is, in my opinion, an unrealistic expectation -- Vietnam is a good example here: photographic evidence didn't prevent it or even immediately stop it, but I believe it helped end it sooner than it would have. The same is true for something like child labor. (Lewis Hine, anyone?) In cases like this, photography feeds into (i.e., contributes to, reinforces) wider social attitudes and developments, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
The fact is that, as far as war (and other forms of oppression and violence) is concerned, other forces (psychological, political, technological, social, etc.) have exercised a far more decisive influence in making modern history drastically more violent and deadly than the pre-photographic era. But, the fact that photography hasn't ended human oppression doesn't mean it hasn't had some positive effects in particular cases.
Democracy hasn't ended war or poverty either, but do we just throw our hands up and say it's worthless?
The fact that I cannot empirically demonstrate that photography has decisively reduced human violence does not, for me, invalidate it: I cannot "prove" that art or political satire has a beneficial effect either, but in both cases I think that they are essential to a functioning democracy.
The real question is does the fact that we cannot say unequivocally either way mean we should avoid documenting wars? Does it negate or invalidate the ethical urge to protest at the mistreatment of fellow human beings? You seem to imply that because war is still prevalent and more violent than ever that we can just abandon the whole enterprise of documenting it. Do I assume you at least level the same skepticism toward photographs of racism, poverty, child labor, natural disasters, etc. and that you only "consume" and support "decorative" photos (sunsets, flowers, nudes, etc., -- things that make you feel good)? After all, the world still has racism, poverty, child labor too. And -- given the world's explosive population growth -- more people in absolute terms probably suffer from all of them than in the pre-photographic (pre-1850) world. Do we just stop reading about or viewing photographs of those things?
To be clear, I am not saying there are no ethical issues with conflict photography. There clearly are -- imbrication in business, media exploitation, etc. But to take the position that we can just ignore photographic evidence of war completely or even deny it as "truth" -- as I think you came close to doing when you said "can't see any truth being spoken" -- seems to imply that only "happy" photographs are "true" -- or that none are. A proposition I find absurd and (see below) pernicious.
I know that I have voted very consciously on the basis of a candidate's record of willingness to go to war and I have quite often discussed at length with other people (some of whom vote) my views on current wars and their atrocities. My views and voting habits are thus influenced by photographs from places like Afghanistan. I suspect that there are many people much like myself -- the fact that we cannot end war completely does not mean that there is NO positive contribution being made by documents such as Stanworth's. My experience, and others such as Vietnam, would suggest that your pessimism is somewhat overdone.
In short, I take the position that such photographs are a form of knowledge and that, even when it is hard to measure its effects, knowledge is a good thing. Pessimism and apathy about documenting the world as it is (good and bad) effectively help keep people in the dark, even if only by giving them a reasonable-sounding excuse to dismiss the information as "pointless" or "useless". Given that I am an educator, I take all attempts to cover up, dismiss, or simply ignore information to be a pernicious form of control and manipulation -- pessimism contributes to apathetic attitudes that make such control and manipulation even easier.
In answer to your question, "Do what?" I say, "KNOW! ... and then act on that knowledge as your conscience dictates." If it is talking to your friends, neighbors, colleagues, good. If it is joining or organizing a protest, good. If it's contributing money to veterans or orphans funds, or peace organizations, then good. If it is just voting for candidates you believe will help end (unnecessary) conflicts or oppressions, then good. I'm not going to dictate HOW you act, but I do fervently hope that you (and I) can follow our consciences in the context of having available to us the fullest amount of information possible. Photographs are -- to my mind -- a vital part of that information.
I suspect that there's no chance we're going to agree, so after that I'll bow out. My position is, doubtless clear: information is important and part of the preconditions for an engaged, politically responsible society ... photographs (even of conflict) are essential to that fund of information and thus are indispensable and to be valued, even if their contribution is "amorphous" (and even sometimes ambivalent).
EDIT: grammar changes. OOPS!
