War victim

Wow hey, a POW that is actually compelling! This is easily one of the best images ive seen on this site.

Have you noticed how "colonial" this image looks? Everybody is black - patient and nurses - BUT the operating surgeon, the only White Man in sight. Of course, also the producers of the mines and weapons will most probably be White Men. Incidentally, an excellent shot IMO, even without guns, blood and gore.

Carl,

 

I only took one pic because I didn't wanted the surgeon to get confused and make mistakes because of my flashlight. Maybe this pic doesn't show much respect towards the patient, surgeon and staff but in general my first rule when I'm shooting pix is respect and dignity and that's also the reason why I only took one pic. I bet the surgeon in the pic has seen a lot worse things in Burundi than a photographer taking a pic when he's at work.

I use 256 mb cards (165 jpeg-pix on a D1x) because often I have to shoot different things on a day and have to pass my cards to an editor who makes the choice. 9 out of 10 assignments I do in Brussels are political orientated pressconferences at Nato, EU parliament or commission and 165 pix of an idiot talking about peace, economic growth, health, terrorisme or blabla is more than enough to have a good one :-)

 

Michele,

 

You read the pic perfectly. Burundese surgeons don't exsist...and if they exsist they do not work in Burundi.

 

The general thoughts about the people in the pic is "what is the photographer doing in the OR". That's right but it was not only me who passed there, I was the last one of about 50 people that passed there.

 

There was somebody that seemed to know more about surgery and wrote that he didn't understood how we just could walk in. I simply was thinking the same when I walked through the room with my dusty shoes and sweat covered face. Although I've seen more of this things in OR. In Belgium I made pix during an operation 4 or 5 years ago for a medical magazine and the surgeon's mobile rang...not a joke. In fact I can write almost a book on things I've seen during my work that just aren't done and can cause serious troubles. 80% of the book would be on security measures during important political meetings. I guess that nothing's perfect?

 

Best

 

Geert

Mary,

 

There's one big difference between a wedding pic like you make them (unposed) and photojournalisme. You're hired by the people to make nice pix of their most joyful day while a photojournalist is most of the time seen as a cockroach who tries to make a nice shoot from the misery of other people and that makes a big difference. From time to time I shoot a wedding ,only for friends and free of charges, and I can tell you that I have a lot more quality pix (lets say 35% is quality) than when shooting journalistic pix (lets say 0.1% is quality and 2 or 3 % is useful) because the people cooperate, they want nice pictures, they pay for it.

 

Geert

Geert,

This pic and your portfolio are fascinating. What job was your entry into your field of choice?

Geert, you have a point... yet...most guests see the photojournalistic photographer at weddings as someone in the way and think nothing of walking or jumping in front of me to shoot their own pix. The only part of the day that I get "cooperation" is during the couple session and the group shots. The rest is left up to me to mingle and capture what I can. Believe me, the guests don't move

unless I ask them to and I try not to interfere with the day.

Good to see a real photo make picture of the week, err even if it is a digital one.

 

I don't care whether photojournalism is art ot not, if it is, or it can become so then it takes second place to getting the story or message across.

I think there is a world of difference between photojournalism 'style' this and that, and actual photojournalism.

One thing that crossed my mind is that you are unlikely to see a picture of an American soldier on the opperating table, or for that matter the blind or limbless troops being sneeked through America's airports in the middle of the night. Nobody in America, and few in the UK will touch those kind of pictures.

 

Looks like a facisinating discussion is taking place, only which I had time to read it all.

 

Meanwhile good to see you are still around Geert!

How much more naked could a person feel? The small curtain

could be of little comfort to someone who has their body if not

their guts exposed to a parade.

 

In this photo, it seems, is represented much of the plight of a

nation: helplessness. For as little skin as is visible in this photo

it seems to be a stark representation of invasion of privacy,

perhaps for the right reasons. I realize Im using strong words

here (invasion, helplessness) but instigation seems to be key to

fostering debate in these discussions.

