(Moved to

`Still pictures are not still…’ Fore-seeing the effect of visual images

by Rahnuma Ahmed

`Still pictures are not still…’ said Mahasweta Devi. She was in Dhaka to inaugurate Chobi Mela V, and, fortunately for us, had expressed her wish to put up with Shahidul Alam, the director of Chobi Mela. Having Mahasweta Devi, and Joy Bhadra, a young writer and her companion, as house guests, was a `happening’. I will write about that another day.

Mahasweta Devi consistently used the words stheer chitro (exact translation is, `still images’). Still pictures, she went on, inspire us. They move us. They make us do things.

However, I thought to myself, many who are working on visual and cultural theory may not agree. Some would be likely to say, things are not as simple as that.

The effect of visual images needs to be investigated

The debate about the power of visual images has become stuck on the point of the meaning of visual images, on the truth of images. This, said David Campbell, a professor of cultural and political geography, doesn’t get us very far. He was one of the panelists at the opening night’s discussion of Chobi Mela V, held at the Goethe Institut auditorium (`Engaging with photography from outside: An informal discussion between a geographer, an editor and a curator/funder of photography’, 30 Jan 2009).

David went on, it is much better to focus on the effect of images, on the function of images, on the work that images do — and that, is how the debate should be framed. At present, attention is overly-focused on the single image, and what we expect of the single image. By doing this we have invested it with too much possibility, we place too much hope on it’s ability to bring about social change. The effect of visual images needs to be investigated, rather than assumed.


Amy Yenkin, another panelist in the programme, and head of the Documentary Photography project at the Open Society Institute asked David, Why do you think this happens? Is it because people look back at certain iconic images, let’s say images from the Vietnam war that changed the situation, that they try to put too much meaning in the power of one single image..? David replied, `In a way, I am sceptical of the power of single images, a standard 6 or 7 in the western world, that are repeated all the time. I was personally affected by the Vietnam war images, by the image of the young Vietnamese girl fleeing from a napalm bomb, but I don’t know of any argument that actually demonstrates that Nick Ut’s photograph demonstrably furthered the Vietnam anti-war movement.’ He went on, `Now, I don’t regard that as a failure of the image, but a failure of the interpretation that we’ve placed on the image. It puts too much burden on the image itself.’

The discussion was followed by Noam Chomsky and Mahasweta Devi’s video-conference discussion on Freedom (Chobi Mela V’s theme), and I became fully immersed in watching two of the foremost public intellectual/activists of today talk about the meanings and struggles of freedom, and of imperialism and nationalism’s attempts to thwart it in common peoples’ lives.

But the next day, my thoughts returned to what David had said, and to the general discussion that had followed. On David’s website, I came across how he understands photography, `a technology through which the world is visually performed,’ and a gist of his theoretical argument. I quote: `The pictures that the technology of photography produces are neither isolated nor discrete objects. They have to be understood as being part of networks of materials, technologies, institutions, markets, social spaces, emotions, cultural histories and political contexts. The meaning of photographs derives from the intersection of these multiple features rather than just the form and content of particular pictures.’ .

In other words, to understand what happens within the frame, we need to go outside the frame.

Abu Ghraib photographs: concealing more than they reveal

A good instance is provided by the Abu Ghraib prison torture and abuse photographs taken by US military prison guards with digital cameras, which came to public attention in early 2004. The pictures, says Ian Buruma, conceal more than they reveal. By telling one story, they hide a bigger story.

Images of Chuck Graner, Ivan Frederick and the others as “gloating thugs” helped single out, and fix, low-ranking reservist soldiers as the bad apples. As President Bush intoned, it was “disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonoured our country and disregarded our values”. None of the officers were tried, though several received administrative punishment. As a matter of fact, the Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations specifically absolved senior U.S. military and political leadership from direct culpability. Some even received promotions (Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, Col. Marc Warren, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast).

The gloating digital images, no doubt embarassing for the US administration, probably helped “far greater embarrassments from emerging into public view.” They made “the lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians who made, or rather unmade, the rules—William J. Haynes, Alberto Gonzales, David S. Addington, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Douglas J. Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney—look almost respectable.”