I admitted that it's a statement of belief on my part that photography CAN BE a positive influence, but it's a belief that has some supporting evidence. The fact is that photography's "influence" on warfare or human violence/oppression must be looked at on a case by case basis, of course.
In the case of Japan's colonial adventures (1905-1945), (state-sponsored as well as some popular/social and news) photography played a role in helping whip up a fervor for war and bloodshed. In the case of Vietnam, I believe that war journalism (including photography) played a role in turning US public opinion against the war, which arguably could / would have continued on much longer without graphic visual documents of what was happening there. There is no one-size fits all conclusion.
Your post seems to imply that unless photographs somehow make war obsolete or end it entirely that it's useless. That is, in my opinion, an unrealistic expectation -- Vietnam is a good example here: photographic evidence didn't prevent it or even immediately stop it, but I believe it helped end it sooner than it would have. The same is true for something like child labor. (Lewis Hine, anyone?) In cases like this, photography feeds into (i.e., contributes to, reinforces) wider social attitudes and developments, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
The fact is that, as far as war (and other forms of oppression and violence) is concerned, other forces (psychological, political, technological, social, etc.) have exercised a far more decisive influence in making modern history drastically more violent and deadly than the pre-photographic era. But, the fact that photography hasn't ended human oppression doesn't mean it hasn't had some positive effects in particular cases.
Democracy hasn't ended war or poverty either, but do we just throw our hands up and say it's worthless?
The fact that I cannot empirically demonstrate that photography has decisively reduced human violence does not, for me, invalidate it: I cannot "prove" that art or political satire has a beneficial effect either, but in both cases I think that they are essential to a functioning democracy.
The real question is does the fact that we cannot say unequivocally either way mean we should avoid documenting wars? Does it negate or invalidate the ethical urge to protest at the mistreatment of fellow human beings? You seem to imply that because war is still prevalent and more violent than ever that we can just abandon the whole enterprise of documenting it. Do I assume you at least level the same skepticism toward photographs of racism, poverty, child labor, natural disasters, etc. and that you only "consume" and support "decorative" photos (sunsets, flowers, nudes, etc., -- things that make you feel good)? After all, the world still has racism, poverty, child labor too. And -- given the world's explosive population growth -- more people in absolute terms probably suffer from all of them than in the pre-photographic (pre-1850) world. Do we just stop reading about or viewing photographs of those things?
To be clear, I am not saying there are no ethical issues with conflict photography. There clearly are -- imbrication in business, media exploitation, etc. But to take the position that we can just ignore photographic evidence of war completely or even deny it as "truth" -- as I think you came close to doing when you said "can't see any truth being spoken" -- seems to imply that only "happy" photographs are "true" -- or that none are. A proposition I find absurd and (see below) pernicious.
I know that I have voted very consciously on the basis of a candidate's record of willingness to go to war and I have quite often discussed at length with other people (some of whom vote) my views on current wars and their atrocities. My views and voting habits are thus influenced by photographs from places like Afghanistan. I suspect that there are many people much like myself -- the fact that we cannot end war completely does not mean that there is NO positive contribution being made by documents such as Stanworth's. My experience, and others such as Vietnam, would suggest that your pessimism is somewhat overdone.
In short, I take the position that such photographs are a form of knowledge and that, even when it is hard to measure its effects, knowledge is a good thing. Pessimism and apathy about documenting the world as it is (good and bad) effectively help keep people in the dark, even if only by giving them a reasonable-sounding excuse to dismiss the information as "pointless" or "useless". Given that I am an educator, I take all attempts to cover up, dismiss, or simply ignore information to be a pernicious form of control and manipulation -- pessimism contributes to apathetic attitudes that make such control and manipulation even easier.
In answer to your question, "Do what?" I say, "KNOW! ... and then act on that knowledge as your conscience dictates." If it is talking to your friends, neighbors, colleagues, good. If it is joining or organizing a protest, good. If it's contributing money to veterans or orphans funds, or peace organizations, then good. If it is just voting for candidates you believe will help end (unnecessary) conflicts or oppressions, then good. I'm not going to dictate HOW you act, but I do fervently hope that you (and I) can follow our consciences in the context of having available to us the fullest amount of information possible. Photographs are -- to my mind -- a vital part of that information.
