we produce beautifully crafted multimedia » Debate

24 Hour Photo People

Sara Trula — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:13:34 +0000

AKA Flickr, Facebook, and other sharing sites.

Social media has been such a buzz term in photography in recent years, and part of that buzz has been around how artists are using the internet to appropriate or repurpose images and data for their creative efforts.

And now FOAM have dipped a toe into this flickriver, with an installation by Erik Kessels that features a sea of images printed from Flickr. Everything uploaded to that site in a 24-hour period, in fact.

I think it’s a seriously interesting use of these images, and one that works on many levels. It does feel awkward only being able to view it through the internet though – I doubt I’ll have a surprise trip to Amsterdam to experience it in the print before it closes. And the debate I’m having about the show is also conducted entirely online, with other people who are unlikely to see it in print. And some great points have been made, but all on a platform (Twitter) that is notoriously bad for archiving a series of linked comments. Just as digital sharing of single images isn’t the same thing as sitting down with a stack of prints to make e.g. a photobook. There’s a strange sense of circularity to all of that.

Big thanks to James Dodd for pointing my attention to this interesting exhibition, and also to Richard Bram, Charlie Kirk, and Pete Carr, for the debate we had about the exhibition via Twitter.

Some of the thoughts from that Twitter convo – please note, the 140char limit of that platform necessarily means these comments may not be fully fleshed out, so give their authors’ a little license on interpreting the strength of sentiment)

James Dodd: just give people more reasons to leave flickr then: another artist uses flickr’s contents as a base for their work.
Charlie Kirk: jumping in, if you are on Flickr you might be part of it! I find it disrespectful and arrogant.
Charlie Kirk: looked like trash to me. But if people could wade through and see the images it’s kinda cool.
James Dodd: representable of our disposable society? reality is that’s probably the only time those images will be printed.
James Dodd: I imagine the same effect could have been achieved with blank pieces of paper? are the images themselves important?
Me: I had that same thought on reading/seeing it – blank pages could symbolise. Interesting use of web tho
Pete Carr: i think the fact that its a huge number of printed pics that would never be printed means more
James Dodd: it would also have helped represent what the images will never be for most, physical objects.
Me: agreed, & avoids the “oh did I get picked?” eagerness/naivety of many flikr types, I’d bet most people whose pics are used in that wouldn’t register the point of it & would just wanna know if they’ve been featured in a gallery so they can tell all their flikr friends they’ve been ‘recognised’ (multi-tweet, and cynical)

The Revolution Will Not Be Twitterised?

Sara Trula — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:44:42 +0000

This is a great article on why digital talent doesn’t want to work for some companies.

I think the post hits upon some really interesting points, points that hold true beyond the simple issue of digital talent working for companies and reaches as far as saying something about why there’s a lack of innovation coming from publicly funded organisations in general, compared to unfunded (publicly) organisations and individuals. To summarise them:

Every element of their work will be pored over by multiple layers of bureaucracy.

Mediocre is good enough.

Trial and error is condemned.

I’m going to throw out a few possibly shocking but really quite obvious statements here:

Making things happen isn’t very hard.

Making good creative things happen isn’t very hard.

The best way to ensure great projects is to ensure that the people working on them are personally motivated to make them great.

The success of an event/project is really about how many people were fundamentally influenced, not how many people attended, tweeted about it, or how high the ticket price or profit margins were.

I’ve been writing a bit about this lately in MyOtherPlace. A real revolution in publicly funded institutions will happen only when they’re prepared to seek an attitude shift, genuinely engage in debate, and open the doors (even if in a reasonably controlled way) to trying some new things out and risking seeing them fail. Chances are those new things wont fail at all, and I’m pretty confident the art-loving public just about have the smarts to understand immensely complicated concepts like “experiment” and “beta testing” and “just trying this out” and wont permanently castigate a publicly funded organisation for actually doing these things occasionally. Hell, they might even like those organisations more just for trying.

