Recently I spoke at a conference about the American conflict in Vietnam. This was the first time I had presented a paper at a conference and it was interesting to receive responses after the talk. Some people were really excited by what I had said, some people wanted to argue with me, some people wanted to quiz me, and one guy said this:

“Do you think you are kind of ruining the photo by analysing it so much? I mean, these are iconic images, and you’ve got the photographers talking about them, talking about the moment they took them; don’t you think that you’re reading more into it than is really there?”

It’s a familiar cry. As someone whose passion for photography is born out of questioning, analysing and reading the images, it’s not a sentiment I share. However, I am grateful for the question because it’s got me thinking about why it is important to analyse images, why it’s especially important to analyse the image beyond what the photographer has to say about it, and why I do not consider myself – nor anyone else whose analyses I’ve found engaging – to be ‘over-reading’ the image. So, I would like to revisit the old issue of the need for new analysis.  I don’t want to polarise the already divided camps of those who consider themselves ‘common sense’ photographers and the ‘high-minded’ critics. I do believe in a fluid and supportive exchange between those who take photographs and those who analyse photographs. And hey, you know what, sometimes analysts are photographers and vice versa – which is pretty lovely.  So, avoiding all the ‘them and us’ rhetoric, here is why I do not think I am ‘over-analysing’ or ‘ruining’ the photograph by talking about it so much:

        First of all, I think it’s impossible for any analysis to ‘ruin’ the image. Even if it refutes what has gone before it, I think the key is to see the analysis as adding to the chain of conversation about the image. It’s not my idea vs. the photographer’s idea. It’s my idea plus the photographer’s idea. In fact, there can be many ideas about an image and they can all be valid. Yes, in the spirit of good debate we must pit analyses against one another, but the debate is a kind of playground where these things get thrown about – it doesn’t have to be a battleground for the life or death of an idea.The arguments can co-exist. They jostle for attention, they flow and become entangled with one another, but whatever the tension, a good argument still contains meaning. Two good arguments that pull in opposite directions both still contain meaning. So, yes, at the conference, Don McCullin had said some very sincere and interesting things about the circumstances of some of his ‘iconic’ images, but that doesn’t mean someone – anyone – can’t add to the meaning of that photo any more. It’s only democratic after all. Images change over time – they gather connotations, narratives diverge, they are used in new contexts which invert meanings. This is a brilliant thing. This keeps images current, complex and engaging. This is not the ruination of a purity. This is the celebration and growth of a piece of culture. Let’s not make actual ‘icons’ of images or photographers – they have much to give, but they are only the beginning of the life of an image. When I analyse, I don’t expect to defeat all the definitions that have gone before mine, and I don’t seek to. I hope to add to this pot of meaning, to stir it up a bit. It’s not an act of combat.

As an example of how meaning grows, rather than kills parts of itself off, we could look at a couple of images that I was in fact talking about during the conference. The first had its own cultural and political life before the second came along, and the second inverted and completed a narrative when it appeared. One changed the other, but both still exist with discreet meanings.  The first is the ‘iconic’ image of a small girl, running down a road, screaming in pain from the napalm that is burning her skin:

Nick Ut: 1972

It is an image that defined the morally reprehensible status of America’s war in Vietnam. It became the symbol for all that was wrong with the conflict: when young girls are fleeing napalm attacks, what hope for the liberation of the Southern Vietnamese? What hope for the Americans to be saviours rather than aggressors? It is also, just to keep things complex, a still from a video, which somewhat changes its status. As a still image, it is an icon, but as something taken from moving footage, it also pertains to a different kind of document with a different impact.

Then in 1995, this portrait was made of the ‘napalm girl’, Kim Phuc, who was now grown up and living in Canada:

Anne Bayin: 1995, 'Kim Phuc and Thomas'.

This photo alters the status of the first. Twenty-three years later, a ‘happy ending’ is wilfully added to the first image. My argument was that this Madonna-esque depiciton of Phuc, the damage of her scars weighed against the new life of her baby son’s perfect skin, figured perfectly the kind of healing that the American public needed after the failure of the war. She had gone from suffering Christ child to an Oriental Mary offering rebirth, redemption and forgiveness. This is further illustrated by her speech at the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial in 1996 where she spoke of forgiveness and a truly peaceful world (1). Her words and her body end up acting as a symbol for the power of the human spirit to overcome. In my opinion, this was perfect for wider American discourses – which largely seek out a Christian framework within which to understand suffering – as it gave the American public, veterans or otherwise, a suffering which had meaning. The chaos and trauma of the first image became a necessary precursor to the ‘overcome’ of the second image. This implies that the suffering was necessary for Phuc and the American nation in order for them to gain an insight into the true [Christian] value of life: love, peace, forgiveness. (2)

I find this morally troubling to say the least. It is not that Phuc’s own agency is overridden by such a narrative: she herself is a Christian and makes a good job of speaking at private and public events about her experience and her ethics. My anxiety lies in the fact that the second image gives a meaning to the first that allows it to be reconciled into the narrative of America’s Goodness and Righteousness. Despite it’s mistakes, America comes out as an agent of ‘the bigger plan’; suffering as route to redemption. Through the addition of the second image to the first, America, despite its downfall post-Vietnam, was able to reclaim the Godly position. A much needed narrative twist for the psyche of the nation, and a deeply disturbing reversion to the kind of thinking that caused the tragedy in Vietnam in the first place.

Whether you agree with my reading or not,  it is clear that the second image changed and exists alongside the meaning of the first image. It’s a kind of fractured co-existence of narratives that, in the end, collapse into one another, but also can be said to remain separate and original.

               As for ‘reading too much into it’. Well, I’ve got to say the first time I heard that was when I was in an English Literature class at secondary school. I’ve also heard it from my own English Lit. students when I try to draw their opinions on a poem: “But, would the poet have actually thought about all this? Like, really? Wouldn’t they just have like, er, written the poem? Come on, they didn’t think of all this stuff we’re talking about!” To this I usually say: First of all, yes, I assure you they did think about a lot of this stuff. Secondly, it doesn’t matter if they did or didn’t think of all this stuff because WE get to say what the poem means, how it’s working – not them.  I remember feeling this way myself; wondering if we were kind of over-doing it in English class, and then I remember the brilliant moment when the meaning of something opens up to you. Suddenly, you get to play with it, explore it. Rather than seeing the poem (or photo) as this one little, tight, solid object that’s just simply there; something you can’t interact with, you suddenly become part of it. You get to have a conversation with it.