I suspect that there's no chance we're going to agree, so after that I'll bow out. My position is, doubtless clear: information is important and part of the preconditions for an engaged, politically responsible society ... photographs (even of conflict) are essential to that fund of information and thus are indispensable and to be valued, even if their contribution is "amorphous" (and even sometimes ambivalent).
EDIT: grammar changes. OOPS!
Last edited:
Ducky
Well-known
Foisted on my own pitard (??)
Child labor laws. If I knew who own the copyright I would credit them.
Child labor laws. If I knew who own the copyright I would credit them.
Ducky
Well-known
Democracy hasn't ended war or poverty either, but do we just throw our hands up and say it's worthless?
Now that would be an interesting discussion, but I'd better leave it lay.
All good points, Kevin, Thanks.
The thing I miss most with discussions like this is a local coffe shop or a cold beer. I miss the expressions of a lively discussion.
Ducky
Now that would be an interesting discussion, but I'd better leave it lay.
All good points, Kevin, Thanks.
The thing I miss most with discussions like this is a local coffe shop or a cold beer. I miss the expressions of a lively discussion.
Ducky
Phantomas
Well-known
Why does it even have to be so radical? Do you watch morning news? Are you interested in familiarizing yourself with the world and what's going on in it? Given that photography is my favorite visual medium I certainly appreciate the information it gives me about current events. I learn the same information by looking at "regular" street shots, about the city, about the people in it and about the environment, now or whenever the photo was taken. It gives me extra information that is hugely complementary to one I gather from books, media and personal trips. It helps me learn about the world.
Combine that with HUGE appreciation for aesthetics of photographic medium and I've got a winning formula. Sure it's not a complete picture and can be skewed sometimes, but I'm big enough boy to try to filter out good information from just photographic backdrop.
Minutes before I was looking through Yuri Kozyrev's reportage from Dagestan. Will I run out and stabilize the whole North Caucasus region? That'd be great. But realistically I learned extra information about it visually. It helped me put faces on some of preconceptions I had about people and situation there that I continue to gather from various sources. I hope I will see more of such reportage, perhaps a series on their educational system, or border patrol, or stories of mujahedins turned government collaborators. I hope to see more people around dried up swimming pools in Afghanistan. Photojournalism is not dead. MOAR!
Combine that with HUGE appreciation for aesthetics of photographic medium and I've got a winning formula. Sure it's not a complete picture and can be skewed sometimes, but I'm big enough boy to try to filter out good information from just photographic backdrop.
Minutes before I was looking through Yuri Kozyrev's reportage from Dagestan. Will I run out and stabilize the whole North Caucasus region? That'd be great. But realistically I learned extra information about it visually. It helped me put faces on some of preconceptions I had about people and situation there that I continue to gather from various sources. I hope I will see more of such reportage, perhaps a series on their educational system, or border patrol, or stories of mujahedins turned government collaborators. I hope to see more people around dried up swimming pools in Afghanistan. Photojournalism is not dead. MOAR!
emraphoto
Veteran
the photo's that came out of the Biafran conflict during it's lowest point brought in the people who went on to form MSF.
Don McCullins photo's of children with kwashiorkor brought foreign volunteers to fly supplies into what was then a totally cut off Niger Delta.
Eugene Smith's (Life, 1972 i believe) image of Tomoka Uemera led to international public pressure on Chisso (who at the time was dumping mercury into the waters) and eventually Chisso halted the practice. It also led to Chisso agreeing to pay compensation to the victims. Little was known of the issue until Smith's work.
'Napalm Strike'
'Execution of Viet Cong Guerilla'
both images did more to sway the american publics support of the war than any government sponsored pr or propaganda.
Lawrence Beitler's 'Lynching' was widely viewed as a catalyst for the US administrations public and active condemnation of the KKK. it was also widely believed to have swayed public opinion heavily resulting in a decline in popularity the Klan never recovered from.