It’s hardly an audacious proposal. And any sense of it being radical or revolutionary stems only from having an extremely conservative outlook. Last time I checked, extreme conservatism wasn’t the driving force of the arts. I’m not sure why it seems so pervasive an attitude these days.

Addendum: I can’t seem to shut up on stuff like this today. Please see here if you really want more caustic sniping about stuff I deem “so obvious, we shouldn’t even have to be talking about it at all”.

Getty Grants For A Good Laugh

duckrabbit — Sun, 01 May 2011 16:28:47 +0000

close today.

Last year they awarded the major grant to Stefano De Luigi for a project title T.I.A, ‘This Is Africa’. If you get to the end of this (extended) post you’ll be able to read what a group of Kenyan photographers think of the judges choice but for those who don’t stay the distance here’s a glimpse:

‘Absolutely horrendous to say the least, i find it shocking that collective idiocy on the part of the judges who are apparently ill informed about our beautiful continent and the cradle of civilization’

‘I think the greatest crime that Stafano committed was to title the particular group of pictures in question as “This Is Africa”. That title is downright wrong and derogatory; maybe even silly.’

‘Why did they give this guy a grant again? The first thing that struck me about his work is the extreme negativity that his work portrays of a continent that is not all darkness and dredgery. It seemed to me to only be a means of propogating an ill-formed opinion he has made of the region and lacks originality in that its nothing we have not already seen in the papers or iCNN. ‘

Sometime back I wrote on Nieman Storyboard about how Luigi and VII were selling a story on their website which stated that it had not rained in Kenya for several years. Although there was a very serious drought the notion that it had not rained was absurd as it was factually incorrect.

I was genuinely amazed that this inaccuracy was able to run off the front of the VII website for several months unchecked. It was a reminder of how few of the photography crowd are aware of the facts behind the images.

If the work looks great, then it is great, right?

Aesthetics seem to be much more important then facts, because it’s aesthetic brilliance that get you noticed.

More and more photographers work is presented without any real text. All sorts of visual tricks are used to create the story they want the audience to see, but often it is far removed from reality. A recent exchange with the Kenyan based photographer Sarah Elliot demonstrates this.

I was interested to know why her photographs of survivors of sexual violence in the Congo were presented in black and white when color is so important to the identity of those women? This was her response:

‘While spending time with these women, interviewing them and photographing them, their pain was evident, their innocence and dignity taken, some stated they no longer felt like a woman, black and white conveyed their sense of despair, their broken bodies and souls, and their enveloping anguish. Black and white stripped away elements that got in the way of trying to convey the sense of the very identity that they had lost, that had been brutally taken from them.’

Here’s a difficult question. Do the women of the Congo who are survivors of sexual violence feel the way Elliot describes them, or is this how she/we want to see them?

You can’t tell a person has been raped by looking at them, and if a photographer is working without accompanying text they will feel the need to impose on the photography some sense of the aftermath of rape. That can lead to very staged photography that relies heavily on a visual style to carry meaning. But what if the photographers vision is inaccurate, misleading or damaging to how we perceive the people in the photos?

Elliot states that the innocence and the dignity of the women she photographed had been taken from them. This is something that she strived to capture.

I recently interviewed, sat with and was laughed at by a group of women in the same part of the DR Congo, a number of whom were also survivors of sexual violence.

I would argue strongly that when a man rapes a woman it is his dignity that is lost and not the woman’s.

I would also argue that the women who have grown up under the shadow of war are far less innocent then Elliot presents them. Many of these women are inspirational figures. That’s how Sam Perkins, a midwife who works in this field with MSF, described them to me. That as group the majority are not wracked by despair, neither their souls nor their bodies broken.

That is not to try and diminish the lingering effects of rape, which are of course profound, but different for everyone. What I am arguing is that the photographers response often tells us more about how they feel they might be affected by an event then the people in the pictures. The more dramatic, the darker, the more brutal, the better. But then we are moving into the realms of theatre.