To all those who fear the ‘over-read’ or who think the photographer has more to say about his/her image than anyone else, I want to say to you: argue with those who you admire and follow. Completely, utterly disagree with your leaders. If you respect them, opposition is the least you owe them. Work on reading images, work on backing up your readings, don’t shut down the image, don’t shut yourself off to the world that the image creates. Don’t let the image be that solid, impenetrable box. Get inside there, shuffle things around a bit, chuck some furniture out of the window, redecorate etc. etc.

Overworked house related metaphors aside, there’s so much to be done by questioning an image and none of it ‘ruins’ the image – all of it adds to the life of the image. Don’t believe in idols, don’t make photographs or photographers sacred. I see photographs more like bodies – shifting, corruptible, seductive, emotional and volatile. Photographs are not pieces of lifeless stone to worship; they are dancing partners.

(1) See this article in The Moderate Voice for some of what Phuc said at the memorial and a good demonstration about how she was ‘read’ by American commentators.

(2) For this argument I owe a great debt to Nancy K.Miller and if you want an interesting read about the figure of Kim Phuc and these portraits of her you should read her essay ‘The Girl in the Photograph: The Vietnam War and the Making of National Memory‘.

Related posts:

1. Just another beautiful photo on MSF’s photo blog for World Aids Day
2. BP wants Twitter to shut down a fake account mocking the oil company. Twitter wants BP to shut down the oil leak that’s ruining the ocean.

When I watch a photofilm in which the audio features the photographer talking about their images, I often switch off quite quickly. But when I heard Will Storr talk about his project on male survivors of rape in Congo and Uganda, I didn’t – in fact I was stopped in my tracks. I think the reason is that his delivery is so conversational – and therefore accessible – plus of course the angle of the story is somewhat different from what we are used to. The production of the photofilm could be better but the story and its delivery are very powerful. I’ve covered male rape stories myself in the past – it’s far more common even in the UK than you might think.

Related posts:

1. Multimedia -Sexual Warfare, Rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo
2. Photofilm, ‘Anything For The Weekend, Sir?’
3. “It is equivalent to every male in the UK dying a bachelor.”

Has Steve McCurry proved himself to be a godlike *******, Nachtwey style? According to the ever brilliant APHOTOEDITOR

Sod the intern job (could it possibly be a hoax?), for just over $10000 you can take an eleven day workshop in Myanmar with Steve and 13 others, (flights not included) where according to one past workshop particpant you can learn how to make kids cry.

‘Perhaps a seasoned photographer has met so many people that for him, the photograph is the only thing that matters while for me, the humanity of the moment does as well. Steve for me is a genius with what he does but he does it with a sadistic side that I don’t understand or want. I watched on a few occasions where he intentionally made children cry to watch the transition from happiness to sadness and for me, it was something that I would not like to do or want to have done to me. Another participant commented that Steve uses people like “tables and chairs” and that perhaps the look of the Afghan Girl was one of disdain.’

Answers on a postcard and send them to Magnum.

Related posts:

1. Content Fill on Photoshop CS5
2. STEVE McCURRY IS NOT AN ARSEHOLE.
3. That the word Dadaab is not synonymous with shame

The Democratic Republic of Congo is the most colourful place I’ve ever visited. The women even smile.

Madam Agata teaches a group of women in their last month of pregnancy to knit (c) Yasuyoshi Chiba/duckrabbit/MSF

Infact it’s the Muzungus (white people) who were the most drab, including this dodgy looking geezer:

duckrabbit reflecting on why he is the worst dressed person in The Congo

(C) Yasuyoshi Chiba/duckrabbit

The women in the photograph are in their last month of pregnancy and have a history of difficult previous labour.  At any one time MSF houses up to seventy pregnant women in their women’s village in Masisi.  Without MSF’s care one third of them would either die or lose their children in childbirth.

MSF provides them with life saving medical care and wool and knitting needles to make clothes for their new born babies.

Please think about supporting MSF (Doctors Without Borders).   I witnessed first hand what a difference their work makes.

Related posts:

1. Photography and dirty propaganda?
2. ‘Showing Congolese as only traumatized victims (or killers) may be highly offensive … but mostly it’s untrue.’
3. “We never knew”

During the judging of the recent World Press Awards one thing you can trust is that, on the whole, the judges will pick great pictures. With a hundred thousand or so to chomp through they’d have to be visually illiterate to do anything else.

But can you trust that the work they pick has been produced with the basic elements of fairness and accuracy that most would agree journalism demands?

That trust would depend on the integrity of the World Press to properly investigate photographers where there is evidence the code of conduct (I’m told) they must sign when entering the awards has been broken.

Today duckrabbit (Benjamin Chesterton) is publishing a document that suggests the people running the World Press Awards  failed to investigate properly claims that a series of winning pictures were staged.

Remember this photo?

It won the prestigious Veolia Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2009 award. Then two months later the photo was stripped of the award and the photographer was banned from the competition for life.

Why?

A member of  the public wrote to the awards committee stating that they believed  the photo was staged and that a tame wolf had been used.

The awards committee did the only thing they could to maintain the integrity of the competition. They called back the judges who took expert advice on the photo.  Although it was never 100% proven that the image was a ‘faked’, the judges came to the conclusion that a deception had taken place.

This is what one them had to say (taken from the BBC):

“We disqualified the photographer and banned him for life from entering the competition again, so I think that sends a strong message.  This is very sad and I think it might make us more suspicious of entries that are too good to be true,” said Mr Carwardine. But he added that he hoped it would encourage honesty in the competition in the future.

Just a few weeks later Macro Vernaschi won a first prize at the World Press Awards for his work on narco trafficking in Guinea Bissau.  This is work that Rabbit (David White) had championed previously on the duckrabbit blog in a post called ‘How to do it‘:

Ok…after looking at mediocre photography day in day out for what seems ages, I was sent an email by Marco Vernaschi. He’s had a lot of exposure recently, and rightly so. His work is of a rare quality. He is technically totally in control, aesthetically he’s bang on and the stories he covers are epic. He deserves his coverage. If you are learning (aren’t we all?) then take a look at Marco’s work. You can look at it through the Pulitzer centre or on his site.

Marco Vernaschi is a extremely talented photographer but on the the presentation of this story I disagreed with Rabbit.