Lewis Hine is widely credited with instigating the reforms to child labor laws in the US.
Rosenthal's image of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima resulted in an upsurge in public support for finishing the war when the US public's opinion was at an all time low.
the list is long.
Don McCullins photo's of children with kwashiorkor brought foreign volunteers to fly supplies into what was then a totally cut off Niger Delta.
Eugene Smith's (Life, 1972 i believe) image of Tomoka Uemera led to international public pressure on Chisso (who at the time was dumping mercury into the waters) and eventually Chisso halted the practice. It also led to Chisso agreeing to pay compensation to the victims. Little was known of the issue until Smith's work.
'Napalm Strike'
'Execution of Viet Cong Guerilla'
both images did more to sway the american publics support of the war than any government sponsored pr or propaganda.
Lawrence Beitler's 'Lynching' was widely viewed as a catalyst for the US administrations public and active condemnation of the KKK. it was also widely believed to have swayed public opinion heavily resulting in a decline in popularity the Klan never recovered from.
Lewis Hine is widely credited with instigating the reforms to child labor laws in the US.
Rosenthal's image of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima resulted in an upsurge in public support for finishing the war when the US public's opinion was at an all time low.
the list is long.
emraphoto
Veteran
Foisted on my own pitard (??)
Child labor laws. If I knew who own the copyright I would credit them.
Lewis Hine for the National Child Labor Committee circa 1910'ish
Ducky
Well-known
There we go, emraphoto nailed the discussion. All proof that my argument was unsupported. I yield to kevin and emraphoto and thank them for an interesting discussion.
Rosenthal's image of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima resulted in an upsurge in public support for finishing the war when the US public's opinion was at an all time low.
Just near the end of WWII there was a heavy movement to combine the Marines with the army and close out the Marines. I doub't if they would have done it but once Rosenthal's image was published, the Marines were forever recognized as a solid branch of the US armed forces. That's documented someplace but I forget where.
Rosenthal's image of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima resulted in an upsurge in public support for finishing the war when the US public's opinion was at an all time low.
Just near the end of WWII there was a heavy movement to combine the Marines with the army and close out the Marines. I doub't if they would have done it but once Rosenthal's image was published, the Marines were forever recognized as a solid branch of the US armed forces. That's documented someplace but I forget where.
Papercut
Well-known
I would enjoy that too. I have a good friend here in the bay area who is a die-hard conservative -- he and I love nothing more than to sit down with some beers and hash out things like foreign policy and health care. Other people in our circle of friends just shake their heads and steer a wide berth, but both he and I find it invigorating. Debate in good faith -- i.e., the genuine exchange of viewpoints -- is a healthy thing ... and sadly, so hard to do online simply because of the lack of visual and aural cues (we read posts in our head in a disembodied, faceless, fictional voice). Makes it very tough.
Debate in good faith -- i.e., the genuine exchange of viewpoints -- is a healthy thing ... and sadly, so hard to do online simply because of the lack of visual and aural cues (we read posts in our head in a disembodied, faceless, fictional voice). Makes it very tough. 
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Whatever the attitude of others these pics impressed me. A landscape shaped by war and weapons ... and in amongst the ugliness people doing what people do all around the world.
Flying kits, kicking footballs and dealing with drug addiction.
Flying kits, kicking footballs and dealing with drug addiction.
wgerrard
Veteran
Anyone who doubts that seeing video and photos of war doesn't have an impact should consider why Lyndon Johnson chose not to run in 1968. Watching the war in Vietnam on TV over dinner had a profound impact on American politics. It may not have created a nation of pacifists, but that's not surprising given human nature. Humans have always known the cost of war -- death -- but we are prepared to pay it.
Ducky, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that photographers should not be allowed to cover war because, so far, photography has not eliminated war? Or, are you just trying to make an academic point?
Ducky, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that photographers should not be allowed to cover war because, so far, photography has not eliminated war? Or, are you just trying to make an academic point?