But there is another aspect to the story of concealing-and-revealing. Public preoccupation with Abu Ghraib pornography deflected attention from the “torturing and the killing that was never recorded on film,” and from finding out who “the actual killers” were. By singling out those visible in the pictures as the “rogues” responsible, it concealed the bigger reality. That the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris point out, “was de facto United States policy.”

Lynndie England, who held the rank of Specialist while serving in Iraq, expressed it best I think, when she said, “I didn’t make the war. I can’t end the war. I mean, photographs can’t just make or change a war.”

True. Photographs can’t just make or change a war. But surely they do something, or else, why censor images of the recent slaughter in Gaza? To put it more precisely, surely, those who are powerful (western politicians, journalists, arms manufacturers, defence analysts, all deeply embedded in the Zionist Curtain, one that has replaced the older Iron Curtain) apprehend that the visual images of Gaza will do something? That they will, in all probability, have a social effect upon western audiences? And therefore, these must be acted upon i.e., their circulation and distribution must be prevented.

At times, their apprehension seems to move even further. Images-not-yet-taken are prevented from being taken. Probable social effects of unborn images are foreseen, and aborted.

Censoring Gaza images, for what they reveal

All of this happened in the case of Gaza. But before turning to that, I would like to add a small note on the notion of probability. I am inclined to think that it’ll help to deepen our understanding of the politics of visual images.

As the organisers of a Michigan university conference on English literature remind us (“Fictional Selves: On the (im)Probability of Character”, April 2002), the notion of probability went through a major conceptual shift with the emergence of modernity. What in the seventeenth century had meant “the capability of being proven absolutely true or false” as in the case of deductive theorem in logic, gradually altered in meaning as practitioners searched for rhetorical consensus, and the repeatability of experimental results, leading to its present-day meaning: “a likelihood of occurring.”

What might have occured if Israel had allowed journalists into Gaza? What might have occurred if the BBC instead of hiding under the pretence of “impartiality” had agreed to air the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Gaza Aid Appeal aimed at raising humanitarian aid for (occupied and beseiged) Gazans? What might have occurred if USA’s largest satellite television subscription service DIRECTV had gone ahead and aired the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation of Palestine’s `Gaza Strip TV Ad‘?

Could pictures of Israel’s 22 day carnage in Gaza, which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians, have sown doubts in western minds about the Israeli claim of targeting only Hamas, and not civilians? Could photos of bombed UN buildings, mosques, schools, a university, of hospitals in ruins, ambulances destroyed, of dismembered limbs and destroyed factories have forced BBC’s viewers to question whether both sides are to blame? Could pictures of the apartheid wall, the security zone, the checkpoints controlling entry of food, trade, medicine (for over two years) make suspect the Israeli claim that it had withdrawn from Gaza? Could photos depicting the effects of mysterious armaments that have burned their way down into people’s flesh, eaten their skin and tissue away, have given western viewers pause for thought? Could the little story of Israel acting only in self-defense, begin to unravel? Could pictures of Gaza in ruins have led American viewers to wonder whether there is a bigger story out there, and could it then lead them to ask why their taxes are being spent in footing Israel’s military bill (the fourth largest army in the world), to ask why they should continue to sponsor this parasitical state, even when its own economy is in ruins?

May be.

After all, as Mahasweta Devi had said, still pictures are not still. Still pictures (may) move us. They (may) make us do things. The powerful, know this.


First published in New Age on Monday 16th February 2009

February 15, 2009 - Posted by | Photojournalism issues, Rahnuma Ahmed | , , , , , ,


  1. a powerful narrative, in pictures and text, each was adding new margins to meanings

    keep it up


    Comment by anil gupta | February 16, 2009 | Reply

  2. This is more than a good digest of the discussion. It is very insightful and reminds me that didn’t come to Chole Mela V is my loss.

    Comment by Leon Suen | February 17, 2009 | Reply

  3. I appreciate Rahnuma Ahmed’s report and Shahidul’s posting, but I want to expand on their final point.

    They ask — “Could pictures of Israel’s 22 day carnage in Gaza, which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians, have sown doubts in western minds about the Israeli claim of targeting only Hamas, and not civilians?”

