Month: March 2016 (Page 1 of 2)

Steve McCurry Show

What interested me most about Steve McCurry’s show at the Rubin Museum of Art was his ability to provide an extensive portrait of place. McCurry photographed a variety of people, events, and sites in India, while also ranging from more formal portraits to street shots. Color is an incredibly important tool to him—I felt he used it in a way to express the emotions and energy of his subjects, whether they were people or places. While he is clearly interested in photographing people, I was most impressed by his engagement with India as its own subject. The photographs I was most drawn to were devoid of individuals, but rather spoke to the manifestation of past, present and future in cities.

His images Agra Fort Train Station at Dusk, with Jama Masjid, the Great Mosque of Shah Jahan, in the Distance and Moonrise over Mumbai, both show a unique relationship between modernity and tradition. Having travelled to India a few times myself, this a theme that has always fascinated me. McCurry does a beautiful job of representing the interaction of historic architecture and modern technology.

Trains in foreground with mosque in background surround by a warm orange sky

Agra Fort Train Station at Dusk, with Jama Masjid, the Great Mosque of Shah Jahan, in the Distance

In Agra Fort Train Station he photographs the train station in the foreground with the mosque in the background. The highlights on the train create a somewhat theatrical lighting, emphasizing the significance and power of the train, while the beautiful architecture rests gently in the distance. By photographing the station at sunset, and when it is relatively empty, McCurry suggests a peaceful, tranquil quality to the relationship between past and present. The smoke of the train stands out against the dark tracks, but as it rises it dissipates and dissolves into the orange sky, suggesting some sort of harmony. It feels odd to be looking at the industrial landscape of the train station so close to such a sacred site. However, McCurry makes it appear natural with his deep depth of field and the sweeping orange and yellow tones.

Purple skies surround pink buildings with cabs and people below

Moonrise over Mumbai

Similarly, in Moonrise over Mumbai, McCurry photographs a historic neighborhood while showing the chaos of cars, people, shops, and light. There is an interesting relationship between the top of the buildings, lit by the setting sun and rising moon, and the neon lights flooding onto the street from shops and stands. For me, the neon lights function similarly to the train in Agra Fort Train Station, they represent modernity and in this image, a growing sense of consumerism. The buildings stand crisply in focus while the blurred cars rush beneath them. The bottom of the frame feels incredibly crowded in comparison to the top. This seems to me to represent the way in which India is made up of different histories, traditions, and times living and remaining on top of one another.

I find there to be an interesting comparison between McCurry’s work in India and Susan Meiselas’ photographs from Nicaragua. With Meiselas’ work, though it is very much centered on a specific place, I find it to be more of a portrait of people and events rather than Nicaragua itself. Though those people and events of course make up the history of Nicaragua, and specifically the revolution, each of Meiselas’ images feel a bit more small scale—all very particular moments. This in turn creates a sense that I am receiving bits and pieces, or an understanding of a place at a very particular time. This functions very well for Meiselas’ series because it is a portrait of a revolution, rather than an elongated period of time like McCurry’s photographs from India. It is interesting to analyze how these two series feel different. McCurry’s work feels separate from a temporal context. Perhaps this is because of India’s aesthetic, or because of the way he juxtaposes modernity and antiquity.

The comparison of Meiselas and McCurry’s use of color is also interesting. Both chose to take color photographs because they felt color better matched the energy of their respective locations. However, the color palettes of their images are vastly different. Meiselas’ color feels faded in comparison to McCurry’s. This is interesting, and somewhat surprising,  because when looking at her book I remember thinking the color was incredibly vivid. McCurry’s photographs are highly saturated and incredibly vibrant. His use of colors feels a bit more intentional—some of the images felt like they were taken because of the color. With Meiselas’ images, though often the colors are also vibrant, I rarely feel that the color makes the photograph. Color rather functions as a complement to her composition. This feels much subtler than McCurry’s use of color.

McCurry’s images feel very monumentalized. The photographs are not only printed largely in the show, but he also tends to aggrandize his subject. Through his color, lighting, and composition, his images feel dramatic. For example his photograph of the man in green powder from the Holi Festival in Rajasthan as well as the image of the father and daughter rowing down a canal, both have an incredible intensity to them because the subjects feel so singled out and glorified.