To me the photos are charged with racial stereotypes of black people and in particular Africans.

Black, poor, criminal, guns, corruption, prostitutes, drug addicts, dealers, gangs, sexually promiscuous, victims of the West.

It’s disappointing but  no surprise that so many photo editors loved such aesthetically brilliant work, but there were questions they should have been asking, not least the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting who have consistently funded Vernaschi’s projects in Africa.

Not everyone was asleep. Jørn Stjerneklar’s professional instinct, based on years of working in ‘the dark continent’, told him many of the photos were ‘too good to be true’.

When he started to dig deeper he found a story he believed was riddled with inaccuracy and had more in common with the genre of docu-drama then investigative journalism.

After hearing Vernaschi talk Stjerneklar became convinced that a number of photos that won the World Press ‘News’ category were staged, writing so in the blog post, ‘To Stage Or Not To Stage‘. Last year he wrote to World Press asking them to investigate.

The World Press issued Stjerneklar with a statement:

“Marco Vernaschi provided us the the RAW files of his story. Our experts carefully assessed the files and did not find any irregularities conflicting with the rules of the World Press Photo Contest. We are satisfied and see no reason to take further action regarding the prizewinning story of Marco Vernaschi. I hope I have informed you sufficiently on this matter”.

This response would be like the judges of the wildlife competition responding to the allegations that the photo of the wolf had been staged by stating they they had investigated the RAW file and were satisfied that it was a wolf.

Here are three possible reasons for World Press’ reponse:

1. Stjerneklar is a misguided troublemaker whose allegations do not deserve investigation
2. The  people at The World Press are journalistically illiterate
3. They don’t want to ask questions that might inevitably lead to them taking action against a photographer whose work has been championed by so many in the industry

Not deterred by the World Press’s failure to investigate his claims Stjerneklar and his partner dug Helle Maj dug deeper. The document they produced  is a thought provoking deconstruction of Vernaschi’s work.

Venaschi’s defense?

The document is ‘speculations, assumptions and conspiracy theories‘ and ‘All I can say is that this document says more about the people who wrote it than about me, or my work.’

I tried to find out from Vernaschi by email exactly what it says about Stjerneklar who is a hugely respected and senior journalist?

‘If you have something specific to say about the people who wrote it, that in someway discredits what they wrote, then please say so and I will not publish the text.

Beyond that this has been your response to what is written

‘speculations, assumptions and conspiracy theories’.

You are right there are some speculation and assumptions, made from a professional perspective and the document raises questions. But it also deals in very many specifics.’

I received no further response.

Vernaschi,  and his champions at World Press and the Pulitzer Centre on Crisis Reporting, have a problem. Stjerneklar is very specific in his allegations.  Vernaschi should have no problem in shooting them down.  He can easily prove that Stjerneklar is wrong. Instead he  personally attacks and issues repeated legal threats against those who question his working methods but fails to defend his work.

Why should he?

Of course he has a right to retain a dignified silence in this matter but do you know of any professional journalist who would not clear their name if a fellow respected professional was alleging that the presentation of their work might be fraudulent?

Stjerneklar provides evidence that Vernaschi’s journalism is built on shifting sands. Niether the World Press, Vernaschi or the Pulitzer centre have been able to offer a credible defense.

At the BBC this matter would have been cleared up swiftly through the complaints process, but no such transparent procedure exists at the World Press or The Pulitzer Centre.

I have been involved with the complaints procedure at the BBC. In this instance they would simply ask the photographer to prove they  had only taken two or three photos of the shooting, as Vernaschi claims, by providing them with the shots taken before and after.  The numbers of those shots, as recorded by the camera, would tell them exactly how many photos had been taken in-between, during the ‘shooting’ and whether Vernaschi’s version of events is credible. If the photographer could not provide that evidence then they would  have to report this back to the complainant (this does not mean of course that they faked the shots, just lied about the number taken). If they could provide that evidence then the complaint would be dismissed with the evidence presented back to the complainant.

Jon Sawyer, Director of The Pulitzer Centre On Crisis Reporting, stands by the work:

‘We have considered all available evidence and discussed the situation in detail with Mr. Vernaschi. We remain convinced of the the integrity of the photos.’

Sawyer fails to address any of the specific points in the document which I forwarded to him.  I am surprised that the Pulitzer Centre doesn’t consider the consistent and accurate captioning of photographs to be fundamental to the integrity of the work on show. (see how Vernaschi offers different versions of the same event in the document below)

I also can’t help wondering what Sawyer means by ‘all available evidence’?  If he has seen the photos before and after the shooting then he can categorically say that Vernaschi did only take two or three photos of the shooting.   End of story.  The fact that he does not state this suggests to me that he has not seen the photos.

I can only come to the conclusion that there are some basic values of ‘news’ that Vernaschi, the Pulitzer Centre on Crisis Reporting, the World Press Awards, and a number of hugely respected photo editors and awards committees seem to think are disposable if the aesthetic of the picture is good enough. That’s a dangerous game that can only further erode trust in the industry.

On the upside it’s clearer to me how to teach my students the best way to win a World Press Award. It seems some sections of the industry have higher standards regarding the ethics of shootings animals then they do about photographing ‘Africans’.

Don’t expect Vernaschi to be picking up awards for wildlife photography any time soon.

By Helle Maj and Jørn Stjerneklar, Mayday Press, 11th of May 2010.

1. PICTURE NO. 1: THE EXECUTION.

First we have looked into two pictures taken by Marco Vernaschi of an execution in Guinea-Bissau. The pictures with EXIF-files can be seen on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pulitzercenter/3983716181/meta and http://www.flickr.com/photos/pulitzercenter/3984301862/meta

Marco Vernaschi´s explanation on Pulitzer´s website of what happended:

1. “I was in my room, ready to sleep, when my phone rings, a few minutes before midnight. “Marco! You should come now. There’s something I promised to show you… remember? Go to the airport, in the parking lot. You will find my friends there in half an hour… and don’t forget your camera!”

I don’t know what to do, I’m freaking scared and I don’t know what I’m about to see. I’m not sure accepting the invitation is wise but it could be maybe dangerous not to. A waltz of doubts and theories starts to dance in my mind, but after half an hour I’m at the airport. When I arrive, nobody is there. I lock my car, wait for a few minutes, and then a four-wheel-drive arrives. They approach my car and, from the window, a guy tells me to jump on the front seat. Omar is not in the car but I recognize the guy who drives. I don’t know his name and I never talked with him before, but he’s always around at the parties.