 

Here lies not one of the unfortunate but one of the lucky to have

finally made it as far as the operating table. We see as makeshift

an operating room as is likely to be found around the world,

perhaps better because of the strong light (an argument for the

over exposure), and are permitted this priveledged glimpse

thanks to Mr. Wijngaerts presence and perception. His

presence, lest we forget, is a key part of the story this photograph

tells.

 

White clad black doctors (or perhaps doctors in training or

nurses) stand around the main surgeon who appears to be

either white or Asian - not Burundian - which tells of foreign aid

which in turn speaks of war or turmoil (theres your soldier or

gun). One can guess that the colour of the dividing cloth is the

same as the colour of the person in the forground - green- and

go from there to infer this persons position. But the eyes have it!

Here the dialogue of the photo emerges between the patient,

photographer, and foreground and background attendants (what

depth it has even when described in words - and argument for

the blurred foreground gent). All eyes are inquiring into the lens

and the accusatory look of the foreground fella is almost

palpable, his blurryness also adds to the confinement of the

room (I feel like Im going to bump into him when I try to see the

action behind). On the other hand the background eyes seem

merely inquisitive as though accustomed to interruptions in an

environment that should be sterile.

 

I try to remind myself to stay close to the text of the image without

thinking of Mr. Wijngaerts backstory, but the truth is Ive read it

and it innevitably adds to the meaning. The true debate here is to

the care and thought that should be put into titling a photograph.

While War Victim is perhaps an apt description of the climate

which creates civil striffe and stresses medical care, I see a

different story here. With a parade of delegates and media 50

strong rushing through the room youd feel a bit uncomfortable

and perhaps a bit nervous since minor surgery is still surgery for

crying out loud, and certainly you would feel helpless. What

better metaphore for that feeling then an apparently severed

head and hand and an entourage of distracted doctors of various

backgrounds?

 

It has it all Geert, and we can only thank you for braving the

awkwardness and sharing your eyes.

Sam Hudecki didn't just look at the picture: he SAW it, which is no small feast for this week...:-)

Yes, this story is about the eyes indeed, AND about the photographer as much as the patient and the medical team. It is quite obvious, I believe, that press photographers do NOT easily enter an OR is most western countries, and there would be at least some minimal high-tech equipment around in the west. NOT here. And yes, OF COURSE, it is important that the surgeon is a white man in this context.

Has any of you been hospitalized for serious injuries in a foreign country ? Well, I have. I was for almost a week in an intensive Care Unit and for more than a month in the government hospital of an Asian country that I would rather not name, and here is what I saw:

1) NO white men around at all. Why ? Because it wasn't war time, and because no white doctor would work as a surgeon in such hospitals if there is no war. Wages too low, and medical equipments and number of staff are usually desperate in normal circumstances.

2) MEDICAL STUDENTS left alone with the patient to fix broken bones.

3) A CAT at the bottom of my bed in the ICU, and nurses walking around but not chasing the cat out - whereas I had punctures lungs and a high risk of oedema.

4) The ICU door open for an hour while HUGE CLOUDS OF DUST were visible right at the entrance of the ICU - due to some repair work in the corridor.

I could go on, and I'm certainly not surprised Geert tells us he could write a book about such things.

So, indeed, there are no signs of such things here, and there is no signs of war besides the title, but there are other signs of HELPLESSNESS indeed. When I first saw this picture a month ago or so, the first thing that appeared obvious to me, within a second was the helpless expression of the patient and the apparently angry eye of the foreground medical stuff. Both of which make twice as much sense once you realize that both are looking here to the photographer as AN INTRUDER, but still an intruder who COULD ACTUALLY WALK IN.