When we serve people up as victims, ripe for our pity, without real context, without story, to make a point which is often lost anyway, then I believe somewhere along the line it is a little of our own dignity that is lost.

What has this to do with Getty Good For A Laugh?

The tagline for their award is YOUR VISION. REALIZED.

Its an open admission that it’s no longer enough to document, to tell peoples stories; we must forge our vision, however distorted, however incomplete, onto those whom were seemingly born for the pity of the lens. And if you look at who the judges are (Stephen Frailey, Jean-Francois Leroy, Eugene Richards, Kathy Ryan, Jamie Wellford) then it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the photography we often see published says more about the way they think about photography, then the way the people in the photos actually feel.

In the end documentary photography served up this way has eaten itself. It’s become consumed with the pursuit of the perfect frame based on the opinions of a tiny group of influential editors, as opposed to the pursuit of storytelling that will educate, entertain and inform a larger audience.

No-one could have illustrated this better than Stefano De Luigi in his winning submission to Getty last year titled, with no hint of irony, ‘This Is Africa’. You can read it below, and then following that the response of a group of Kenyans who belong to a photography club in Nairobi, and a more considered response by the South African photo editor Thato Mogotsi.

Project Title: “TIA – This is Africa”

“Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.

Justice the founder of my fabric mov’d:
To rear me was the task of power divine,
Supremest wisdom, and primeval love.

Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.”
- Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy, Inferno

She’s like a descent to netherworld, a series of circles that follow one after the other, alternating and overlapping. Every human tragedy here is well represented. Internal fights, as well as religious and tribal conflicts, frauds and prostitution, hunger and water shortage, betrayal and any kind of affection’s relativity. And yet, as the Phoenix, life always prevails, revives and goes on.

I’ve chosen Africa, not as a single story but through different tales, several years and many travels. I want to describe part of the mysterious, darken and multi-form puzzle that this continent is. It’s often impossible not to hate her, and yet she goes straight into your heart, red cells and soul like one of the incurable and fulminating viruses that are typical of these lands. Africa blues like malaria.

My project has already covered issues in several countries and regions in Africa. I have documented the devastating effects from the worst drought in the last decade in Kenya and Burkina Fasco, Ethiopia’s current food crisis and the famine that killed over one million people in Southern Somalia. I’ve covered the aftermath of an 18 year civil war and the emerging community of former children soldiers in Liberia. I have also documented the increasing child prostitution problem in Ivory Coast and the remains of the Kimberley diamond mines in South Africa.

Additional chapters of my project are due to be done. The Getty Images Grant for Editorial Photography will enable me to take next steps which will include Sudan, Chad and Darfur. I will document refugees’ lives in one of the worst civil wars of the whole continent and to document the birth (hopefully) of a new modern state. Next year in southern Sudan a referendum of this zone’s independence will be held and it will reflect the consequences of radical religion the country’s life. Tragic and gorgeous events, vicissitudes standing at the humanity’s border, in which humanity really represent the keystone.

T.I.A. This is Africa.

The following are responses from a photography group based in Nairobi:

‘I think the greatest crime that Stafano committed was to title the particular group of pictures in question as “This Is Africa”. That title is downright wrong and derogatory; maybe even silly.’

‘Hello Everybody,

It is not a crime to depict and portray ugliness and horror (and Africa like ALL continents s rich of those), but it is indeed dishonest if not a crime to continue indulging always and only in negative aspects. What I see as a crime though is to disinform the viewers and the audience with a title such as This Is Africa. This Is Offensive indeed. Then the idea of telling different stories, different tales under one only umbrella called “Africa” is also absurd. It seems after that old colonialists that divided the continent setting artificial borders are now followed by new colonialists eager to reunite it under a uniqueness that it doesn’t exist if not in the stereotyped perspective of the viewer, be him or her a photographer, a writer, a film maker etc..

