Scenes from Postwar Bosnia (Protected with a digital watermark by Digimarc ®)

One of the striking aspects of this image is the photographer's choice to portray the stark reality of a bullet riddled building by showing a highly structured and largely symmetrical image. The vertical pole is exactly centered, with only the blue at the bottom and the door being slightly offset from center. The scar to the right of the staircase is the other assymetrical element. It is entirely a matter of choice, and it is a great image. I think, though, that my choice would have been to crop this image vertically midway between the left side of the staircase and the left edge of the image. When cropped in that way, it seems to me that a greater tension is created between the very orderly staircase and the damage done by the bullet holes. The scar to the right of the staircase then takes on a greater role in the whole as well. From my point of view, the wall to the left is largely negative space that does not add substantially to the whole. As I said, though, I think it's a great image, and my comments are soley those of an individual... not detracting from the photographer's choices.

bernd blauel, Please dont take this the wrong way, but I would like to make one quick observation about your comment! The fact that this is a picture of a post war scene should in no way move us to imagine all the frightening moments that took place here, nor to lament the loss of human lives. The idea is to judge the photograph, not the photographer or the thing photographed; not even the history that lead to its actualization. These all are secondary considerations in a syntax which determines the effectiveness of the photo, but the central theme is the effectiveness of the photo (at least for us viewers). The purpose of visiting this medium (Photo .Net) is to search for photographic talent, and in this assimilation we have the common goal to critique other photographic talents, and no more. If this were a historic or documentary photographic siteor thread within this sitethen yes, lets take into consideration all the events which took place, but all we are doing is judging a photograph by its technical and aesthetic merits and we do this by adhering to the idea that it is a piece of art work which we are judging. One reason why we should remain detached from the events which took place here is that we are judging only the message contained within the borders of the frame, and this message is that war is over and only the scars remain. It is this after the war theme which we are commenting on, and not the war itself. Besides, this is a study of beauty in the midst of distress, not a study of distress in the midst of beauty.

Isidro: I am getting your point. Discussing the "effectiveness of the picture" is what photo.net is made for and it is good like it is.

My intention was not to bring up "lamenting" about the loss of human lives (although I find the word "lamenting" in this context a bit cynical). My sincere opinion is just that a picture can never be separated from its inspiration / context. Art for art`s sake is an absurdum. Otherwise one could say: As long as war can produce such nice structured walls (and our own live is not in danger) we can enjoy art`sy talk about it. Finally, I would like the picture better if some message of hope would be conveyed. Something like: a tree / playing children or whatever is in creative repertoire of the photographer. But here: a srairway that leads nowhere than to a closed door.

Thanks for your ideas

Isidro, As I stated earlier in this Critique thread, I find it slightly disturbing that we have here a photo of a bullet ridden scene somewhere in Bosnia, and below it is a big copyright sign followed by a for sale sign. The message is for me is quite clear. Perhaps I should have, like you say, focused purely on 'what is in the frame' unfortunately I could not but help notice those little things, that in this case go with it.

When I wrote my response to Scott, I thought it will only be a matter of time before someone poses a few questions to me. Regarding humanism, or regarding "value" of humanism. Indeed, there was a "lack" in my reply to Scott. Above, Michael asks:

My answer to the first question is "Yes and no." Yes, because answering "No" would be nothing more than an attempt to avoid further questions. No, because there is more to "the difference between Orr's and Salgado's pictures," than simply "a lack of humanism." Please do not read that I want (or expect) Orr's pictures to look like Salgado's. Difference is not "a lack," but something that allows us to differentiate -- without difference we would be blind.

There are many things to criticize in John Orr's body of work. If we think of photograph as a structured complex of references (I should warn that this is a very reductionist scheme), where each reference has a different impact on our viewer, and this impact can be at least partially controlled by our photographer, then it is fair to say that our viewer has a possibility of discerning the prevalent set of references in the photograph. In our case, it is aesthetics. I am not writing that aesthetics in general conflict with humanism -- there would be no humanism, as we think of it, in photography without certain aesthetics. I am writing that I find John Orr's aesthetics not humanistic, but this trait alone is never a weakness.