This picture, to me, isn't exactly about the atrocities of war, as stated by the intro comment, but it is certainly about the role of the press in war times or any difficult times/situations around the world. It is a memorable freeze of a moment that seems to synthetize a certain form of "despair" - which occurs in war times, but not only. People who need medical assistance, medical stuff fighting death the best they can while the door is open to anyone to bring in dust - and to bring back news to more healthy countries, where the media ask for blood.

In conclusion, this picture is indeed about the gap between the helpless and the helpful doctors, but also about the gap between them or their helpless fight against death and on the other side the world of media or the rest of the world awaiting for news - yet participating as intruders without helping anyone.

With this post, I do not mean to blame Geert for taking this photo, nor do I mean to blame other war-journalists doing "their job", but rather to point at another aspect of what wars really are, BEYOND THE GUN FIGHTS AND BOMBINGS, and which is what this picture is all about.

Helplessness, some people helping, and the entire world watching without helping, but waiting for news...

I really like this image,good work.To comment I believe that photojournalism is really just to capture a scene ,action ,news,to be accompanied by a reveleaing story follow up,the image is meant to spark the intrest of,in most cases the reader of the following story line!!!this may not be true in all cases though.Your image sparked my intrest to know more ,which the written story gave me.And to faults they too can be an integral part of a composition some have in the past and present been called that certain photographers trademark ,or signature,so anyway Geert have a good day!!!!!

Hi!

 

This is BY NO MEANS intended as criticism. Most services demand digital images today; Geert had no choice of medium. That said, this scene definitely begs for good old 1950s vintage thick emulsion Tri-X. One of the reasons that Gene Smith, Doug Duncan and the others of the last generation got such great BW images was that they could simply make sure to "overexpose" and mine the neg later. At least the information was on the film.

Marc,

 

All wars are different and you have to be in each war or conflict yourself for more than a week, lets say half a year, to have a small idea about the particular conflict and what "war" means overthere. For example, Burundi is totally different than Afghanistan or the Israel/Palestine conflict.

In fact I would like you to let a comment on another pic of me. The composition and tension is a result of this POW. I'm talking about "the boys", my Rumsfeld pic you can find in my journalisme folder, I'm much more proud on than the Elves choice of POW. Same half face blurry forground with sharp eyes in the background who look scarry. The "stolen" OR pic only pleases me because of the composition, the blurry half face in the forground and the eyes of the patient, in combination with the white surgeon in a primitive OR. The Rumsfeld pic is in terms of composition and depth based for 100% out of what I learned taking this OR "snapshot" but is excecuted in a much better way and, imho, the perfect political PJ shot. In fact I would like to know what you are thinking about that one because you seem to be the "discussion champion". I appreciate it.

 

Best Geert

Sorry, it's too pretty to be an indictment of war. In any case, only the title tells us it has anything to do with war at all. Many nay, most motor-vehicle accidents look worse.

Telling "all the atrocity of wars" is a big order, one that hasn't been filled by the sum total of war stories from the Iliad to Johnny Got His Gun, or by all the war photos from the Crimean War to Iraq.

A straight view into the horrors of war. although not very gory it is a very journalistic shot. burundi, small country, still the americans tried to assasinate Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi back in 1965.

sorry if this question has been posed/addressed, but looking at the original color version of this shot on your website, I'm curious about your reasons for presenting it in black and white here. Other than some issues about which one is more "real", which one is perhaps better suited for "journalism" or to convey whatever message you intend, I think the color one works better. Just the fact alone that the cover the patient is peering out from is probably a surgeons apron, just like the one the doctor looking into the camera is wearing, adds a power to the image that just isn't there in B/W. Just my 2 cents.

I wish we could see this kind of pics more often here at photo.net, pictures with a dramatical sense, pictures about life in all conditions. Congrats, and keep on puting that 14mm. to work!

