- James Nachtwey, Afghanistan
Recently, I’ve been thinking about war photography, and the moral arguments that commonly support it. I’ve been seeing people use those arguments to advocate for certain practices in photography in general, and I think there are problems with that.
To me, war-phototography is not the same as non-violent-photography.
- James Nachtwey, Bosnia
For example, in the movie War Photographer, by Christian Frei, photojournalist James Nachtwey describes his process like this: “In a war, the normal codes of civilized behavior are suspended. It would be unthinkable in so called normal life, to go into someone’s home, where the family is grieving over the death of a loved one, and spend long moments photographing them. It simply wouldn’t be done.
“Those pictures could not have been made unless I was accepted by the people I’m photographing. It’s simply impossible to photograph moments such as those without the complicity of the people I’m photographing; without the fact that they welcomed me, that they accepted me, that they wanted me to be there.”
- James Nachtwey, Bosnia
The film shows Nachtwey building relationships, asking questions, and getting to know communities in a conscientious way, even as it also shows him taking pictures in the midst of explosions. But the film emphasizes the picture-taking, not the communication, which I think sends a false message.
I can see how, in a violent situation, neither the photographer nor the subject might be concerned with asking permission or communicating verbally. I can see how permission could be implicit. But I also know that it is easier not to ask permission. It is easier not to communicate. And it’s very easy to misunderstand.
So I’m wary of implicit permission, especially when it’s applied to non-violent situations. I often hear photographers say they are “giving a voice to the voiceless” or “bearing witness.” And when that is the aim, I think that some level of collaboration between photographer and subject—some kind of overt permission—is necessary for the image to have a positive impact.
In a fantastic essay for the online journal Soundscapes, Hans Durrer confronts this issue, saying, “In times when (some) photographers hold celebrity status, it is useful to be reminded that a good photograph does not solely depend on the photographer’s ability to choose the right subject, location and light, but also on the chemistry and the collaboration, between photographer and subject…Despite my deep sympathy for socially inclined photographers, when the people portrayed feel ashamed of their portraits, there clearly is something wrong with this kind of photography.”
That is just an electric statement: When the people portrayed feel ashamed of their portraits, there is something wrong with that kind of photography.
This doesn’t only happen in journalism. It also happens in collaborations between photographers and nonprofit organizations. I spoke to Benjamin Chesterton the other day, who runs the multimedia production company duckrabbit and the blog A Developing Story and he said, “It’s amazing to me that these NGOs’ awareness campaigns will say they’re giving a voice to the voiceless, but you never hear a single actual voice from the community that’s being represented.” This is happening right now with UNICEF’s new Put It Right campaign. Photo/audio slideshows that duckrabbit produces use voices in an incredibly powerful way, as in this one made for MSF (Doctors Without Borders).
Artist Fazal Sheikh photographs war and the issues that surround it, and is a photographer who takes permission seriously, and emphasizes it. Rather than seeing permission as a burden, Sheikh actually builds better projects and makes better pictures by asking permission. Which is intuitive, but not if you’ve just been watching War Photographer.
- Copyright Fazal Sheikh, “Abduhl Rahman” from The Victor Weeps
In his introduction to the book A Camel for the Son, about Somali refugees living in Kenya, Sheikh writes, “I arrived at the camp at Liboi in February 1992 on a UNHCR flight from Nairobi along with news journalists, most of whom were staying for one or two days. The war was fresh and the competition for pictures and stories was fierce.
“I decided to stay on longer and asked one of the Somali leaders whether he would allow me to work in the camp. Some weeks earlier, on the Sudanese border, I had asked an elder the same question. ‘Why are you asking me?’ was his reply. ‘I am only a refugee.’ But his tone made it clear what a violation it was for the refugees to have strangers moving through their communities without their consent.”
- Copyright Fazal Sheikh, “Alima Yusuf Abdi and her son Hassan” from A Camel for the Son
This is someone I can look up to. This is someone who has created a process that lines up with his stated goals. He also makes incredibly beautiful images, whose beauty has a lot to do with the energy, self-assertion, and self-possession that people display in front of his lens.
- Copyright Fazal Sheikh, “Alima Hassan Abdullai and her brother Mahmoud” from A Camel for the Son
Seeing the strength, the individuality, and the self conscious composure of his subjects, I feel devastated and enraptured; humbled and uplifted. I feel sad. I feel educated. I feel inspired. And I feel proud to be the audience at the end of a photographic process I believe in. By making pictures that his subjects are not ashamed of, he allows me, as the audience, to shed my shame as well.
- Copyright Fazal Sheikh, “Hadija and her father Badel Addan Gadel” from A Camel for the Son
- Eliza Gregory writes a weekly blog for PhotoPhilanthropy.
related posts
- Fazal Sheikh: fear, vulnerability and openness
- Just another set of limb chopped Africans by a famous photographer
- Carla Williams: “We’ve gone past the discussion of race and not actually integrated that broader approach into our thinking about art.”
- Teaching a photographer to fish – Glenna Gordon
- PAY UP! Photographers and NGO’s and $$
[...] via A Developing Story | War photographer: a dangerous idolatry. [...]
I don ‘t think you can compare photojournalism ( has journalism ethics and standards) of witness an untainted event, capturing the moment with that of art photographers or portrait photographers, where its basically acknowledged set up of person looking directly into a camera…easy to do in my opinion. Harder to be there as the moment unfolds and capture the real moment as best as one can.
This article is trying to connect apples and oranges. One is not better than other, it is just different way of working and different meaning of photography to the photographers. Premises of article of collaborating with subjects conflicts with very foundation of journalism ethics.
I would even go further and say it has become trendy for photographers to call themselves photojournalists…but one should look at the root of this word. Photojournalism means…telling story through photographs..does not mean collaboration.
I also wonder if you have permission to use James Nachtwey’s images for this piece? It looks like Fazal Sheikh is getting promoted at the expense of James Nachtwey! Sorry for being blunt, but they are not in same league as photographers.
Thanks for these comments ‘photojournalist’.
Its not simply not true that journalists do not collaborate with their subjects, or that portraiture is not a form of journalism.
When a reporter does an interview it is highly constructed. You wouldn’t say that isn’t journalism would you? Photography doesn’t operate in some alternative sphere when it comes to journalism than print or radio. The same principles exist. If they don’t then you should drop the word ‘journalism’ alongside that of ‘photo’ because it is a misappropriation of the word.
On another note the legal principle of fair use covers the use of images, or screenshots for critical commentary.
Reporter do interviews..but its not always highly constructed as you say.
Reporters do go to news events and reports things as it unfolds, profiles pieces. Many levels of reporting.
Same for photographers, they do take portraits, but it’s not ALL.
Largely, they capture things as it happens in a real situation, in a split second.
This is a talent, this is what Nachtwey is good at, that is different from doing soley portraits.
There are too many photographers who consider themselves
photojournalists who only know of taking portraits. They are photographers not photojournalists.
One more thing, reporter do interviews..but there’s no collaboration of how it will be covered or if it will be a positive story? To have collaboration goes against journalism ethics.
Thanks again Photojournalist … its an interesting debate and you raise important questions.
Journalists do very often collaborate with the people in the picture. If you want to photograph in the White Houses for example. There’s all kinds of subtle levels of control that go on.
I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding of what Eliza has written. The point is that we can’t presume that people are happy to have their photograph taken, as Nachtwey suggests. For me that doesn’t take anything away from the photos, they are important.
Let me ask you a question. In regards to the holocaust , how many photos do you need to see to get the horror of it? If it was a woman being raped how many times would you need to see it before your looking becomes problematic?
Thanks again for your thought on this.
Interesting, it seems that you are claiming images made with “acknowledged” consent are more valuable than images made with only “applied” consent. Yet, the examples you’ve used to illustrate your theory, clearly prove it wrong.
Nachtwey’s images, even though I’ve seen them a hundred times before, are captivating, engage the viewer and make me want to learn more about the event, whereas Sheikh’s images are, I’m sad to say, superficial and easily forgettable. Still, if they move you and allow you to “shed your shame”, then they are successful. In the eye of the beholder and all.
For the record, it would be impossible for Nachtwey, or any photojournalist, to work in a war zone with out the cooperation and consent, applied or otherwise, of those being photographed.
Now, more importantly, how much did you pay to license these images by Sheikh, or Nachtwey for use on your site?
Please tell me that you didn’t publish these images without consent. That would be… shameful.
Kenneth,
thanks for your comments.