I always find extremely irritating sentences like This Is…..whatever it is supposed to be, because nothing, not even an individual is only one thing. We always are a rough summary of a chaotic multiplicity. But reducing an entire continent to only one image, or only one story is really outrageous. Both if the story were a negative or a positive one.

Going back to the award, what is clear though by this particular awarding is that the negative stereotype about Africa is still alive and kicking, but honestly, what shocks me is that those photos were even nothing special at all. Stereotyped shots of a stereotyped view. This Is Sad indeed.’

What I find disturbing is not so much that he chose to highlight our negativity (I think it is up to us as Africans to show the world our beauty) but that his shots have stripped the subject of all their dignity.

For example,iImage 13 of the tribes-people…look like they were tossed into a pit like a mass grave except of living people.‘

‘Absolutely horrendous to say the least, i find it shocking that collective idiocy on the part of the judges who are apparently ill informed about our beautiful continent and the cradle of civilization…that`s all i can say for now, but i find it very annoying that he won the grant…’

‘Why did they give this guy a grant again? The first thing that struck me about his work is the extreme negativity that his work portrays of a continent that is not all darkness and dredgery. It seemed to me to only be a means of propogating an ill-formed opinion he has made of the region and lacks originality in that its nothing we have not already seen in the papers or iCNN.

I personally found it insulting being anAfrican who has seen some of these atrocities in so called ‘developed countries’.If he were highlighting the plight of the refugee or some other point of interest it would be more clear what his mission is but as it stands, he just wants to highlight the ‘ugliness’ of the continent…..

I’ve chosen Africa, not as a single story but through different tales, several years and many travels. I want to describe part of the mysterious, darken and multi-form puzzle that this continent is. It’s often impossible not to hate her, and yet she goes straight into your heart, red cells and soul like one of the incurable and fulminating viruses that are typical of these lands. Africa blues like malaria.

Some of his pictures I must say, are beautifully composed, but his mission is wanting…nd his attitude a complete put-off. The images he has taken cannot and should not be summed up as “THIS IS AFRICA!!!!”‘

‘Wow!

With statement like “and yet she goes straight into your heart, red cells and soul like one of the incurable and fulminating viruses that are typical of these lands. Africa blues like malaria.”

I think he’s playing for words aiming for being poetic about ‘Africa’ only with the end result emphasizing the cliche, TIA. Because although he says his next work will include “Tragic and gorgeous events, vicissitudes standing at the humanity’s border, in which humanity really represent the keystone.” His proposal doesn’t bring in to fore some of those gorgeous events.

Well one will argue that the things he writes about happen in Africa and they’d be right but there are many Africans… infact a very big percentage who’ve never witnessed a war of any kind, seen people die of hunger or ever suffered “the incurable and fulminating viruses that are typical of these lands”. Except for through media. So what he ends up doing by mocking the phrase “This Is Africa” is just validating it by the examples he chooses.

The things he mentions, happen in Africa but it would be misleading to imply they represent Africa. But hey Africa can do with all the ‘saviors’ it can get.’

‘My greatest contestation with Stefan de Luigi’s winning proposal would obviously be his reference to an extract from Dante Alighieri’s fourteenth-century epic poem Divine Comedy.

His particular choice of quotation from the first part of the Italian poet’s theological literature, Inferno, ironically speaks volumes of the photographer’s intentions in documenting his chosen subject – the continent of Africa.

Given the theological context of Dante’s canonized writings, juxtaposed so boldly beside De Luigi’s scenes of nameless, faceless, sickly human figures in generic landscapes, it’s easy for one to assume that the photographer might suffer delusions of grandeur when it comes his role as documenter.