When I get in the car I see there are three other guys in the back seat. The one in the middle is blindfolded with the two guys at his sides holding a rifle each. One of them wears a SWAT hood, holding a pistol against the hostage”.

2. “That’s way too much for me; I want to leave. But I can’t. I wish I was in a movie and I feel ridiculous with my cameras. We drive toward Quinhamel, a little village 30 minutes from Bissau, when the car suddenly takes a secondary road, surrounded by cashew trees. Nobody in the car say a single word. I smoke two cigarettes. In a few minutes the car finally stops. The three guys get off, with their hostage.” If you want to take pictures, do it. Just make sure not to take my face… I’ll check your camera later”. The driver seemed to be extremely relaxed.

Location of the shot:

Were these pictures taken in the town of Bissau or near the village of Quinhamel? Vernaschi doesn´t seem sure:

1. MVs caption to Suddeutche Zeitung: ‘We drove to the outskirts of town ( Bissau); it was dark.’
2. The Danish magazine Journalisten: ‘The party drives to the village Quinhamel, located 30-40 minutes drive from Bissau. The driver stops before reaching the village, and the gang pull the victim out’
3. MV on Pulitzers website: ‘We drive toward Quinhamel, a little village 30 minutes from Bissau’.
4. MV in his caption to World Press Photo: No location given.

How long did MV have to take his pictures?

Marco Vernaschi has stated several times that the situation was tense.

1. Marco Vernaschi to Journalisten (Danish magazine, www.journalisten.dk): “I first discovered that I was in a dangerous situation later when I opened the picture on my computer. The situation took only a few seconds and I was far from calm or analytical enough to realize that I was close to the firing line”, he explains.
2. Marco Venashi on Pulitzer Gateway: ‘I get out of the car, with caution. I shoot two or three pictures before they force the hostage on the knees. They point a gun to his head and after more threats they kick him to the ground. The man is shaking’

So what happened to the man about to be executed?

Take your pick:

1. On Vernaschi’s homepage: ‘In this picture, an account is settled between drug dealers.’ (guess it means he was killed?).
2. MV to the Danish Magazine Journalisten: “The man was abandoned in the wilderness at 03.00 in the morning”.
3. Caption to WPP: ‘A score between small drug dealers is settled. In the end, the captive was abandoned, but not killed’.
4. On Pulitzer Gateway: ‘The driver suddenly says we must go, so we get into the car. The hostage is left in the middle of nowhere, at 2 in the morning and far from Bissau. But at least he’s alive’.
5. MVs caption to Lens Culture: ‘Local drug traffickers have successfully organized a strong criminal network in Bissau. Over the last two years, abductions, murders and threats have gradually became normal practice. In this picture, an account is settled between drug dealers.’
6. To Suddeutche Zeitung: ‘They acted like they were going to shoot their captive to death. However, they eventually sent him back unharmed’
7. To Frontline World: ‘They left this poor guy in the middle of the border.’

What did Vernaschi think about the situation?

1. In the Danish magazine Journalisten: ‘Shortly after the gang leaves the victim unharmed and drives back to Bissau with Marco, who did not ask questions along the route back.’
2. To Journalisten: ‘In a corner of my brain, I was always confident that they would not kill him,’ says Marco Vernaschi.
3. To Frontline World: ‘I felt they would have killed him.’
4. See video on: http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitemdropcol.cfm?id=1643
5. To Pulitzer Gateway: (one of the gangsters in the car says):“You knew we wouldn’t have killed him, right? This guy talked too much… he should pay more attention. The next time he could have serious troubles”. I still don’t know why Omar allowed me to photograph this. He probably wanted to send me a message or perhaps just show his power. It is hard to say, but I’m from another world and like Omar told me once, this is Africa.’

How did Marco Vernaschi get his contacts to the drug lords?

1. In Journalisten MV says: ‘When I arrived, I immediately contacted Interpol and the local police and told them that I wanted to infiltrate a network of drug couriers. They gave me several useful information and names.’
2. Marco Vernaschi’s caption to Pulitzer on the photo of a gangster in front of a Hummer: ‘A policeman laid a rusty revolver on the table for me at his office. I’ll need it. How did I end up here? Informants had helped me infiltrate a smuggling ring’.
3. Marco to VQR: ‘I asked a former journalist who had been a correspondent for a Portuguese magazine to show me where Bissau’s drug lords lived. We met at night, in front of my hotel, and went for a ride through the darkness’.

What time did Marco shoot these pictures?

1. On Pulitzergateway.org: ‘I was in my room, ready to sleep, when my phone rings, a few minutes before midnight. “Marco! You should come now. There’s something I promised to show you…remember? Go to the airport, in the parking lot. You will find my friends there in half an hour… and don’t forget your camera”.
2. To the Danish magazine Journalisten: “The guy was abandoned in the middle of the wilderness at 03.00 in the morning, and he seemed very scared”.
3. To Pulitzer’s website: “The hostage is left in the middle of nowhere, at 2 in the morning and far from Bissau”.

Our notes: So Vernaschi would be at the scene at around 1 to 1.10 am. This corresponds with his EXIF-files, which shows his two pictures are taken at 1.15 am and 1.26 am. People have asked, if his cameras are set on local time. We have two other pictures from another day, which confirm that his two cameras indeed is on Guinea-Bissau time.

Back to the bush scene: Marco Vernaschi would then stay at least 34 minutes to one and a half hour + 4 minutes before leaving at 2 or 3 am. The question is: Why didn’t he and the gangsters just leave at 1.26? What happened after?

Marco Vernaschi has at least 44 minutes, maybe 1 hour 34 minutes to take pictures. With the rate he normally shoots it seems strange that he only takes “two or three pictures” considering he was invited on this trip and told to bring his camera(s). Marco Vernaschi has not published any more pictures from February 26 or pictures taken February 27 on the web. His next pictures after the dramatic scene in the bush (or outskirts of Bissau) is from February 28. Between the bush scene (Feb. 26) and the next published pictures (of three prostitutes Feb. 28) he shoots 387 pictures just with one of his cameras. It would be interesting to see those pictures. There must be one or two good shots out of 387 made?