Man in green powder is held by others covered in red powder

Holi Festival (1996), Rajasthan, India.

Father rows boat while young girl looks pleadingly at camera

Father and Daughter on Boat 1996

This created a highly symbolic nature to his images—his subjects feel more like allegorical figures than individuals. The monumentalizing adds to the sense that he is creating a large, extensive portrait of India that transcends beyond specific people, places, or moments.

Steve McCurry

The two photos that drew me in the most, aesthetically and contextually, were “Dust Storm” and “Boy in Mid Flight.”

In “Dust Storm,” the cluster of red orange in contrast to the faded sand immediately captivates you. It’s right in the center, taking up a third of the entire photo. The patterns on their clothes, their white jewelry–it all almost looks like a photo that could be in a fashion magazine. Then, in the less vibrant background, which does not make it less beautiful, there are haunting trees that seem to create an arch around the group of women. Altogether, the photo is absolutely beautiful.

Although, after reading the caption, you discover that what is happening is a rather common occurrence, it is hard to deny the photo’s beauty and sense of magic–a common thread in all of McCurry’s work.

In the “rhythms of every life,” McCurry captures what Henri Cartier-Bresson would call the decisive moments, and which he himself calls “unguarded moments.” Although they call it very different things, the work of both these photographers document the enchantment of everyday life.  They both embody the true essence of street photography, waiting patiently in the ordinary to find the split second moments of marvel . Rather than thinking so critically in their processes, they do what feels right; by staying emotionally aware and un-jaded, they perceive life more deliberately and are able to capture the highlights in life.

In this way, they not only experience life in a more thorough, deeper way, they take photos that allow viewers to step into the almost familiar, yet very magical image.

Young girls in red heard scarves huddled in a circle

This photo also holds so much mystery and narrative. You can’t see any of the women’s faces as they huddle in the middle of the desert. After reading the caption, you learn this was in the midst of the dust storm. The storm forced the women, barely able to stand, to cluster together to protect themselves. Through this one shot of their motion, McCurry created a bold image of solidarity that is hard to take yours eyes off of.

This sense of mystery and narrative is also found in “Boy in Mid Flight.” Where is the boy headed? Where is this little alley? Where does it lead to? The photo just reeks of adventure and arouses so much curiosity. It brings you back to childhood, reminding you of those games of pretend that were so real back then, when backyards were rainforest and living rooms, pools of lava. Young boy running barefoot through brightly painted streets

Visually, the photo is also absolutely stunning. Following the rule of thirds and also boasting his high contrast, vibrant style, this photo is, simply put, fun. First and foremost, the colors are captivating. The blue catches your eye first, revealing the adorable shot of a young boy, mid-leap. Then the yellow, immediately to the right, and the red handprints to the left seem to tie the photo all together. Three primary colors in one shot.

In contrast to Cartier-Bresson’s black and white photography, McCurry’s photos proudly share the colors of India. If Cartier-Bresson is the master of black and white photography (which stemmed from a bit of snobbery against color), then McCurry is the master of color. At times, McCurry’s colors seem to outshine the regality the black and white photos, in the way they do not mute what is there, what is going on, no matter how loud the shot may be.

Haviv Response

I do not know how true the statement is that a Ron Haviv image can only be interpreted one way. In the society we live in now, everything can be ripped out of its context and placed into a new one in seconds. However, I do think that stands true in the example of the image of the woman getting kicked in the head. No matter where or in what context this image would have been taken, it is a snapshot of a blatant basic human right violation and a blaring disregard for a human being. I think that this image won such international world fame because no matter who sees the image sees this as it is. There’s no dispute about what is happening. This is why I found it so hard to find negative critiques on his work, especially this photo. He went out of his way to try and make history, putting his life on the line for the sake of others, and to criticize this as an outsider would be baffling to me.

Haviv’s images made a long-standing impact publicizing this war. Almost all of the articles I’ve seen related to the Bosnian War either uses his photos directs or mentions him. People turn to him for the unbiased look on the war; such as this 2015 Vice article titled “A Photographer Looks Back at the Bosnian War”. BBC in the UK called this image “one of the most striking images to come out of the Balkans in the last decade of violence”. National Geographic says that these photos are a reminder that photojournalist’s works, such as Haviv’s, help shape history. A lot of the articles I found discuses his photos used as evidence in trying the cases of many of the perpetrators of war crimes.