    The answer is, those pictures existed, were taken, published and circulated, and they did sow those doubts. It is a little bit of a myth to argue that there were no photojournalists in Gaza documenting the war and its effects as it happened.

    Yes, the Israeli government prevented news crews crossing into Gaza from the Israeli side, in an effort to create a particular set of images from their side. But Al Jazeera was already in Gaza and reporting daily. Agencies like AP and Reuters had talented photographers working around the clock and distributing images. Papers in the UK and elsewhere ran large numbers of these pictures of civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructure and the use of weapons like white phosphorous. Even more of them circulated on the internet. And the BBC had extensive nightly news coverage using its Gaza producer as the on-air reporter.

    So we all saw, and saw quite a bit. The issue is not of censorship leading to invisibility (though of course such censorship has to be opposed). It is about how particular visibilities were constructed. And here there is a more complex issue. The images of death and destruction we did see from Gaza, though necessary and certainly sowing doubts about Israeli state claims, also constructed the Palestinians as passive victims. The DEC appeal that the BBC (wrongly) refused to show was part of the continuing visualization of Palestinians as little more than clients of humanitarian aid, which is something that the Israeli regime also tries to promote. What we need to ask are, where are the pictures that give Palestinians their political agency?

    Comment by David Campbell | February 17, 2009 | Reply

  4. “Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes-just sometimes-one photograph or a group of them can lure our senses to awareness. Much depends on the viewer; in some, photographs can summon enough emotion to be a catalyst to thought. Someone-or perhaps many-among us may be influenced to heed reason, to find a way to right that which is wrong, and may even search for a cure to an illness. The rest of us may perhaps feel a greater sense of understanding and compassion for those whose lives are alien to our own. Photography is a small voice. I believe in it. If it is well conceived, it sometimes works.” W. Eugene Smith. Smith died in Tucson, Arizona on October 15, 1978.

    Comment by shahidul | February 18, 2009 | Reply

  5. Thanks for n….

    Comment by A.K.M Ali hossain | February 18, 2009 | Reply

  6. I think David Cambell’s focus on the effect of images is important, and particularly the context and mechanisms that they reside it. As a human rights campaigner this is of particular importance in trying to ensure the power of an image or series of images are maximised and channeled towards action and change.

    In regard to the Abu Ghraib photos – I am not convinced they did distract or deflect substantially from the wider issue of policy or command control. It is common for political leaders and military commanders to use the ‘bad apples’ / heat of war argument – whether captured on film or not in such situations. It is highly unlikely that you will capture in visual media those in command control either commiting human rights violations or issuing the orders – though documents of those orders or policies do come to light [and it is my understanding that they have done in regards to the US military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo?]. Thus your only chance to visually represent these policies in action will be through such images. It is also common for even low ranking military personnel not to be convicted or receive appropriate sentences for their crimes – my question would be, how could have the photos have been combined with other materials and actions that ensured commanders were made responsible for their subordinates actions? I have not worked on the issue of Abu Ghraib but from what I have seen in the public realm these pictures sparked a much greater public debate about the use of torture by the US in its so-called ‘War on Terror.’ If the photos had not come to light would there have been more debate on policy and less on individual actions? Impossible to say but being able to see the actions that this policy enabled helped put many in a better position to challege it.

    Comment by buddhasbreakfast | February 24, 2009 | Reply

  7. Thank you for your comments David. However, I think you missed the central point of my piece (actually, it was not a “report” on Chobi Mela V, but my fortnightly column for the daily New Age where I contribute regularly, and which Shahidul uploads on his blog).

    Let me give you a run-down on how I proceeded:

    * I agree with you, and many others who argue that pictures, often enough, conceal more than they reveal (and this is why I included the discussion of Abu Ghraib images since it demonstrates the point excellently),

    * However, as regards your point about the social effect of photography, i.e., that it needs to be investigated, rather than assumed — while I do agree with your point in principle, I think that the idea of “social effect” could be teased-out further.

    * Simultaneously, I think that to understand and appreciate the power of photography (and I add, even in the age of digital photography), what could provide us with a better site than to look into how censorship occurs: the conditions that oblige states, institutions, market forces etc. to censor visual images.