The weakness, then, lies somewhere in between. Somewhere between Bosnia and Herzegovina. As we have seen, many viewers assume that this picture was taken with humanistic purposes in mind. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is not the case. Our culture tends to romanticize those who venture into troubled regions. The picture, not only Orr's photograph, but our picture, is politically shallow. This picture was taken with aesthetic purposes in mind, and the whole discussion on color versus black-and-white, this whole undecidability between two versions, including the author's own undecidability, only serves to prove it.

What are, then, the aesthetics of Orr's photographs? The name of the game is bold: to find beauty (and, finally, peace) in death. Unfortunately, we do not get to see the fin de siècle in this game. We get to see the army helicopters under a peaceful sunset. John Orr's subjects are not present to us; his photographs refer us not to their subjects, not even to their traces, but to today's pictures of "advanced" amateurs or "pushy" commercial photographers. Those references are not ironical ones; they are given to us as something natural, like that photographic "rule of thirds" that many assume to be natural. That is the state of contemporary mythology.

The third question, on my definition of humanism, I will leave unanswered. I am not a humanist, so why should I answer it?

I can understand how that my comment can be taken as rude or cynical but this may be so only to those who have emotional ties to this war or a similar experience (not something I can help). But to insist that one must be sensitive to the victims or the victims families when seeing or critiquing this particular photo goes beyond what I consider the scope of reason. To tell you the truth, I have two friends who came from Bosnia and who each had one or more of their family members killed in this war. They have described to me the atrocities that take place in a war ridden city; and I have come to understand that a war which takes place in a city IS FAR WORSE than one which takes place in a battle field due to the senseless rape and mayhem and the cruelty of exposing old women and children to such vile acts. My friends told me that their brother and their father were shot right in front of their eyes and were left to die like animals. But even though I am well aware of the fact that these acts took place, and even though I heard it from first hand eye witness accounts who became good friends of mine, I still remain detached from it all when viewing this particular photo.

 

All Im saying is that John should not be seen as one of these vile perpetrators solely on the fact that he saw a photographic opportunity and captured what I call the calm after the storm. Besides, I doubt that john saw this photo-op with dollar signs flashing across his eyes. He saw a good composition and took the shot, what comes after that is based solely on a fact which we all have in commonmainly to be successful at selling ones talent.

I think that this photo has a certain charming quality to it despite the history behind it. I can see peace and tranquility in this picture, as well as sadness and isolation. I can see safety and hope, as well as danger and a sense of fear and urgency. I can see a fortress that could have protected many from harm or even death, as well as a false sense of security. I can see a safety zone, as well as well as a place to distrust. I see a place where one can turn for refuge, as well as a place to avoid. I see an escape from harms way as well as a deadly trap.

But even though I have been told horror stories about this conflict, I still fail to see the pain and suffering through this photograph; perhaps because of the good possibilities; perhaps because I was safely out of harms way. In any caseIm sorry if I cant see the evil in having taken this photograph or in trying to sell it, maybe its just me.

 

As far as the idea of selling a photograph like this is concerned, I dont think the motive is to cash in on a calamity. I can understand that selling copies of this photo is the only way John can share his experience of this event with the rest of world (not that sharing is his intent here). Clearly the intent is to make money from his craft, but this fact is not isolated to this event alone. Im sure he has this same offer for buying his work on all the rest of his photographs. Are any of you telling me that you would buy (or sell) this photo if the holes were from birds nests, but that to buy (or sell) a photograph of this war torn scene automatically turns one into some type of subhuman degenerate? Come on!