 

One article I found an issue with was one on the Lens Blog of the New York Times written by James Estrin in 2013. It starts off talking about making an impact through photojournalism and how Haviv was disappointed when his photos did not make an immediate impact or how they don’t necessarily prevent future evil. They go on to quote him saying, “I’ve now documented three genocides — Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur — and I look back to the lessons of the Holocaust, which were ‘never again,’ ” he said. “Nobody should be able to say they didn’t know what was happening. What we do as photographers is to attempt to create a body of evidence to hold people accountable.” To this comment, Estrin replies, “To him, it is not just the soldier executing people or even his commander or the politician who gave the order who needs to be held accountable. It is the public too.” I have an issue with this writer lumping the soldier executing the people with the public. I understand that he probably doesn’t mean that they are held at the same level, but he makes no distinction of this and then finishes the article. The quote by Haviv is a little vague and this man turns it into something black and white – the exact problem facing photographers today. He just throws this quote in, interprets it, and finishes the article.

 

What I was most interested in and what I couldn’t find was European reaction to those images. All of the articles I found were US or UK based, and as much as our opinions matter, we were not the ones directly affected by this war. In an interview with Haviv in the Globe and Mail, Haviv says, “Twenty years after the photograph was published, Bosnians still respond to Haviv in a way that amazes him. “I’m so happy to meet you … I appreciate everything you did. And then they start crying… It’s actually very uncomfortable because Bosnia is a country suffering still from PTSD … if you scratch a little bit, you’re at war.” I’m sure many people in the Balkans are grateful to Haviv. However, I would be interested in hearing the people’s opinions that he shut down because of the war. Do they still believe in ethnic cleansing? Would they go back and do it all again? Who besides Arkan want to “drink [Haviv’s] blood and what would they say about such a blatant image of a violation of human rights?

 

Sources

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

 

http://www.vice.com/read/photos-of-the-bosnia-war

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/03/ron-havivs-testimony/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1347218.stm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aviv writing assignment – Martel

 

In his introduction to Blood and Honey by Ron Haviv, David Reiff writes, “it is almost unimaginable that there could be more than one appropriate interpretation of a Ron Haviv picture.” 

 

When President Bush used one of Ron Haviv’s photo to justify the United States’ intervention in Panama, Haviv said: “I suddenly understood the power of photojournalism. I realized this wasn’t about me, it was about the people I was photographing. From then on, that’s what I dedicated my career to: enabling people who don’t have a voice to get their stories told.” I think that this is what David Reiff is trying to say in his essay. It is indeed “unimaginable” that his pictures could be interpreted in various ways as the only story that really counts should be the one that the people photographed want to tell. It is not about the photographer’s interpretation and it is not about the viewer’s either. The subject only should be the one telling the story as he or she is the only one who lived and felt the events.

In addition, if Haviv’s photos could have various interpretations, it would clearly be inappropriate to use them as pieces of evidence to justify actions like Bush did, like the United Nations did and like the international tribunal in The Hague did when judging war crimes.

 

One of Haviv’s photo was especially controversial as of its accuracy and its interpretation. While covering the war in the Balkans, he was following the Arkan’s Tigers, a group of Serb nationalist paramilitaries. When in Bosnia, in a town called Bijeljina, Haviv captured and immortalized a moment that was later on judged as a war crime. He witnessed civilians being interrogated, tortured and killed for being Kosovar or Albanian and therefore were seen as terrorists by the Arkan’s Tigers. The situation suddenly blew up and bullets went flying. A man, his wife and his sister-in-law were killed in the middle of the street as the Tigers shouted “no photographs, no photographs!” to Haviv. But Haviv, covered by a car, managed to take a few shots, hid the film and rushed to the airport to send the roll to Paris. This iconic photograph of a Serb soldier, also known as DJ Max, kicking the body of the dead civilian was published a week later in the Time Magazine. Haviv continued to cover the war in Bosnia even though he received several death threats, was captured, interrogated and beaten up.

 

So what were the responses to this picture?