    * And, to do that, I think it’s best to turn the question on its head: when the-powers-that-be censor, is it because they assume that social effects are likely to occur?

    * That was my central question, the case in point was Gaza, and here I quote from what I wrote: “But surely they do something, or else, why censor images of the recent slaughter in Gaza? To put it more precisely, surely, those who are powerful (western politicians, journalists, arms manufacturers, defence analysts, all deeply embedded in the Zionist Curtain, one that has replaced the older Iron Curtain) apprehend that the visual images of Gaza will do something? That they will, in all probability, have a social effect upon western audiences? And therefore, these must be acted upon i.e., their circulation and distribution must be prevented.” And then, I went on to add the point about censorship being exercised to the point of preventing images-being-taken.

    * Censorship, both as a site of the exercise of, and resistance to, the operations of power, is, to me, more important than declarations of whether one supports it or not.

    Now to move on to your comments: you write, “The answer is, those pictures existed, were taken, published and circulated, and they did sow those doubts. It is a little bit of a myth to argue that there were no photojournalists in Gaza documenting the war and its effects as it happened.” Since I did not state anywhere in my piece that “there were no photojournalists in Gaza documenting the war and its effects as it happened”, I see no reason to respond to the myth-making that you impute. After all, if there were no photojournalists documenting the war and its effects, what was the source of the images in the DEC appeal, and the DirecTV ad?

    I think the problem lies deeper, and it is this that I find worrisome: looking at censorship unproblematically. In my piece I had mentioned three specific instances of censorship: the Israeli government not allowing the media into Gaza, BBC’s decision to not air the DEC appeal, and DirecTV backing out from it’s agreement to air the Gaza Strip TV ad. I think it is this unproblematic approach to the issue of censorship that leads to a glossing-over of the empirical details of the nature of censorship exercised, and to respond in a seamless, homogenising voice, “we all saw”, it “did sow doubts” (but surely, these need to be investigated, rather than assumed?). Also, to come up with blanket statements about viewership: “But Al Jazeera was already in Gaza and reporting daily”. The al-Jazeera English channel has almost no presence on US and Canadian television because none of the major American cable or satellite systems are willing to carry it. (; Not to mention that its offices in Kabul (2001) and Baghdad (2003) were bombed by the US military). It is true that American viewership of al-Jazeera English rose dramatically during the recent Gaza carnage, but viewers watched it on the web, and not on television ( ).

    “Agencies like AP and Reuters had talented photographers working around the clock and distributing images.” Talented photographers may well have been at work, but that the news reporting which accompanied the pictures was biased and pro-Israeli has been noted by more than one commentator (see ). This is similar to FAIR’s findings, according to which only 4% of US network news programs about Gaza or the West Bank mention the word “occupation”. Recently, the numbers have declined even further (2%; see ).

    You write: “And the BBC had extensive nightly news coverage using its Gaza producer as the on-air reporter.” But surely, instead of merely asserting that there was a nightly news coverage, we need to ask, what was the nature of that nightly news coverage? John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship, has spoken of strong disparities in the news coverage: the questioning of Israeli spokespersons was generally “weak”, one of them was allowed to “fob off the charges”, Hamas fighters were referred to as “militants”, in contrast to the Israeli army which was referred to by its formal title, “the Israeli Defence Forces”. Kampfner also says that the bombardment of Gaza was regularly described as “the Israeli operation.” Israel’s not allowing correspondents into Gaza was “mentioned”, but not “prominently”. As for visuals, a hospital beleaguered with “dying and injured children” would be equated with “the funeral of a single Israeli soldier” ( ).

    Of course, there were some — very rare — exceptions, such as this one where, as an Israeli spokesperson sonorously said, and kept repeating: “Israel is deeply sorry. Israel does not target civilians. Hizballah has been firing rockets….for the last two and a half weeks.” The CNN anchor shot off: “What proof do you have ..?” “Are you suggesting these Katusha rockets…were fired from this four-storied building housing these women and children?” And, to the response that Israel had not targeted the building, she pursued the point by asking, “You did not target it even though you had guided missiles?” “[Hizballah weaponry] is nowhere the same calibre as the Israeli army,” “[Katusha rockets] are crude rockets… why would Israel not try to shoot them out of the sky, they have the capability to do that?” But, as I say, these were very rare.