I believe Geert's image is very powerful and moving because it does not focus on the drama and heroics of war. Instead it shows the side of war that can strip away an individual's soul. How despair can turn to indifference and how we lose the ability to care. The head of the patient is separated from the body and heart and I find this to be a powerful metaphor for how everything we value is stripped away from us, we inhabit a cerebral world, detached from emotions, much like The Stranger of Camus, this existential void. The individual is even indifferent to the presence of the photograher, I venture to guess that the expression on his face did not change. To me it is also about how first impressions can be wrong. When I first viewed the image it was not particularly moving, but let it sink in and it is amazing to me how the meaning slowing emerges. A very interesting psychological journey.

I agree with Kurt that the color version is a lot better.

i think theperson on the table doesnt feel much pain as if he has given up hope. others combine the look of amazement and pitty .

I dont see what the arguments about. Geert readily accepts he had no idea what type of surgery was being performed as he was ushered through theatre. He says its unlikely to be a RTA because there are so few cars. He says war is the numero primo employer in Burundi so its probably something to do with that. A factory accident you might say. I think it goes without saying that a photograph of this kind would have been originally produced in the knowledge it would be illustrative of part of the accompanying text alongside it. And though not having read the article, I suspect the article concerned itself with the ministerial visit to the hospital and less perhaps to landmine statistics and the like.

 

So then the purpose of this photograph is to serve as an appetizer for the main course of text. As Marc says, its a "L'accroche" shot (money shot will do fine too). In which case I am not persuaded that for the purpose the picture was originally intended, that it was necessary to litter the picture with armed soldiers and the like. Indeed, I am not persuaded that it was incumbent upon the photographer to ensure he photographed a person who had literally been injured with weaponry. Doing so was not his brief. Capturing an image to support / corroborate narrative was the brief.

In my opinion the picture does it. It fulfills the brief.

 

Then lets fast forward and post the picture to PN.. And a little more fast forwarding and into PNs POW slot. This would be after it has served its original purpose of supporting the accompanying narrative, less the supporting narrative. And without prior consultation with the photographer nor an examination of the text the photograph originally sat next to, an elf cobbles together a sentence or two hailing it as containing in a single frame all the atrocity of wars. Then launches it into the arena for discussion. Is it ever likely that the criticism begins and centers around the description the elf attached to see if the description holds water? I think holding this picture up as containing all the atrocity of war did the picture no favours. I can only think that was done to foster discussion at the expense of fairly describing the photograph.

 

So I think Doug is right when he says we know little about the patient and more about Geerts hasty trip through the hospital. Geert can tell us plenty about that, like narrative to accompany his picture. But he cant tell us much about the patient as narrative. Or for that matter, much about any of the other people in the picture. Its because this picture was intended to sit next to some narrative. And the narrative were getting today is Geerts. And before that wed just got Geerts two word title plus the elfs bit. May be if Geert had been asked so that the elf set out Geerts 5Ws there wouldnt have been this circular tit for tat about what constitutes a decent war pic. Because with Geerts 5Ws wed have simply read The operation room of the Hospital Prince Regent Charles in Bujumbura, Burundi, Wednesday, April 30, 2003. Nothing flowery or emotive about that at all and entirely within documentary context. And then the discussion could have begun as it ought to have.

Phil,

 

The pic was used to illustrate an article written by a novelist who happens to write social-political-travel stories with lots of personal sentiment and in not one single way has to do with real journalisme. The article underlined the very unpolite rush visit and even has a conversation between 'Bob Van Laerhoven', the writer, and "Geert Vanden Wijngaert", the photographer, on the moment they walk through the hospital. I'll try to find the magazine and will do my best to translate that particular part as correctly as possible for you.

 

For me it was obvious the man on the operation table was a war victim, but since I can't say who are the 8 man on the pic and what's going on I prefer to chance the title in "Lucky Burundese victim".

 

1 . LUCKY...because you're really lucky in Burundi if you get surgery when you're wounded, whatever it may be that wound.

 

2 . BURUNDESE...because the man is Burundese, although I can't prove that neither but it would be strange if he were not.

 

3 . VICTIM...because if you're the man on the table you sure are a victim of something, and that 'something' in Burundi is more than probably war.