On February the 28th he spends 1 hour 23 minutes in a room with three prostitutes. In a controlled environment he manages to shoot at least 128 pictures with one camera. Why so few pictures from the bush? Which is in a controlled environment as well.  One of the gangsters clearly tells him, according to Marco Vernaschi himself on Pulitzer’s website: .“If you want to take pictures, do it. Just make sure not to take my face… I’ll check your camera later”.

Why did he publish these captions and pictures?

If you work as a journalist it must be imperative to know the truth – before you publish your story as the “truth”. Excerpts from Journalisten:

‘But he himself is in doubt if the narco gang themselves has arranged the whole situation, and that the victim even is a part of the theatre.’
“I have asked myself that question many times and I don’t have an answer. The guy was left in the middle of nowhere at 3 in the morning and he seemed very scared. That convinced me, that it was not just done to impress me” Marco Vernaschi explains.’

Why does Marco Vernaschi not use all the tools of our profession and his own time to verify the story before he uses captions like “a score is settled between drug dealers”? He has doubts, he says. If you doubt – you investigate.

EXIF-FILES:

There are two pictures of the execution available on the Internet.

Picture no. 1 (winning picture at WPP): Taken on the 26th of Feb. 2009 at 1.15.55 am.

Picture no. 2: (where MV in the line of fire): Taken on 26th of Feb 2009 at 1.26.39

There are 11 minutes between the two shots.

Quoting Marco Vernaschi again from Journalisten: “The situation took only a few seconds”.

Are These Photos Staged?

1. In Journalisten: Marco Vernaschi denies that he has arranged the scene. “I am surprised about the skepticism, and it is not nice to have sown doubts about my work. Especially not after having exposed myself to these situations”, explains Marco Vernaschi
2. Nelson Mandela’s former bodyguard, Ib Nordentoft Andersen, has seen the pictures. To the Danish magazine Journalisten he says: “In Africa in general and especially among gangsters life has no value. To bring a man into the bush just to show off and then not kill him is not believable”.

Notes from photographer Jørn Stjerneklar: I have worked in Africa for more than 30 years – over 20 of those years I have actually lived here. I have never experienced to be able to drive out from an airport (except in SA and Namibia) without having to face a police checkpoint. For countries in war, near war, or at peace, the story is the same. You will have to face the police (or army). In Osvaldo Vieira Airport there’s a checkpoint. So how do you get past that checkpoint with a blindfolded man in the middle of the backseat and two armed men at either side? This is how it looks when Marco Vernaschi enters the car in the airport according to himself:

“When I get in the car I see there are three other guys in the back seat. The one in the middle is blindfolded with the two guys at his sides holding a rifle each. One of them wears a SWAT hood, holding a pistol against the hostage”.

Next is the trip of 30-40 minutes drive into the bush after midnight. In most countries here on the continent, at least South of Sahara, you will have either police or army checkpoints with a regular intervals. The checkpoints normally works as extortion places and supports tens of thousand families in Africa. You can read an account of driving in Guinea-Bissau here:

From my humble experience during the 30 years of working at the continent Marco Vernaschi would have met 2-3 checkpoints on his route. And the same coming back. With two armed men and a blindfolded guy going out of town there would have been a lot of explanation to do at these checkpoints. But not according to Vernaschi’s story. No roadblocks, no checkpoints. I don’t find it strange – I find it unbelievable. Nothing less.

MV’s caption: “The team of soldiers who executed the President, photographed seven hours after they accomplished their task, in the Military Headquarters in Bissau”.

2009:03:02 12:49:38 2009:03:02 12:48:41
These two pictures linked above confirm that Marco Vernaschi’s cameras are set on local Bissau time. The President was in fact killed seven hours before they are taken, around five in the morning.

PICTURE NO. 2: THE DEAD PRESIDENTS CHAIR
This picture can be seen on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pulitzercenter/3983717739/meta

The EXIF-file for this pictures shows it was taken on the 3rd of March at 16.37.54

Who took Marco Vernaschi to the president´s house?

1. Marco to Süddeutsche Zeitung: .”The massacre happened in the kitchen. The machete lies on the blood-smeared tiles; the bullet casing is on the left chair; the president’s bulletproof vest on the right one. He had been forced to remove it before his execution. Later, the perpetrators that led me here were also killed”.
2. Marco to VQR: ”The next day, I convinced one of Vieira’s cousins to let me into the president’s house. He led me to the kitchen, to show me where Nino Vieira was executed”.
3. Marco’s caption to World Press Photo: ‘The next day, I managed to visit the president’s house with my camera. One of his several cousins gives me a tour. He led me to the kitchen first, to show me where Nino Vieira was executed. The blood was all over the room. The machete was still on the floor and the bulletproof vest he always wore was on the chair where his wife sat during the questioning. All around there were hundreds of bullets from AK-47 and machine guns. The soldiers looted and destroyed the house. They took everything they could, including clothes and food’.

What was looted in the presidents house?

1. Marco in his caption to WPP: “The soldiers looted and destroyed the house. They took everything they could, including clothes and food”.
2. Caption to Lens Culture: ”Minutes after the assassination of President Vieira, the soldiers looted his home. They stole everything they could: his satellite phone, video sets, clothes and even food. The commandos rummaged through all of the drawers in his bedroom to steal personal documents and family pictures, and ended by destroying the house with machine gun shots”.

Question to the above: Look at this picture:

It was taken by photographer Tiago Petinga/Lusa two days after Marco Vernaschi was in the president’s bedroom. Did somebody put the presidents clothes back into his bedroom?

Why is the photo of the presidents chair interesting?

Other people have taken pictures in the house on that day – and the chairs, the bullet proof vest and the machete are not at the locations where they are, when Marco Vernaschi takes his picture.

You can read more about this on:
http://www.maydaypress.com/blog/page9_files/024fe1f5a1638b898aee32fcbb1aa95d-1.html and on: http://www.maydaypress.com/blog/page9_files/46a821e4d73080f1b11bf7d9afac7486-2.html

We have e-mailed Antonio Aly Silva who took a picture from the dining room/kitchen nine minutes before MV took his picture. He has not replied to us. Here is his picture:

2009:03:03 16:28:27 Nine (9) minutes before Marco Vernaschi enters the same room. Photo: Antonio Aly Silva.

Marco Vernaschi says at the Pulitzer Center’s website: “He led me to the kitchen first, to show me where Nino Vieira was executed. (A cousin? Who? Did he have a name?)