While Dante’s Inferno tells of the poet’s journey through a medieval, allegorical concept of Hell, in his introduction the photographer chooses to use a disjointed key of language to create comparisons between his own relationship with his subject and the poet’s exalted role in his tale of divine justice in the eyes of a punishing God. De Luigi goes on to audaciously describe Africa as a “mysterious, darken and multi-form puzzle.”

How the esteemed judges failed to consider this interplay is perplexing. How it is assumed that any sharp reader may not pick up on it is simply astounding. Is it really the role of an editorial photographer to brand his subject in such a superfluous manner? I direct this question specifically to the judges, whose final decision cannot even begin to be justified by the images produced by the grant candidate.

But then again, I am reading de Luigi’s proposal from my perspective as an African – a position I’m starting to believe is one of privilege rather than despair.

I also concede that as a result of my background in newsroom photo-editorship and my current work as a picture researcher with a well-known South African photography school, I am likely to find most Western depictions of people who look like me to be moot rather than offensive.

So it is in my, arguably cynical, view that de Luigi’s chosen title fails to redeem any agency – from either photographer or subject – that he may argue in his proposal for the Getty Images grant. He’s statement is simply: ‘This is Africa.’

T.I.A. How very catchy. It might as well be a tagline for a designer sports clothing label advertisement

Who does not know of the suffering Africa? Who has not seen it in mainstream media broadcast across the world?

De Luigi’s images all have one dire characteristic in common; they show the anonymous representation of the people and communities he encountered on his ‘many travels’ through Africa.

I recognize in de Luigi’s images a movement toward a globally accepted notion of a generic Africa. One country. One we can all easily recognize because we all fear to scrutinize it. © Thato Mogotsi’

Competition: Please fill in the missing word

duckrabbit — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:44:51 +0000

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

Old schooler McCurry goes for the craigslist classified ad seeking an intern who is “highly motivated” with a “proven track record of excellence.” This intern must be proficient in “retouching in Photoshop” and will work 9am to 6pm, 5 days a week for 3 months unless Steve is out of the office in which case you will be working on the weekends too. The position is unpaid (apply here).

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.

Tonight I’m going to let you into one of photojournalism’s dirty little secrets

duckrabbit — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:28:40 +0000

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

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.

Faking it – how to win a World Press Award but get banned from a wildlife comp for life

duckrabbit — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:01:14 +0000

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:

Stjerneklar is a misguided troublemaker whose allegations do not deserve investigation
The people at The World Press are journalistically illiterate
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:

MVs caption to Suddeutche Zeitung: ‘We drove to the outskirts of town ( Bissau); it was dark.’
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’
MV on Pulitzers website: ‘We drive toward Quinhamel, a little village 30 minutes from Bissau’.
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.

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.
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:

On Vernaschi’s homepage: ‘In this picture, an account is settled between drug dealers.’ (guess it means he was killed?).
MV to the Danish Magazine Journalisten: “The man was abandoned in the wilderness at 03.00 in the morning”.
Caption to WPP: ‘A score between small drug dealers is settled. In the end, the captive was abandoned, but not killed’.
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’.
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.’
To Suddeutche Zeitung: ‘They acted like they were going to shoot their captive to death. However, they eventually sent him back unharmed’
To Frontline World: ‘They left this poor guy in the middle of the border.’

What did Vernaschi think about the situation?

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.’
To Journalisten: ‘In a corner of my brain, I was always confident that they would not kill him,’ says Marco Vernaschi.
To Frontline World: ‘I felt they would have killed him.’
See video on: http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitemdropcol.cfm?id=1643
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?

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.’
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’.
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?

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”.
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”.
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?

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
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?

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”.
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”.
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?

Marco in his caption to WPP: “The soldiers looted and destroyed the house. They took everything they could, including clothes and food”.
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.

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/

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

‘Finally! … Our Truth’

duckrabbit — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 22:41:45 +0000

Got a cool email this morning. Samira Hack, who was a prominent voice in the Open Eye documentary and photofilm I made with Joseph Rodriguez got in contact with Joseph with these words:

‘All that I can say is, Finally! I am very pleased with the results that you guys came up with. I know that people will criticise and say that this situation doesn’t exist in Sweden but you really kept it real and came forward with the truth, with our truth. And this is the only truth.’