First, congratulations John. I really do not want to take anything away from this fine photograph, but not for the first time the discussion seems to be more engaging than the photograph itself. I basically agree with Eugene Sherba's interesting argument -- thanks Eugene, I could never be so eloquent. I should add that the original meaning of the word exploitation was closer to exploration than contemporary pejorative understanding. When it comes to any ethical issues in art we rarely know why and can only make educated guesses as to the intentions of the artist. I admire Selgado, I saw his works many times, I spend hours looking at his photographs and I believe that he consciously made a decision to transfer human suffering into art, for it is overwhelmingly the content that defines his greatness. But it is the "how," the form that does not make his photography repulsive to the viewer -- his photographs are actually absolutely well composed masterpieces. And it is up to us, viewers, to resist or give in to the temptation. Although I consider myself a hopeless voyeur, John Orr's picture does not arouse that kind of ethical turmoil. If I ignore the title, I am left with a purely aesthetic experience. A pleasant one, I should add.

I like the black and white. The color distracts me too much from the harsh reality of the subject. It's showing a war zone, not a child's playhouse.

Thats the last set of stairs I want to be running up if I have to run from bullets!

I really like the color photo but I think I would like it better if there were a person or a shadow somewhere in the photograph.

THe only problem with the photo is the composition actually. The dead centre subject would have been better offset to the side. Very good otherwise.

Art is expression.....and can't be confined to any set of rules. So it does not matter if the objet is centered or not, and so on........the photographer has achived what he intended to. The image is poetry through the lens, that takes you to the deepest cores of artist's being. No wonder you may find yourself in the picture.

I agree with all the responders who prefer the color version. The contrast between the cheerful yellow paint on the wall and the bullet holes is very powerful. The form of the staircase is beautiful. The composition is perfect. Thanks for sharing this image!

 

Cindy Kiddoo

Somerville, MA

Interesting comments about the subjuct being centered. It it not - it you look carefully (or measure), you'll see that the neither the door nor the staircase are centered. I think the are exquisitely balaced and belong right where they are.

Eugene:

This sentence documents profound insight.

"What are, then, the aesthetics of Orr's photographs? The name of the game is bold: to find beauty (and, finally, peace) in death."

 

The true background colour of the picture is not yellow, it is ... need I say it?

Isidro:

You have misunderstood me. Eugenes post is better than I ever could say it. It is not the theme of war, but the way of perception, the way of expression. And what followed up was a discussion that was in line with the picture.

The whole thread would have taken a different direction with some kind of positive hint or hope in the picture.

Actually the color one can tell more about how the war damaged all the nice life. Let people think and find the answer by themselves. Great work

John-

this picture is the greatest ever. Very iundicative of your work. When will all the world stand up and rejoice in your infinite wisdom, talent, and shear genius---Mike Wright

John-

very fine portrayal of a wall used for target/tank practice. I like them both. Is there anyway that they can be made 3-d without wearing the silly red and blue glasses. Please send a copy, large poster format preferably, to my publicist so that I have something for my dining room. The wall is bare. Talking about bare...would the placement of a naked pixie running in front of the stairwell detract from the shear imagination and creativity of the shot. Please respond so that I can bask in the aura that is www.johnorrphotography.com. For all who read this, let it be known that John Orr is one of the finest photographers around, bar none. If you disagree please keep all of those comments to yourselves. Negativity is boring and life is too short. John give me a call...it is long distance. Mike

John, being the gentleman that he is, has agreed to let Rude Guerrilla Theatre Company in L.A. use this splendid image to help publicize my Bosnian War play "Liberation," which opens in April. His image can be seen on their website at http://www.rudeguerrilla.org/2003Season/masterthree.html It looks magnificent, and I just wanted to share a personal thanks to Mr. Orr for helping out the production. Stay safe out there, John.

 

Steve

excellent shot,well done

Have to go with the color version of this John. It would be a shame to let that color get away

very gripping capture of brutal memories of war...

The colour grabbed me,and the B&W works too. To me thats a confirmation af a great photograph. But I think its a picture that works in colour.

Ernst Haas would be proud

Excellent. Colour works very well.

A great idea, the composition and a very well executed pic.