First, Haviv’s was extremely disappointed because of the government’s unresponsiveness. He said: “The photographs really didn’t have any of the effect that I had hoped they would. I was hoping to prevent the war. And of course, there was no reaction. The war started, 100,000 to 200,000 people were killed on all sides and several million more became refugees — which led to the war in Kosovo.” Haviv was expecting George Bush, still president at that time, to react and take military action, but he didn’t.

 

But even if the immediate results were not apparent, his photo was used as evidence at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague.

 

Later, Bosnian people adopted the photo as a way to call for help, patriotism and unification. It is interesting to see how the people from Bosnia responded to this picture. They were so incredibly grateful. Haviv said whenever he would meet them they would say: “I’m so happy to meet you … I appreciate everything you did. And then they start crying.” They needed Haviv’s help in order to have their story heard by the rest of the world. And this is exactly when Reiff’s idea makes sense. Haviv provided the necessary visual evidence for the rest of the world to see the situation, take action and bring justice to the innocent people killed during the conflict and to their families. His photos were also seen as a way of remembering and honoring that memory of the victims.

 

I think that if I was to study the legacy of this photo I would talk to the Bosnian people who were victims or who had family members victims of the ethnic cleansing. It would, of course, be very much needed to talk to the photographer to get some background and contest to better understand the shot. But as Haviv said, it’s not about him but rather about the people he is photographing. It is their experience of the war that he is trying to document and show the world through his lens.

 

Sources : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the-docket-as-evidence/

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/en_US/studio/multimedia/20151214/index.html

Haviv Response

While Haviv’s photo of the Serbian paramilitary member kicking a civilian was taken in 1992, its implications as documentation of war crimes has had continued effects beyond the nineties. The photo, which has been mentioned in Time Magazine, NPR, and The New York Times, among other sources, has been analyzed by media outlets. Similarly, these critiques often yield to criticisms of Haviv, rather than merely the photo that he took.

Today, Haviv is credited with capturing a war crime or a genocide, and is primarily looked at in a positive light. He is seen as a hero of sorts, due to his willingness to risk his life to capture moments that reflect the horrific nature of Arkan and his men. In a 2015 interview with Anthony Feinstein of the Canadian Globe And Mail, it is stated: “Twenty years after the photograph was published, Bosnians still respond to Haviv in a way that amazes him. “I’m so happy to meet you … I appreciate everything you did. And then they start crying”’. To that, Haviv’s photos have created a lasting legacy on the Bosnian people. Although he captured gruesome and violent scenes, the Bosnian people still appreciate his work because it helped expose aspects of the war to the rest of the world.

While Haviv’s goal was to expose Arkan’s men and objectively capture what was happening, these efforts may have not been enough to sway the actual indictment of the paramilitary members after the war was over. In the Balkan Transitional Justice, an article titled, Arkan’s Paramilitaries: Tigers Who Escaped Justice, delves into the idea that justice has not been fully restored to the region more than twenty years after Haviv’s photos were taken. The article states, “many believe that Arkan’s men have not been prosecuted because of their leader’s links to Serbian police officials, politicians and organised crime”.

In other modern instances, the photo has become so popular that it has been misappropriated. In a Time Magazine article from 2014, author Josh Raab states that Haviv’s “photo recently went viral on Facebook and Twitter, with a caption claiming it portrayed Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea”. Due to the popularity of the photo and the striking impact that it has on an audience, the photo was easily transformed into a provocative representation of the events of a different era, and place. Although the photo was used to sway an uninformed audience, the visual aspect of the image itself still created a profound impact on its viewers.

To that, it is important that as many people reflect on this image as possible, on the terms that the image is used correctly. The image should be used as a representation of war crimes, and should serve as a reminder of genocide with hope that these actions will not be repeated. As far as critical analysis, I believe that Haviv’s interpretation and opinions of this photo should be held to the highest regard, since he shot the photo in the first place and was present when this occurred. Similarly, articles should focus on the triumph of capturing this photo and the impact that it has had on others, rather than stating that the photo itself was not enough to sway opinion and outcome. While the photo was meant to be influential, a single, objective work cannot be expected to change the world entirely. Rather, it serves as yet another piece of evidence to the atrocities of the world.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/arkan-s-paramilitaries-tigers-who-escaped-justice

http://time.com/3810444/ukraine-fake-images-claim/

Haviv Photo Response

 

Ron Haviv’s photography from the Bosnian War is a defining marker in world history – his perspective is the lens through which the entire world sees and understands the conflict. So many of his photographs are considered iconic, but perhaps the most iconic, defining photo of his from this time is the image of a Serbian solider kicking a dying Bosnian woman in the head. Not only does it perfectly capture the horrific nature of the war, but it is also, simply, a quintessential “Eastern-Europe-in-the-90s” image. The clothing of the civilians, the car in the background, the style of building – this is a moment completely cemented in time.

