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