    You also say that the Gaza images of death and destruction constructs the Palestinians as “passive victims”, one that the Israeli regime also tries to “promote.” You end your comment by asking, “where are the pictures that give Palestinians their political agency?” Once again, I disagree. The Israeli regime (and western governments) promotes representations of the Palestinians as (Muslim) “terrorists” — both Hamas, and the Palestinian people, the latter for having voted the former to power. Therefore, at issue is not a denial or lack of political agency, but the kind of political agency that is constructed. And, as many others have observed, this construction of Palestinians as (Muslim) terrorists, is part of a larger framework that constructs the Palestinians as “non-humans,” and hence, undeserving of access to basic needs, to leading normal lives, or to civilised responses.

    Comment by Rahnuma Ahmed | March 5, 2009 | Reply

    • Unfortunately, even though I signed up for notification, I wasn’t advised by this programme about your interesting response before now.

      There’s a lot that could be said about your comments especially as I think they miss most of what was I trying to briefly say. If I had to summarise the central point of disagreement it would be this – although, of course, censorship has to be investigated and opposed, to understand the visual significance of the various controls on what we saw from Gaza requires a different understanding of how visuality is structured, rather than seeing things in terms of the visible versus the invisible.

      These thoughts have been pivotal in writing a new paper on the photojournalism of the Gaza conflict. Although very much a first draft, anyone can read this paper by downloading it from – all comments very welcome.

      Comment by profdc | June 8, 2009 | Reply

  8. I remember what David said about being careful not to “load” or “overburden” images. “Meaning” is all about “relationship.” Then you have to ask, “relationship to what”? If an image relates well to emotions, events, knowledge, fears, aspirations – then it’s “meaning-full”. If it relates to many things for many people, then it can become “iconic”, i.e., an icon, an image that carries an enormous emotional and historical load because like any great speech or cultural production, it embodies where a culture is or where it’s going. Nick Ut’s photo is routinely used as the greatest late-20th-century example of that, and as such, it did NOT “cause” change, it became part of a change that was already well under way, and the emotion of the burned girl became the emotion of a nation. But — and here is the crucial point — there are dozens of such photos produced from atrocities worldwide but do they become iconic? Do they become “meaning-full” to those who see them? (If editors publish them…) No. Why? Because there is not a relationship. Now we are going to end up playing chicken and egg, and here is where images can be deliciously “not still” as Mahasweta Devi put it: We take images in hope that they can be a bridge into relationship. Always small at first, but a bridge. Meaning is all about context, about relationship. (Which is why those of you who know me understand my obsession with captions.)

    Comment by Dick Doughty | March 5, 2009 | Reply

  9. On 27th March 2009, I uploaded two images from a demonstration that recently happened in the BJP. Then I noticed today (28th, March 2009), both of my images were disappreared [I]silently[/I] WITHOUT giving me any notice.
    I wonder how long the BJP and other photography sites continue to censor the photojournalist images.

    “[LINK=~]Photojournalism[/LINK] is a particular form of journalism (the collecting, editing, and presenting of news material for publication or broadcast) that creates images in order to tell a news story. It is now usually understood to refer only to still images, and in some cases to video used in broadcast journalism or for personal use. Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (such as documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by the qualities of:

    Timeliness — the images have meaning in the context of a recently published record of events.
    Objectivity — the situation implied by the images is a fair and accurate representation of the events they depict in both content and tone.
    Narrative — the images combine with other news elements to make facts relatable to the viewer or reader on a cultural level. ”

    [LINK=~]Photojournalism in the UK[/LINK]
    [LINK=~]Nick Ut / Associated Press[/LINK]

    Interesting to read your opinion.

    Comment by kombizz | March 28, 2009 | Reply

  10. I would like to get across my appreciation for your kind-heartedness supporting women who really need guidance on this topic. Your personal dedication to getting the message throughout came to be certainly valuable and have really enabled many people much like me to attain their pursuits. