we produce beautifully crafted multimedia » awards

After the world stops looking – an Afghan photographer’s Pulitzer prize

Ciara Leeming — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:28:24 +0000

Interesting piece over on the Grauniad on Massoud Hossaini, the recent winner of a Pulitzer prize. Worth your time.

Please keep supporting the Aftermath grant

duckrabbit — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:00:16 +0000

(a letter from Sara Terry)

Dear duckrabbit readers

I’ll keep this brief…

We are in the final phases of editing our new book, “War is Only Half the Story, Vol Four” — featuring Danny Wilcox Frazier’s incredibly strong work about the aftermath of Wounded Knee; Monika Bulaj’s beautiful work from Afghanistan; and the wonderful work of our finalists, Jessica Hines, Helena Schaetzle, and Olga Kravets, Maria Morina and Oksana Yushko.

We want to get this book to the printer by the end of the month so that we can mail it out in December.

But we are $4,000 short of meeting our $15,000 matching grant from the NEA to publish this book.

Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated. You can donate via Paypal on our website:

http://www.theaftermathproject.org

Or you can buy one of the prints featured in our fundraising brochure.

This has been a big year for us — we’ve given out more than $100,000 in grants to photographers who are working on projects about the aftermath of war. We continue to do our work on an absolute shoestring, and we need your help to get this year’s book out in to the world. It’s one of the most important outcomes of what we do – funding work isn’t enough. It has to be seen. Free copies of our book are sent to every US senator, peacebuilding and journalism programs, museum curators, educators and editors.

Many thanks to those of you who’ve already donated, and to our publishing partners — the NEA, the Foundation to Promote Open Society and Photo Wings.

And a sincere thanks in advance to those of you who are in a position to help.

Kind regards,

Sara Terry

Director/Founder The Aftermath Grant

duckrabbit adds

We often praise photographers for getting beautiful shots in hard to access places. Rightly so. But it takes a different, more unique kind of courage, of faith, of bloodymindedness, of fight, of madness to keep going, year after year, pretty much singlehandedly, to beg, borrow and steal, in order to fund the kind of photography that you believe in. Not your own photography, but others.

The ongoing lifespan of the Aftermath grant is a remarkable achievement by Terry that demands respect and awe.

OUCH: Maggie Steber accuses duckrabbit of conducting a hysterical witchunt. Am I?

duckrabbit — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:40:52 +0000

There’s no question that Maggie Steber is a top, top photographer. She’s hugely respected for all the right reasons and her voice carries weight. Tonight she’s written that duckrabbit’s (Benjamin Chesterton’s) questions regarding Jodi Bieber’s World Press winning photograph are ‘hysterical’ and amount to a ‘witchunt’. That’s quite a dressing down that deserves some thinking space.

You can read the original post here where Maggie’s thoughts were posted.

Below is Maggie’s comment (in which she makes some good points, some ill informed ones and some pretty revealing ones), and beneath is my response. Please make up your own mind, but I would like to point out nowhere have I stated that I think ‘Bieber was complicit with Time Magazine’s headline’.

(UPDATE Maggie has since written clarifying her original comments, which I have added to the bottom of the post. For the record I don’t think Maggie owes duckrabbit any kind of apology. None. Some people think that she was spot on in her criticism, others disagree; that’s just the nature of duckrabbit.)

Maggie SteberI’m growing tired of this accusation that somehow Jodi Bieber was complicit with Time Magazine’s headline.

I can tell you that she was absolutely dismayed about the headline but this is something not in her control.
So many commenters behave as though she was complicit and I’m so sorry because not coming out and publicly decrying something that magazine does—this isn’t the first time TIME MAGAZINE has supported war—does not infer compliance.

I see that you neglected to mention in your comments that a woman’s group in Afghanistan credit’s that photograph being on the cover of Time to a huge increase in support of women and more money being donated to fight this very issue on behalf of women in Afghanistan….so you are just as guilty as what you accuse Jodi of.
Secondly, give me break. Go onto any photographers’ website and we all will put scans or copies
of covers we have on magazines as well as articles inside. This is customary and yes, okay she put the Time Magazine Cover on her website. That does not imply that she is complicit, it only means that it was on the cover. And show me any photographer who isn’t proud or grateful for that. Editors don’t call us to get our okay about words they put on a photograph.

Finally, if you ever met Jodi or knew about the rest of her work on behalf of women, especially in South Africa, you would at least have again mentioned this. Her work has long celebrated the TRUE beauty of women and I’m not talking about movie actresses or skinny models……I mean real women, many large hips and breasts and butts. This smells like a witch hunt to me. If you want to go after someone, why not go after the editors at TIME MAGAZINE? All this time and energy spent on
trying to blame a photographer for something she had no control over. Should she have come out publicly and stated that she was outraged by the headline….of course she was outraged but she has chosen not to respond to this witch hunt or dignify it.

To award her the world press photo of the year is also not her doing. It’s the World Press judges and I’m sure there was debate about it because I’ve served on that jury several times and believe me, you leave with battle scars. I’m astonished to some degree at the attacks on Jodi—just because she won’t answer or do what some people think she should do.

I have to say, there are so many other photographers who do work that could also be questioned in terms of putting women into danger or that point out the same things—-and Time could have used any of those pictures as well…is it because Aisha is pretty or what?

It’s one thing to criticize Time Magazine and to criticize the judges but I think Jodi tried to portray Aisha as a victim of a terrible and ancient practice that points to many more horrid things. Is it her fault that Aisha is also a very beautiful woman?

Therewere all kinds of exchanges when that cover came out about the “lighting” etc…..there was no lighting. I asked Jodi. That was available light. And if you see the frames around that one, you’ll see that she just worked the situation in a very natural way. And you can be sure that she offered Time more than one photograph and they would demand it anyway.

Why there is so much talk about her and LESS about Time, about the PRACTICE that tortured Aisha and womens’ issues in the Middle East anyway is nonsensical. How about American foreign policy? I don’t hear anyone yelling about that.

If people want to shoot arrows, shoot them at TIME, shoot them at the World Press Judges and shoot them at American foreign policy. Some people want Jodi to make a public statement apologizing for something over which she has no control (Time doesn’t call photographers and ask them to approve a headline or even how they their pictures are used), they want her to be outraged….how do you know she isn’t? But why should she answer anyone’s accusations when people come out with both barrels blazing???

This smells, like I said, like a witch hunt and I think it stinks. She is a good person, and her work has focussed on women and women’s issuem all her career. I think there’s something else going on here, some personal vendettas or something. I’M OUTRAGED AT THIS POINT by the constant attacks. Get over it. If any person had asked Jodi in a nice and civil way, you might actually have gotten an answer. I certainly cannot speak for her but I know her, she is very good woman and she doesn’t deserve these attacks.
ATTACK TIME, ATTACK THE BRUTAL CUSTOM, ATTACK AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY but let’s not shoot the messenger….and I’m not at all sure how many photographers would have the guts to come out publicly and criticize any magazine.

Believe me, they would be few and far between. This is all hysteria and when the whole Middle East is exploding, this is not what our discussion should be about. Let’s quit vilifying someone and hanging out to dry in public someone who, at least in my opinion, doesn’t deserve it. If you want to criticize the photograph as the choice by judges, go ahead, that’s fair but the hysteria is ridiculous. Be hysterical about the practice, not the person who showed it to us. Believe me, there are photographers who do far worse things.

duckrabbit:
HI Maggie,

I respect you as a photographer but I really don’t think you’re doing Jodi any favors here.

You say that ‘she was absolutely dismayed about the headline’ and yet you see no contradiction between that and putting it on the front page of her website. That to some people would be making the case that to Bieber fame is more important than truth.

Clearly you come from a different media world then mine. But I have to say in all my years of working for the BBC I cannot think of a single documentary producer who would promote their own work if they thought it had been distorted for political end. One that involves bombing and killing people and making lots of profit. I can say the same for the photographers I work with.

What you are telling me is that if the New York Times did the same thing to one of your photos and you were ‘absolutely dismayed’, despite that, if there was enough buzz around the photo you would actively showcase it in the context you hate, as the first thing people see when they go to Maggie Steber’s website?

And if I said to you (hypothetically!!!!) I think you’re the type of person that probably would Maggie, wouldn’t most people rightly take that as an insult? But you’re arguing that infact it’s not an insult because that would be a normal thing for a photographer to do?

Wouldn’t you want to reclaim the photograph from the context in which it has been (ab)used, if not out of respect for your own work, out of respect for the person in the photograph.

You say, ‘If any person had asked Jodi in a nice and civil way, you might actually have gotten an answer. ‘

She was asked on the BBC WORLD SERVICE (a station I produce work for) and responded that “the way you read the photo and headline just depends on where you are coming from”. A slightly different version then the one you are giving us.

She also said,

“Whenever I go out I take responsibility because I know that my work is going to be published. I teach photography as well, and I really try and say to my students that no picture is worth fame or publicity … I try and stick by that.”

I think its one thing to defend a friend but another thing to try and stop debate by throwing in accusations like this is some kind of ‘witchunt’. To me that kind of accusation is the ‘hysteria’ on view here. If you follow the links below you’ll see just how ill informed a comment it is. We have consistently supported Jodi as a photographer (up until I visited her website a couple of days ago to find the TIME cover as the image chosen for the homepage)

Lots of people are dieing in Afghanistan. How that story is told and re-told is important. How that story is promoted matters. No?

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2010/06/need-any-persuadeing-that-we-are-not-in-the-age-of-post-photography/

‘Interested in hearing a thoughtful and immensely talented photographer? Then go and see Jodie Bieber talk at Host Gallery in London on June 30th. Should be a cracking event.’

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2010/07/bieber-time-women-afghanistan/

‘Very strong set of portraits from Jodi Bieber on Time.com. Very dignified and respectful. Shocking in parts. Enlightening in others.’

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2010/07/photography-and-dirty-propaganda/

‘I feel sorry for Bieber, she’s done a great job and cannot be faulted, but I feel this photo has been misused. Just as guns did not solve the problems of racism in South Africa, they will not solve the problems of woman’s rights in Afghanistan.’

MAGGIE STEBER

Let me try this again:

First of all, I am publicly apologizing to Benjamin for my use and unclear choice of words in my rant yesterday.

Let me clarify….when I used the word YOU in my rant……it was NOT aimed at Benjamin. Benjamin has, through duckrabbit, created a venue for us to have these exchanges and discussions and he is not the target of my criticism.
I have apologized to him in private emails and I do so here again. I am grateful for his hard work in maintaining this site so we might have these dialogues. Ben has remained neutral throughout the discussion…at least until his response to my initial posting, which is understandable.

Again, Ben, not about you but yes, in reaction to some others. I also want to make it clear that I am not trying to throw cold water on the discussion, the debate, or anyone’s right to free speech, including my own. I just feel like it is a conversation that is going in circles without anything being accomplished, anything significant. It’s like
preaching to the choir and I don’t see beyond the discussion among photographers, what is accomplished. But I suppose the conversation has to get going before anyone would take any real action beyond commenting.

Beyond that, briefly, there has been much discussion in some circles since the Time Magazine cover came out.
Whether she makes a public statement or stand about Time’s use of her photograph is Jodi’s personal and private choice.

We cannot know the full backstory and that is the one main point I really wanted to make….that I have learned there
are many sides to a story and that without knowing them all, one cannot comment without risking unwarranted criticism.

And there has been abundant criticism and speculation.

I wish that the people who are the most outraged would use that energy and time to WRITE DIRECTLY to the editors of Time Magazine. I think this is putting your money where your mouth is and that the kind of debate stirred by the headline should be addressed directly to the editors. My strong reaction yesterday is mainly due to that…..if people feel so strongly, start a movement and take up the cause, whatever you feel that is.

Thank you and thank you, Ben, for posting this comment.

Maggie Steber

UNICEF Photo of the Year 2010.

Iamnotasuperstarphotographer — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:58:04 +0000

Congratulations goes to Ed Kashi.

Here is the link. The website says it all and it is very, very cool that one of the shooters who really really knows his subject matter in exhaustive detail gets the honour of winning the prize.

Well done Ed!

(p.s Thanks to UNICEF for continuing to support photography too!)

Mishoka’s Story

duckrabbit — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:42:28 +0000

(3rd Place, Feature Audio Slideshow, Best of Photojournalism 2010)

Congratulations to all the other winners.

This video was produced in collaboration with MSF as part of their amazing Condition Critical project. Please do visit the website and leave a comment. THANKS.

The Prix Pictet prize has just been announced

duckrabbit — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:55:14 +0000

Great photo’s, but if the world is any less fucked for them I’m a coconut. (let’s face it we’re only talking about this award because the winner gets £50000)

UPDATE

On the Prix Pictet website Kofi Annan has said that,

The photographs were a compelling call for action to tackle climate change, the most serious humanitarian and environmental challenge facing the world today: “Only weeks separate us from the decisive negotiations on climate change in Copenhagen. We are confronted with the vital need to prepare the political momentum necessary for a fair and effective post-Kyoto agreement. The images in front of us remind us of the fragility of our planet and the damage we have already done. When we see these photographs we cannot close our eyes and remain indifferent. Through our actions and voices, we must keep building the pressure to secure urgent action at Copenhagen and beyond.”

duckrabbit must be completely missing something because without accompanying commentary I cannot see how these beautiful photographs tell a story about climate change that can have any impact? By saying they do is like declaring the impotency of photography. Infact if you read Nadav’s thoughtful personal statement he doesn’t even mention climate change.

Are these photo’s, and the bankability of the photographer, being manipulated to fuel an agenda that was never intended to be there? It is interesting that for the second year running a story about China has been picked. When it comes to the environment the West loves to beat up China. With this in mind duckrabbit wonders if the judges were making a very political statement by once again picking photographs of China?

The Prix Pictet is the world’s first prize dedicated to photography and sustainability. It has a unique mandate – to use the power of photography to communicate crucial messages to a global audience; and it has a unique goal – art of the highest order, applied to the immense social and environmental threats of the new millennium.

Subscribe to duckrabbit’s feed and follow us on twitter

Is duckrabbit the only person dissapointed that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?

duckrabbit — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:51:56 +0000

Seriously, I’m a big Obama fan and I think he’s done a lot already in reaching out to the world, but it seems a bit premature.

America, alongside China and India, is currently responsible for a large proportion of the world’s emissions of co2, the stuff that causes climate change. We’re pretty bad in the UK too.

If the predictions are correct then global warming is going to unleash suffering on a biblical scale.

Now if Obama could get together with the leaders of China and India and create a meaningful plan as to how we stop vast areas of the world going underwater that would be a great, great thing.

For me this award diminishes the nobel peace prize. But then everyone working in media knows that awards are bollocks anyway (accept when you win one!)

Taryn Simon’s TED talk

duckrabbit — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:10:53 +0000

About this talk

Taryn Simon exhibits her startling take on photography — to reveal worlds and people we would never see otherwise. She shares two projects: one documents otherworldly locations typically kept secret from the public, the other involves haunting portraits of men convicted for crimes they did not commit.

About Taryn Simon

With a large-format camera and a knack for talking her way into forbidden zones, Taryn Simon photographs portions of the American infrastructure inaccessible to its inhabitants.

Thanks to the excellent HOT SHOE blog for leading me to this fascinating video.

World Press Photo award winners now all online

duckrabbit — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:29:53 +0000

Its great to see all the World Press Photo awards on-line but to be honest I don’t think it does the medium any favors.

Collectively the photos represent a fairly limited view on the world and one that swiftly leads to cynicism. The so called crisis in photography should encourage World Press to embrace new uses of the medium if their selections aren’t to become a curiosity in a world that has since moved fast forward beyond the single image. To me photography is still essential. so why celebrate such a limited vision of the world?

INCLUSIVITY and photography – a thoughtful response

duckrabbit — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:10:07 +0000

Some time ago duckrabbit ran a silly competition offering $1000 to anyone who could successfully justify to Stan Banos why PDN set up a 22 strong all white photography judging panel.

The competition, and surrounding debate resulted in PDN putting out an apology of sorts. Today I received this comment from the US lawyer Steven Reyes:

‘I find it very interesting that the exact same issues that have been raised here, have been raised in other contexts were there are stark disparities (or absences) of minorities in a given profession or industry. Just a few months ago, the debate was about Sotomayor. For the past several decades it’s about the lack (other than a few notables) of non-stereotyped-acting roles for minorities or opportunities for directing, etc. The same debate arises when searching for faculty at universities, or CEO’s of corporations. The claim is often made that “they are not racist, they were just selecting the best most qualified people out there.”

While I agree that folks tend to be good (and not racist), a search for talent is only as good as how wide one’s search actually is. As a lawyer, when asked for recommendations for a board position, mine might tend to be lawyer-heavy (if I don’t make a concerted effort to think outside that box and outside the blinders that I might inherently have because of the interactions I have, both socially and professionally). Often, I’ll ask non-attorneys for their thoughts to ensure that my own blinders don’t prohibit me from overlooking well qualified people I might otherwise miss. Same thing I suspect occurs when searching for PDN judges.

The fact that these institutions/industries have lower proportions of minorities in them than one might otherwise expect is partially structural. Access to some of the opportunities to gain a foothold in an industry, whether by lack of educational opporutnities or by lack of ‘contacts’ is exacerbated greatly by the fact that a benign, self-perpetuating vicious cycle continues to lock out diversity. Until affirmative action, which isn’t about quotas, but about providing an equal opportunity for qualified people to get their foot in the door, universities were largely devoid of minorities, businesses didn’t outreach to minority applicants and still focused recruitment efforts in the same non-diverse manner.

Sometimes I think that discussions like these is enough for an institution to take steps towards asking some hard questions. Other times, in the case of more entrenched gender, racial, sex, and age discrimination, unfortunately, it takes more drastic (legal) action to undue those “blinders.”

I think the whole Sotomayor debate is instructive here. One one level having her as a Supreme Court justice is symbolic and for many Latinos represents a highly-visible example of having “made it” and that person can used as a role model for our kids. On another level, as the Supreme Court itself has acknowledged and (more recently in the past decade and a half) corporations, diversity helps to bring a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives to the table — whether at a law school, at a marketing meeting, at the Supreme Court, in a college classroom, or at the dinner table. Certainly, having a diversity of perspectives while judging a photography contest could prove just as beneficial.Does this mean, that the 24 judges didn’t judge based only on content, form, technical skill, etc.? Nope. But just focusing on that question ignores the broader issue of the existence of a disparity.