As a programme maker you always worry about how the people featured in the programme will react. There is a unwritten contract that you will treat their words with respect. Once you break that contract you destroy trust.

I can see that in the work of a few photographers. They tell themselves their story is more important than the people in the pictures.

No doubt some great work is produced that way and in some circumstances they might be right.

I think radio producers, though their work tends to reach much larger audiences, are pretty philosophical about what their work can or can’t achieve.

Give someone a voice. For me that’s enough, anything else is a bonus.

You can see and hear Samira in the photofilm duckrabbit produced for the BBC below. You honor both us and her by taking the time out to watch:

Photojournalism and ‘What is the point of ‘exclusivity’ these days?’

David White — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:58:51 +0000

Like many, I have been glued to my computer watching the epic events in Egypt unfold. Images coming in from all over, different views every day, a plethora of images.

Visually I have a great handle on things thanks to the amazing power of the tintertwizzle.

I noticed Time shouting that they had an exclusive set of images from Dominic Nahr. Now, don’t get me wrong, Dominic is a quality photographer. He knows his shallots from his red onions. I’m not talking about him. The point is, what value is there, in an online environment, from having an exclusive set of news pictures? Especially if they come a few days after all the live stuff people have seen?

The power of an immediate, maybe blurry, a bit noisy, but live image snapped on a ‘phone as it happens totally beats the crap out of a beautiful image posted online a few days later.

Totally.

I can understand exclusive access, a unique story…that has a value to me.

A set of images, however good, however exclusive after an event now seems a bit pointless.

You can’t leverage the exclusivity to get punters to buy your product…they are free, online.

LINK TO PIECE

When is a photograph a lie?

duckrabbit — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:50:27 +0000

It’s hard to argue with a photographer when they point to a photo of their own that they once loved but now think is a ‘lie’.

Simon Sticker has done just that in an interesting post about a photo he took in Rwanda.

In photography he says, referring to his own pictures, a ‘lie’ does not have to be a staged photo or a photo-shopped monstrosity, it has much more to do with where the photo takes an audience when they look at it.

For me this is a really profound thought. Think about it. Why don’t we consider this more when we value a photo? Of course we do consider this a lot and sadly there has been a tendency to value photographs, particularly about the ‘other’, the developing world, that twist and bend the truth. That take us to a place that is no more real than believing the advert for Disneyland will give you the real America.

The classic example from recent years is Marco Vernashchi’s work in Guinea Bissau that is brilliantly executed but in terms of actual journalism was torn to pieces, and that’s before you even get into the question of just how much of it was staged!

Here’s an excerpt from Simon’s blog post (Story V Aesthetic). Do read it.

I remember one day in this old school in Rwanda where during the genocide 50.000 people were killed. Part of the dead bodies are conserved in the rooms and I was there to take photographs. A horrific place and the purpose of taking pictures was the only thing that kept me from emotionally breaking down while I was there. Later I was looking at the pictures and it striked me that some of them had this powerful aesthetics in it, what I loved at that time. Today I look at them and I’m not sure if I did a good job. Aesthetically, ya, maybe, but did I tell the story properly? I’m not sure. Another picture is nothing less than a lie for me today. There is nothing staged or so, but it is a lie, because of where it takes people that look at it. While I was in one of the rooms, I saw this big dirty part on the wall (no painting or something like that) that looked a bit like Africa in it’s form. With the head of one of the bodies in the foreground, a picture would create a powerful connection and tell a story. I was fascinated by that at the time. Easy to tell, easy to understand. But what I created was a stereotypical lie about Africa and the perception of the continent in the western world. It is just another excuse to make it easy to see no need to learn and understand more of the continent or ask.