We then e-mailed Candida Pinto, a portuguise tv-journalist who were in the presidents house on the same day as Marco Vernaschi (see: http://videos.sapo.pt/ovcUWWlziuYvBblYJrB9 sent on the 3rd of March 2009 at 20.32.).

Via Facebook she wrote back:

“I was in the Nino Vieira’s house in the middle afternoon, the day after is (his) dead. The place was show me by his nephew. We haven’t touch anything, but there’s nobody protecting the place, the proofs of murder. Everybody could go inside…”

Later: “Hi Helle,
Tomorrow I’ll talk with him (her camera man). I think it was about 4 pm, but I want to be sure.
all the best,
Candida”

Later: “It was the chaos. I was very surprise cause I could get inside the house without problems.
That day, when I arrived in Bissau, think that it will be impossible get inside the house, that will be police around, taking care of the proofs, something like that…It was a president’s murder…!
But was the opposite. It seams that everybody could get inside, take something, move things inside, nobody was responsable for nothing. So, the place could change…
Sorry, that’s what I can tell you, that’s what happened with me”.

Picture NO. 3 -FROM THE PRESIDENTS BEDROOM

This picture can be seen at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pulitzercenter/3983717835/meta/in/set-72157622522036974

It is a photo showing a picture of the president and some business cards around it and on top of it.

Marco Vernaschi has given this caption to Süddeutsche Zeitung: . “I found a portrait of the president and his wife, along with their business cards, on the nightstand in President Vieira’s bedroom”.

This is another picture taken from the Internet. We are still trying to find out who took it and when it was taken.

First problem: The wife is not on the picture. Incorrect caption my MV.

Second problem: MV’s picture must be staged. Everything is placed too perfect.

Third problem: This picture was apparently sent to the PGB Award. But now it is missing from their archives.
If you look at the PGBs page and download the awards you will see Marco Vernaschi won 1st price for his story about Guinea-Bissau. He submitted 15 pictures – but picture no. 5 is not there anymore.
At Vernaschi´s homepage www.marcovernaschi.com the picture is there. Here it is titled PGB_award (4).jpg. Why was the picture withdrawn? We are still waiting from an answer from Sweden/PGB.

PICTURE NO. 4 – A PORTRAIT FROM 1998…

This picture is part of the winning series in the World Press Photo news story category. It shows a portrait of a soldier. Vernaschi´s caption is:

“A soldier killed in Guinea-Bissau’s 1998 civil war”

Question: Who is this man? Why is the picture winning in a news category?

PICTURE NO. 5 – YOUNG MAN IN FRONT OF HUMMER

This picture is also part of the WWP-award. It is an unidentified man that Mr. Vernaschi has asked to stand in front of a Hummer with a gun in his belt?

Question: Is this a news picture? Or is it a staged photo?

PROSTITUTES

Marco Vernaschi excels in pictures of prostitutes. In the pictures he has put out on various websites with “clients” in the photos, you can clearly identify the ladies, but not in one picture you can identify the white man (model?). Why is that?

‘Here’s the photo on the homepage of his website. It doesn’t tell me anything about the world or the people in the image, it just makes me think why on earth did that dude and those two women let him stand above him while they were having a sexual encounter? And what did Marco say to get them to agree to this?”

Scarlett Lion on her blog.

Read Scarlett Lion’s blog here: http://www.scarlettlion.com/2010/04/why-digging-up-dead-bodies-and-photographing-them-is-a-bad-idea.html

WHAT MARCO VERNASCHI SAYS ABOUT PHOTOJOURNALISM:

“I also believe that if you want to tell about the madness and tragedy that surround the drug world you must in some way get your hands dirty: there is no way to dig into the mud and stay clean. So it was clear since the beginning that I needed to establish a strong connection with my characters. Developing this story meant that I had to live inside a real nightmare. The fear and tension stay with me, but I believe this is an important story to share with the world”.” http://www.lensculture.com/vernaschi.html?thisPic=3

‘Like a musician change the melody and mood of a sad to a happy song, you have to as a photographer to express the visual soul in your story. This is the key to making sensitive images. ”
http://journalisten.dk/world-press-vinder-i-skudlinjen

“Thank God photojournalism has been recognized in recent years as an art form and as a commercial product with a much wider market…” http://www.argraescuela.org.ar/new/vernaschi.php

Post-production is a necessary complement of modern photography. Without adequate post-production you cannot be talking about a finished image. It would be like cooking without the dough to bake a cake…. http://ziczac.it/a/leggi/06a40e1737053c60df6707fcc9941f5e/

UNTOLD STORIES AND NEWS?

Marco Vernaschi’s photojournalism from Guinea-Bissau has been published on Pulitzer Center’s website as an “Untold Story”. In an interview with Associazione Culturalle Fotografica Collecttivo WSP on February 26th 2010 Marco Vernaschi confirms that Guinea-Bissau being Africa’s First Narco State is an untold story.

Marco Vernaschi says: “The work that won the WPP has made noise for two reasons: cocaine trafficking in Africa has never been documented before….”

A quick Google search revealed that the story has been published worldwide for years before Marco Vernaschi went to Bissau.

In Newsweek, Aug 29, 2005:
West Africa: The New ‘Drug Triangle’
Cocaine Now Makes A Detour On The Way To Europe.
By Eric Pape | NEWSWEEK

Reuters, 26 Oct 2006:
Suspects freed in Guinea-Bissau’s biggest drug case

LA TIMES, Mar 14, 2007:
A drug’s worrisome detour; Much of Europe’s cocaine now arrives via West Africa, where the law means little.
[HOME EDITION]
Sebastian Rotella; Chris Kraul

Telegraph.co.uk, 10 Jun 2007:
The African gateway for UK cocaine
By Colin Freeman in Bissau
See more at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1554135/The-African-gateway-for-UK-cocaine.html

Time.com, Jun 27, 2007:
Cocaine Country
By VIVIENNE WALT / Bissau Wednesday, Jun. 27, 2007
See at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1637719,00.html
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1637719,00.html#ixzz0nbbR0W9n

BBC: Monday, 9 July 2007, 00:31 GMT 01:31 UK
Africa – new front in drugs war
By Joseph Winter
BBC News website
How can you hope to battle organised, rich and ruthless international drugs gangs when there is not even a proper prison in the country?
See more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6274590.stm

The Independent.co.uk, 18 July 2007:
Drug barons turn Bissau into Africa’s first narco-state

By Jonathan Miller in Bissau
This article ends with this: The emergence of the cocaine trade in west Africa is the subject of an exclusive report for Channel 4 News, to be broadcast tonight at 7pm
See at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/drug-barons-turn-bissau-into-africas-first-narcostate-457690.html

Guardian, Sunday 9 March 2008:
How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state
It is the world’s fifth poorest nation with no prisons and few police. Now this small west African failed state has been targeted by Colombian drug cartels, turning it into a transit hub for the cocaine trade out of Latin America and into Europe. Grant Ferrett and Ed Vulliamy tell the remarkable story of how the cocaine cavalry arrived three years ago and transformed the life of Guinea-Bissau
• Ed Vulliamy
See more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/09/drugstrade

Washington Post, Sunday, May 25, 2008:
Route of Evil
How a Tiny West African Nation Became a Key Smuggling Hub For Colombian Cocaine, and the Price It Is Paying
By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
QUINHAMEL, Guinea-Bissau — Filipe Dju sat grim-faced on the tangled roots of a mangrove tree, a padlocked chain around his ankle tethering him to four other recovering cocaine addicts.
See more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401676.html

And see Kevin Sullivan´s video on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/05/23/VI2008052302949.html?sid=ST2008052401733

This is just headlines from major news organisations in English from August 2005 up to May 2008 – eight months before Marco Vernaschi starts to work in Guinea-Bissau. Most of these stories has documented the information Marco Vernaschi presents as “untold and new”. All these stories are more precise and accurate, with numbers, interviews, photographs and with informing captions.
You can find much more about this untold story published in Portuguese and other languages.

Appendix A.
Caption writing for beginners:

The exact format for captions vary from publication to publication, but a basic photo captions should:
• Clearly identify the people and location that appear in the photo. Professional titles should be included as well as the formal name of the location.
SPELL NAMES CORRECTLY (check against the spellings in the article if necessary) For photographs of more than one person, identifications typically go from left to right. In the case of large groups, identifications of only notable people may be required and sometimes no I.D.s are required at all. Your publication should establish a standard for its photographers.
• Include the date and day the photograph was taken. This is essential information for a news publication. The more current a photo is the better. If an archive photograph or photograph taken prior to the event being illustrated is used, the caption should make it clear that it is a “file photo.”
• Provide some context or background to the reader so he or she can understand the news value of the photograph. A sentence or two is usually sufficient.
• Photo captions should be written in complete sentences and in the present tense. The present tense gives the image a sense of immediacy. It does not always logical to write the entire caption in the present tense. Often the first sentence is written in the present tense and following sentences are not.
• Be brief. Most captions are one or two short, declarative sentences. Some may extent to a third sentence if complex contextual information is needed to explain the image completely.
From http://www.ijnet.org/ijnet/training_materials/writing_photo_captions

Appendix B.

The basics to a photo caption:

Who
Photojournalism is a documentation. We need to know who is in the photo, be it a alias or their real name. When there are 5 or more people in a photo, listing everyones name is not a necessity. You can go with a broad label, such as Students of College/University or Anti-war protesters Even if there are no people in the photo what ever the important subject is should be listed.

What
The activity going on in the photo should also be written down, as it may not always be obvious what is going on, or what said activity is called.

Where

The location: it’s not always clear where the subject is, this blurb should very detailed. Even to the point of redundancy.

When
Simply the date, different publications require different formats it’s good practice to try and include the day of the week but its not critical.
If it is a holiday the holiday can be added: New Year’s Eve. Sunday, December 31, 2006.

Why
Basically why someone is doing what they are doing. This can also include some background information on what’s being covered a little extra details, this is usually included in whets published below a photo in a magazine or newspaper.

From: http://news.deviantart.com/article/24929/

Related posts:

1. Roger Fenton banned from World Press Awards
2. The film that would win the World Press Multimedia Award (if there was a public vote)
3. World Press Photo award winners now all online

Wish more people made gentle films like this.  And wish more people understood this is a convinceing way to engage people about climate change.

Thanks @finnryan for sharing

Fly Fishing | Climate Wisconsin from ECB on Vimeo.

Related posts:

1. “I have four babies, beautiful, gorgeous, why should I ever think about suicide? I had these thoughts in my mind. I was messed up.”
2. Climate change Bangladesh
3. Oh What A Lovely War

(amended title because Joerg’s was MUCH better)

Take a look at this picture by Damon Winter, as featured on the (excellent) New York Times, Lens Blog, and part of a series featured in the newspaper:

The photographs have been taken using an iPhone that automatically applies heavy processing with an iPhone app. On James Estrin’s (LENS Editor) Facebook page Nina Berman had this to say:

In his introduction to the photos James makes the point,

‘Does it really matter what camera Damon Winter used to make these beautifully composed images? I don’t think so. It’s the images that are important.’

But I disagree.

Not that the photos aren’t ‘beautifully composed’, nor that there isn’t a skill in taking them. However to me the camera and the processing applied to the images is fundamental to how we respond to them. That’s why so many people are buying these Apps because as one website comment about the Hipstamatic iPhone App puts it:

I *love* the photos that come out of this app, it makes just about anything look amazing.

Even, it seems, the Afghan war.

Once again we are talking about how ‘beautiful’ the photos are, or what a great device the iPhone is, but not about the war in Afghanistan (although many people do comment that the photos bring them close to the lives of the soldiers). Would we really be talking about these pictures if they hadn’t been processed by an app on the iPhone?

Realistically we can only be debating the use of an iPhone because we are so detached from the reality on the ground for the many suffering Afghanis, despite the photography (or lack of it beyond American and British soldiers). Journalistically that must be viewed as a failure. It’s also a failure of democracy, the very thing we are trying to import into Afghanistan, because there is so little debate about the billions of dollars of taxpayers money that have been used to wage a war that we are only just starting to admit we can never win.

Not to mention the well documented torture and murder of Afghan citizens in detention by American soldiers.

In the meantime a lot of people have got very rich, some people have better lives, many have died and the photo community are rushing out to buy iPhone apps. Fair enough, I saw the pictures and want one too.

Maybe the New York Times can do an experiment, to help us understand how post processing affects the way we are manipulated by an image and wether these photos mean, as Nina Berman points out, that the ‘doors have been blown open.’ After all if an editorial standard is to be dumped there should be some kind of rational explanation.

Present the same images both with and without the additional processing (the camera’s standard JPEG)  and measure the response.

It seems to me that if you take editorial integrity seriously, as some kind of objective process (not that I believe in such a myth), this would be a simple way of gaugeing just how much our response is being manipulated by the skill of the photographer or the skill of the computer and where that line should lie?

(Please note I have no problems with manipulation, staging or otherwise, just as long as you don’t try and hide it from me)

UPDATE:

Tom White who writes the EXCELLENT Photography Lot already posted on this story and wrote the following comment:

I worry about this – as I said to my students when they brought it up; it sends out mixed messages. The AP guidelines on retouching (in a typically vague manner) state that anything above basic colour correction and toning should be labeled clearly as a photo illustration. I think these fall into that category. On the other hand, is using the hipstamatic app really so different than choosing to shoot with a holga or load your camera with high speed black and white film because of the effect it gives? At what point are these things unethical? When do they become culturally acceptable as standard journalistic practice? I do know that if I took raw files from my SLR and hipstamaticised them in photoshop I would be in trouble. Wouldn’t I?

http://photographylot.blogspot.com/2010/11/shooting-from-hipster.html

The problem is that photography is both a science and an art and as such contains an inherent contradiction in the form of the objective/subjective process. With photo manipulation and retouching, there is a huge grey area between definitely acceptable and horrifically unethical. This debate has been going on since the invention of the medium and will no doubt continue without ever getting properly resolved. I could pull up examples of manipulation that have been held up as unethical while at the same time find similar (and more extreme) examples that no one seems to have batted an eyelid at.

My personal view is that when you are presenting work in a documentary and journalistic context and viewers are looking at the style and the process to the detriment of the content then you have failed. I actually do find some of these photos have a great intimacy to them that in cultural terms is enhanced by the use of the iphone app and may perhaps bring the daily lives of the soldiers into the barhopping world of the iphone wielding hipster, stopping them for a second to make them think about the war. However, ultimately I doubt it. Especially as I imagine the more common response is ‘wow, cool app’.

I wish I had a penny for every time I heard someone who I am photographing ask me if I was going to ‘make them look good in photoshop’. This to me is the really worrying thing. If people assume that photos are manipulated then how can they trust what they are seeing? For a journalist, where trust and believability are essential aspects of the work, this is a problem.

In any case, while he’s over there, perhaps Damon could use his iphone to get the same intimate view from the afghan side….

Related posts:

1. iPhone 5 camera is square format.
2. This is going to hurt. The truth does.
3. Just another set of limb chopped Africans by a famous photographer

Mog wishes to issue a call to arms to emerging photojournalists. Be aware, we are on the brink of a social and cultural revolution that in all likelihood will make Thatcherism seem mild and innocuous by comparison. Too many young photographers based in the UK seem obsessed with looking abroad for stories and inspiration. Get real, chaps – the exotic is no longer Out There, it is here on your doorstep. (Why did Mog have to wait to read Eurostar’s Metropolitan magazine to find out about a group of twitchers who regularly go up Tower 42 in the City of London at dawn to observe, chart and photograph peregrines, falcons, red kites, etc.?) British cities are extraordinary melting pots, throwing up endless and remarkable story ideas, both hard-edged and gentle. Britain is in ferment.

Full post here.

Related posts:

1. Photojournalists, a fair few of them, please just get over yourself …
2. Swansea BA Photojournalism degree show – slideshow on Foto8
3. Good news for photojournalists..

Everybody knows (and behind his back everybody says) that one of the problems with the Visa, Festival of Shanty Towns, is that it only has one curator, and as time ticks on more and more people are turning blue trying to squeeze into the narrowness of that curator’s mind. (that may sound a bit tough,but isn’t it about time someone actually said it?)

I have just finished reading Jörg Colberg’s terrific interview with Ivor Prickett (on Conscientious Extended).

Something struck me.

J F Leroy could really give photographers something to talk about, and the public something different to look at, by inviting Colberg to curate some shows. We might even get introduced to the kind of work that will make you forget all the tedious discussion about the death photojournalism. Work like Ivor’s; a young photographer not dreaming of a warzone.

JC: This might be a stupid question, but maybe there’s something to be gained from being stupid. In this day and age, where photographs are so ubiquitous, and where many people are so cynical about photos, how does one make people care about what’s being shown in photographs? So that, just to make that connection, the photographs will have an impact?

IP: I’m not really sure how other photographers go about doing this, but for me I try to engage viewers by photographing the very ordinary every-day routines that people living in extraordinary circumstances still have to go through in order to survive. By presenting people with situations and emotions that they can relate to I hope to draw them in and allow them to put themselves in my subjects’ shoes, no matter how foreign or exotic their lives may be. So instead of trying to shock someone into caring, I am hoping to communicate people’s stories in a more subtle and engaging way.

DO READ THE FULL INTERVIEW HERE

Related posts:

1. Submit your thoughts/ideas on the Visa pour L’Image Festival here
2. Visa Pour l’Image, a festival of ‘shanty towns without context’
3. What groundbreaking images of ‘Africa’ can we expect this year from Visa Festival of Shanty Towns?

I’m In Malmo, Sweden, with the photographer Joseph Rodriguez.  We’re working on a radio documentary and photofilm about how a whole generation of young immigrants are being lost to a life of crime and social inequality.

Over the last four days we’ve been hanging with some of these young people. It’s been a troubling experience, not least because drug dealing, violence and guns are endemic. That’s not a term I would use lightly, but this is the first time in my life I’ve had to stop an interview whilst a nineteen year old casually removes a 9mm hand-gun from his jacket (before you ask, not in any way for show)

Those are just some of the facts. But facts and reality are too separate things. The reality is that many of the young people feel utterly lost, utterly unwanted and utterly worthless.  That’s not our opinion, that’s exactly what they have been fronting up and telling us.

The photo below is taken at a photo event in Sweden we dropped in two nights ago.  Joseph was invited to speak. Here’s the condensed version of his speech:

“I find it interesting that an American has to come all the way from New York to photograph a story so important to Sweden, a country with such a strong tradition of documentary photography.

Perhaps someone can tell me why that is?”

Here was another comment  made to me after the event. Maybe it answers Joseph’s question?

“Do you really think anyone cares?”

Picture: Benjamin Chesterton

Fiyat (c) Benjamin Chesterton

Related posts:

1. Joseph Rodriguez – Where it’s at (part 1)
2. Where it’s at, Joseph Rodriguez (part two)
3. Joseph Rodriguez – Where it’s at part 5