I think they are common to many photographers who admire the photography of Nachtwey.
This statement is simply not true:
‘For the record, it would be impossible for Nachtwey, or any photojournalist, to work in a war zone with out the cooperation and consent, applied or otherwise, of those being photographed.’
There’s the obvious point that a dead body can’t give consent. But beyond that many conflict photographers use long lens. Their job is not to get consent, it’s to get the picture.
It’s Ok to call Sheikhs photographs ’superficial’ but it would be helpful if you offered some kind of explanation for this opinion.
Having worked in camps in Kenya I see the dignity of the many people that I came across. Nothing superficial about that dignity, or how it is represented here. Maybe you prefer your Africans served up for pity?
First of all, you are choosing to show selective images of Nachtwey’s work to make your selective point.
When famine hit Somalia, it was photographers who got the images out first, it was those images the world saw. Same is true with Rwanda genocide and cholera epidemic afterwards, it was the images that got the world involved. And those images are now a record of what happened. If it was not for photojournalsits, you would not have those images to go back one as reference. This is important.
Taking portraits just doesnt give you the impact…
War and disease are ugly things.
I dont think people who lived through the Rwandan Genocide or The Holocaust want water down version of nice collaborated portraits. I think they want people to remember the horror of it..so that it does not happen again. Sheihks portraits are series of portraits, people looking pleasant, and it has no historical context, or content.
Hi Photojounralist,
completely agree that its an important art. I’m sure Eliza does too.
[...] think back to some of the comments on my post two weeks ago, where a few writers decried Fazal Sheikh’s pictures as boring and [...]
[...] think back to some of the comments on my post two weeks ago, where a few writers decried Fazal Sheikh’s pictures as boring and [...]
[...] http://www.adevelopingstory.org/2010/war-photographer-a-dangerous-idolatry [...]
I find the last picture you displayed of Nachtwey extremely powerful and moving. I usually find pictures of dead people uninteresting and impersonal, yet in a war situation as a journalist and as a photographer you have to try to portray the reality of war, which in parts is that many people die. I find photos of dead people only interesting in their relations to the living, I think anyone can empathize with the two men portrayed, their grieving and their loss. I am sure if they did not want a photographer there they would have told Nachtwey. Also I can’t see why they would be ashamed of this picture, were they?
Fazal Sheikh portraits are also wonderfully executed and looking at them I feel the same way as you do.
I don’t think one should oppose one practise against another in terms of what’s most valid. I think they both reach different audiences but both engage the viewer, albeit in different ways. That’s why photography is so diverse and interesting. I don’t think Fazal portraits show the whole reality of these camps or Nachtwey’s work that of the Bosnian or the Afghan war. Why should they?
One is clearly a news photographer and the other a documentary photographer. You clearly prefer Fazal Sheikh’s approach but why should it be at the expense of other practises? Are you saying that news photography shouldn’t exist? That we should only portray war in series of portraits that put the subjects in a particular light?
I can’t believe Benjamin said ‘Maybe you prefer your Africans served up for pity?’ as an argument to discredit the opinions of others who disagree with him (are you referring to any particular set of images?). Where you feel pity, others may feel empathy, compassion, outrage….
rgds
Dear Eve,
I very much agree with you that there is room for a variety of approaches to documenting, portraying and discussing the world through images. I actually really like many of Nachtwey’s images, and I think they play an important role in educating people about conflict. The main argument I was trying to make was that I think a lot of people use Nachtwey’s approach when they photograph very different subjects than Nachtwey covers, and I see the images that arise from that as often reinforcing stereotypes, rather than breaking them down.
My husband made a great comment to me about this the other day. He characterized photojournalism as being primarily about documenting EVENTS, whereas an artist like Fazal Sheikh is documenting PEOPLE. Of course, there’s a lot of crossover there–events happen to people, and people create events–but I think that’s one of the things I was trying to get at. I think if you want to really illuminate what it feels like to be someone else, then you need to build a photographic process that engages with that other person in a more layered way. Whereas when you are trying to portray an event, that event is what the image is about–you’re engaged in a very different narrative. I think one of the things I was trying to say is that I don’t like it when people get portrayed as events.
Does that make any sense? This is the first time I’ve tried to articulate that idea…I think it may need a little work!
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments!
eliza