 

Best Geert

Does Geert's image require soldiers or guns to be about a "war" victim?Absolutely not! I've never been one to expect a photograph to tell us every little thing weneed to know. The world is chock full of wonderful photojournalistic imagesthat need the help of the written word for us to understand what we arelooking at.

The image I've attached was the first one that came to mind, and I'm sure it's familiar to most of you. Sorry about the quality but it's a snapshot from a book. What we have hereis a technically flawed image that was saved in the darkroom, and if you wentback to the morning of June 6th 1968 and opened the morning paper therewould be a good chance you would have seen this image on the front page. As forwho, what, when, where, why, or how, the most we could hope for is topossibly recognize Robert Kennedy, and determine that something is terribly wrong.This photograph doesn't tell us that on June 5th Robert Kennedy was gunneddown by Sirhan Sirhan in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles shortly afterwinning the California primary. Is this print from a flawed negative thattells us next to nothing a failure? On the contrary, this is (IMHO) one ofthe most powerful photographs ever taken, but itstill requires the skills of a writer to put it into context.

Warm congratulation for Geert & thanks to Elves for this POW selection.

 

Enough of (Water running stones at slow shutter), (Oversaturated sunrise/sunsets), (Flowers/Insects)¡K we are presented this week with a totally different scene ¡V a War related journalistic picture. detailed account by Geert provides an interesting background and subsequent debates also added much flavour if not more blood to this scene. I throrougly enjoyed reading the thread !

 

What I found most interesting about this picture is the con-current starring of the three pairs of eyes! That, imo is the most impactful bit about this image. Just a quick question to Geert: How are you able to get three pairs of glaring eyes at the same time ¡V is that simply luck or did you prompt that with some kind of gesture (say, an intentional (caugh) or (excuse me) sort of verbal gesture). Just a matter of curiosity.. I want to steal some tricks from you :)

There are many ways to judge a photograph, but in POW, it is a fact that the photo has to be judged (aside from technical achievement, originality and aesthetic merits) according to the category in which is has been placed, and in this case, the elves clearly placed it in this category because of the title given it by the photographer. Therefore, the discussion did not take a separate course then was pertained. The title says war victim. Obviously this man is in midst of an emergency operation and with the title given it, it becomes easy to introduce your own experience or knowledge of war into it, and make your point of view from there on. This is why many people saw the photograph with different lenses and applied their own criteria by regarding and examining the evidence (or lack of it) in the room. Some people believe the story right away and connect immediately with the circumstances involved here; others need to see evidence in order to believe. Either one could be wrong and be made a fool of even if we see soldiers inside the room keeping guard. The title speaks for itself and is responsible for guiding the discussion. But with each piece of the puzzle the story becomes more credible and with no clues present, its easy to doubt. This is why some demanded more information and started pointing out the lack of certain things which would make the story more credible. The photograph is excellent by all its merits and contains plenty of emotion. It achieves this by allowing the viewer to connect to these peoples lives without relying on carnage to achieve this. I see real people in a real situation in which none of them wishes they would be, but in which, once there, all benefit from each other and are thankful to have others alongside (misery loves company). The photo is put together rather well, to the point that even if we were to remove (cover) the victim, the rest of the photo still contains enough involvement in the part of all its characters so as to make you take a second look and wonder what is going on. The (out of focus) foreground character brings the whole scene together by eliminating clutter from the background, which would defer attention from the main focal point, and adds interest by being yet another member of the staff who synchronized his gaze with the others the moment the photographer popped into the room.

The patient could have been administered a shot of local anesthesia in order to speed up the operation and this is why he shows no sign of pain.

Geert...I did in fact just read your bio as you suggested. No disrespect intended with my initial post...it was just a "knee-jerk" opinion, with an abundance of "jerk" written on the fly.

 

Once again, my ignorance has introduced my foot to my ample mouth.

 

Mea culpa...