When we first looked at the photo, I was not sure if I had seen it before; it seemed familiar, but I had been looking at an inordinate amount of war photography so everything seemed vaguely familiar. I decided to ask my mom what she knew of the image – I figured I could use her as a even measurement of just how recognizable this photo is for people who lived through the war, as a complete outsider. I texted her Haviv’s photo and asked if she recognized it. She responded immediately, “Holy s***. Is that Bosnia or something?” I feel like this sums up the general, common knowledge of the photo (in the US at least): a recognition that it is from the Bosnian War, and besides the horror associated with that fact, not much additional information.

In a much greater sense, Haviv’s photo is the defining shot of the Bosnian War – not only does it shape the way people perceive the conflict and violence, but it has been used as evidence for war crimes. As John Kifner of the New York Times put it, “It tells you everything you need to know.” This is, overwhelmingly, the consensus about the photograph – it shows the story of the nasty war as plainly as possible. Not only does it capture the essence of the Serbian forces, it also individually incriminates the soldier performing the action in the photo (whether or not he feels guilt for it is another matter entirely). Richard Geib ran a blog in the 90s devoted to reactions to the Bosnian War, and he reflected on Haviv’s photo, saying, “There is nothing worse than a thug pretending to be a ‘soldier’ wearing a uniform and wielding the power a gun gives him. Such an individual is a bully plain and simple.” This photo not only shows the greater conflict as a whole, but also narrows in on how personal and despicable the violence was.

Susan Sontag was critical of the way the photo was received because she fundamentally took issue with the idea that one photo could tell such a large, complex story. Naturally, this one shot does not tell the entire story of the Bosnian War, but if you had to sum it up in one image, it seems to be the general consensus that this photo mostly does the trick. This is how this image is now preserved in history – iconic, yes, and the short explanation for what happened during the Bosnian War. This photo’s legacy is that it will continue to be in the small field of images that we as a society deem iconic – one of those that has been burnt into our collective consciousness forever.

Sources:

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/bosnia/bosnia.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/24/books/pictorial-guide-hell-stark-images-trace-balkans-descent-photographer-s.html

http://www.adamklein.me/2011/09/on-susan-sontags-regarding-pain-of.html

http://artthreat.net/2010/12/joe-sacco-interview-2/

 

 

 

 

 

Haviv Response

Soldier kicking people laying on the street

Many people have commented on the above image: everyone from Susan Sontag to BBC News and New York Times reporters to Joshua Lipton of the Columbia Journalism Review. The role of the photojournalist is always a point of contention hotly debated by novelists, journalists and scholars alike. After a lot of research, I was unable to find non-American/European sources of commentary.

Susan Sontag was troubled by the aesthetics and almost glorified implications the medium of photography can have on pain. While I would argue that this photo of the Serbian paramilitary member kicking the body of the dying civilian is by no means beautiful it is aesthetically stunning. The color is rich, from the blue car in the back to the brick wall, and the soldier’s action is captured in “the decisive moment” we have discussed this semester. However I do not think that the aesthetics of this photo detracts from the horror this photo captured. One article that I found interesting — which integrated both Sontag’s On The Pain of Others and this specific photo — was “The Other Eye of the Beholder” by Alexander Nehamas in 2003 for The American Prospect. Nehamas argued “Photography is not the only visual medium to go hand in hand with death. Death has been the constant companion of all visual representation since its very beginnings. […] A photograph is “a record of the real.” A photograph demands the pain to be felt. Whether people act on that pain, however, is up to the viewer

Many of the reporters commented on the evidence angle of the Haviv photo perhaps because they too are journalists and understand the plight of documenting rather than interviewing. The LA Times reporter, David Reff, said in a 2001 article “It is almost unimaginable that there could be more than one appropriate interpretation of a Ron Haviv picture.” From BBC to the LA Times it was agreed that this photo perfectly depicted the face of ethnic cleansing and the atrocities going on in Bosnia during this time.

It is evident this photo has been shown in a vast array of news publications, journalistic reviews and was used as evidence in a court of law (which according to The New York Times is rare for photographers to agree to). I feel that the meaning of this image today is still that of a symbol representing ethnic cleansing.

If I were studying the legacy of this image I would speak to the United Nations about it. Haviv was quoted in articles by The New York Times, The Globe and Mail and BBC News that his photos are evidence, evidence for the world governments and the world citizens. “Nobody should be able to say they didn’t know what was happening. What we do as photographers is to attempt to create a body of evidence to hold people accountable” Haviv told The New York Times. I would pose this question to the UN: how many photos of ethnic cleansing, mass genocides and war crimes will you need until this terror comes to an end?

Photojournalists such as Haviv risk their lives to report world news and for us to do nothing in terms of peace or policy making is a disservice to both the photojournalist and more so, our world.

Sources: (all hyperlinked throughout minus the ProQuest database source)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1347218.stm

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/21/books/bk-14875/2

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the-docket-as-evidence/?_r=0

http://prospect.org/article/other-eye-beholder

http://search.proquest.com/pqcentral/docview/230360791/74834B4D519F43D7PQ/1?accountid=12768

Haviv Interpretations

Ron Haviv’s Blood and Honey reached international recognition as the collection of images that were the  eyes into the Balkan conflicts. His coverage of the events were unrivaled by any other photojournalists of the area at the time. Over the years, Haviv’s work in the Balkans has remained part of photojournalistic discourse, especially when the conversation is geared towards aesthetics in photojournalism as well as the legacy and impact of the conflict and the images produced from them.

When searching the internet for conversations regarding Haviv’s work, it usually contains his most famous images from Blood and Honey, namely Arkan’s portrait, the Tiger paramilitary soldier kicking a dead Muslim woman, and the prisoners of the Bosnian concentration camps. A notable website was http://www.balkaninsight.com/ which contained an article about members of Arkan’s “Tigers” that escaped justice by concealing their identities after Arkan’s indictment. In speaking about the war crimes committed by the Tigers, many of the Blood and Honey images were present, a brief portion of the article spoke about how Haviv was invited by Arkan to photograph him and his troops. I found many websites that contained Haviv’s images as ancillary to the topics of the article, another example was on http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/paramilitaries/ that used Haviv’s image of the Tiger paramilitary kicking a dead Muslim woman as evidence in a historical layout of paramilitary groups. My overall impression of seeing Haviv’s images online is that there are only so few outlets that talk about the images themselves, such as Vice where Haviv has an informative interview about his work in former Yugoslavia (http://www.vice.com/read/photos-of-the-bosnia-war). An interesting quote from the interview was when Haviv was asked about the current situation in the reigion, stating “I had hope that the country would be moving forward at a faster pace. I find that the current situation is an insult to all those affected by the war.” Many sites are using Haviv’s images as proof and practical display to explaining the conflict and the atrocities committed during it, the legacy and use of his images are most times in efforts to further educate about the conflicts themselves and express a desire to resolve them.

In further studying the legacy of Haviv’s image and those from Blood and Honey, I would especially value the input of those involved in the conflict firsthand. I would want to see how the images affected the civilian population besides helping indict Arkan for war crimes, as I’d imagine their experience in seeing the images would be more personal and specifically relevant to the conflict rather than those who see it from a distance (speaking to the UN Security officers who prosecuted Arkan with the photographs would also be valuable). I would also want the opinions of historical photography aesthetics experts and researchers to see how Haviv’s images and others involved in the former Yugoslavian conflict pair up with coverages of other wars and what context the images serve in terms of shaping the public’s perception of it.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/bosnia/Bosn005-03.htm

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/arkan-s-paramilitaries-tigers-who-escaped-justice

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/paramilitaries/

http://www.vice.com/read/photos-of-the-bosnia-war)

Haviv Photo Response

In his essay the beginning of Blood and Honey, David Reiff writes, “But it is almost unimaginable that there could be more than one appropriate interpretation of a Ron Haviv picture”. To Reiff, the photo “is the face of ethnic cleansing. The photograph is also almost a parable for what took place in Bosnia, which was not war in any traditional sense but slaughter; not the clash of armies but the destruction by soldiers of civilians.” It seems, at least from my findings, that most people had similar reaction to Reiff. It is almost impossible to find (at least in the English speaking world) a response to the photo that doesn’t in some sense refer to the fact that Haviv’s photo of a Serbian soldier kicking a muslim woman made them realize not only the horror and destruction of the Bosnian War, but in war in general. For example, British newspaper The Guardian writes, “These are two images in a remarkable body of work. Remarkable because, regardless of the horror, Haviv captures those odd flickers of humanity even as the killers are going about their killing; even as the victims go about their dying.” And the Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail writes how Haviv, “powerfully captured the depravity of the Balkan civil wars.”

Only 20 years have past since these photos were published, and I wonder how much interpretations of these photos will change over time. In Regarding the Pain of Others Susan Sontag talks about this very photo, as an example of how important context is in analyzing this photo. She writes how this photo can tell you war is bad in a general sense, as an armed soldier is kicking an unarmed woman who is on the ground. However, the photo being representational of ethnic cleansing is only true because people know the context of the photo. I wonder how Serbians would respond to the photo. Most would probably see the photo as deplorable, but would they also see it as ethnic cleansing? I also wonder how people will respond to this photo decades from now, when people writing about it weren’t alive during the war and may or may not know its context.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/21/books/bk-14875/2

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/jun/17/artsandhumanities.highereducation

Searles, Haviv Photo Response 

In the year 2000, photographer Ron Haviv published Blood and Honey, a photo book depicting his documentation of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia between the Serbs and the other ethnic groups in the area. One of the most notable and lasting photos from the book depicts a Serbian paramilitary member kicking the body of the dying civilian.

Almost all the major global publications, such as NYTimes, NPR, The Guardian, and more, have commented on this photo, mostly as part of book reviews for Blood and Honey. Overwhelmingly, the response to this image seems to be a feeling of great emotional power. It has been called the “most powerful and famous [image] from the Bosnian War.” (Peter Beaumont, The Guardian) Others have called it “one of the most gripping in his new book” (JOHN KIFNER, New York Times), “one of the most striking images to come out of the Balkans in the last decade of violence” (Kate Milner, BBC), and a photo that “speak[s] for [itself]” (Wade Goddard WAR PHOTO)

This image has a strong power to it, it seems, because not only does it depict something striking, but because it has larger connotations. This picture represents one of, if not the most, horrible things about the war—its effect on civilians. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed or displaced, and this photo does a good job of showing the utter lack of care that the actual militants had for those that had essentially nothing to do with the actual conflict. As Sharon Sliwinski writes, “this war’s ravages are visibly inscribed onto the very bodies of the people whose likeness Haviv captured with his camera.”

This images has mostly been commented on by Westerners. Indeed, it is very hard, if not impossible, to find African or Asian commentary on it. In addition, although it has been displayed in gallery spaces around the world, it is far more prevalent in Western-oriented settings. Interestingly, it has also been displayed in place where it was taken, in galleries such as War Photo Limited in Croatia and Belgrade Gallery in Serbia.

As far as the legacy of the photo, Haviv himself would probably be most important to speak with. Among so many other reasons, part of what makes this image impactful is just how close he was to danger when he snapped the shutter. He was almost a part of the conflict, as he was essentially imbedded with the Serbian army, and saw many of the atrocities that they committed first-hand.

It would also be important to speak with the subjects of other photos he took that survived. Many of the photos Haviv took were made into sort of symbols for the war, and it would be fascinating to see their opinion on that. Oftentimes, they did not actually choose to be photographed, and they did not choose for their own images to take on greater meaning than just representations of themselves.

SOURCES:

http://www.torontophotographyseminar.org/sites/default/files/uploads/SliwinskiPhotoViolence2009.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/jun/17/artsandhumanities.highereducation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1347218.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/24/books/pictorial-guide-hell-stark-images-trace-balkans-descent-photographer-s.html

http://www.warphotoltd.com/news/6

« Older posts