Questions Without Answers @VIIphoto
Written by duckrabbitThat’s the title of VII photography’s new book on war. In an interview just given to the publisher Phaidon, the CEO of VII, Stephen Mayes states
‘I think at VII we’re not trying to change what the photographers do because we’re mission driven. We’re identifying the subjects we feel strongly about and are reporting on them to our best abilities. And it’s our intention to use photography for positive change. So we’re not trying to change that but what’s happened in the last 10 years is that our audience has grown more online and particularly people who are actively interested in a subject are able to find what we’re doing more easily. ‘
I have a series of simple questions I’ve written to Stephen Mayes that remain unanswered.
These are
- How many of your photographers are licensing images or shooting for the arms industry directly or indirectly?
- How is it possible for a photographer to class themselves as a ‘journalist’ covering conflict and at the same time be involved in the sales marketing of bombs?
As the management of VII can see the web doesn’t just come into its own when spreading photography. The people below are just some of the hundreds that shared and many thousands that read the post yesterday. Many look up to VII and would like an answer.
Absolute silence leads to sadness. It is the image of death – Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (5 Comments)
So, isn’t this the same as Richard Branson being accused of hypocrisy for having an airline and helping stop global warming at the same time?
Mr. Branson’s answer is that thanks to the revenue his airline generates, he can research for zero emissions fuels. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
So why accusing Mr. Haviv for selling pictures? in the end it’s just capitalism, isn’t it? maybe the money he makes for selling pictures to lockheed martin helps him take pictures of dead/injured/famine stricken people, just what you all want to see. But you, sitting in your sofas made in china, are not satified by that apparently and also want him doing it in a “moral friendly” way, a way that doesn’t work just because the world we all have created doesn’t work that way.
I think you should all rethink what you are talking about and think a little bit more about what you do.
I have no personal interest in Ron Haviv, don’t know much of his work and I don’t care simply because I don’t find helpful the kind of photojournalism he does, its whole story seems to be like “the groundhog day”, always the same photos, always people getting used to them and not paying attention anymore, aways raising no awareness always the same thing, again and again and again and again…
We’re asking questions, Jose. Hard, legitimate questions. Yes, I’m interested in why a person (admire his images or not) who has personally witnessed and tasted the horrors of war up close, and creates work that exposes those very horrors, then goes out and solicits the perpetrators of those horrors. It’s several deep dark layers beneath ambulance chasing, not to mention the sense of dignity and humanity he supposedly dedicated his work to. Do we just casually shrug it off on capitalism (slow and silent killer that it is) without further inquiry? Is he someone who from the get go found that he could produce these very marketable images ad infinitum, and has taken us for a ride ever since- as you seem to suggest? Or has the insidious nature and very insanity of war so corroded and corrupted him to the point where he can now rationalize supporting and being supported by the industry that has murdered and maimed so many of his subjects?
We all live lives of varying hypocrisy- all of us. And perhaps this particular relationship seems “perfectly reasonable” to you, but it’s a paradox to many of us- one that needs to be laid bare, challenged and understood. Maybe, just maybe, it will then provide a level of awareness well beyond his work.
It has been said that guns dont kill people, people kill people. i see a lot of sanctimonious rhetoric coming out here, motivated probably in many cases by envy. Should photographers stop shooting for airlines or car manufacturers because they are helping to damage the environment? Should they stop shooting for banks because they have allegedly caused financial collapse? Should they stop shooting for publishers because the rainforest is being cut down? Should they stop shooting for supermarkets because they squeeze out small businesses? Photographers should arguably be pretty neutral…and cut out the financing and photographers can no longer afford to live and you lose coverage of tragedies altogether in today’s climate.
No one is denying anyone a living. All that’s being said here is if you’re going to bed with the merchants of death, don’t play the saint in your waking hours- that’s sanctimonious.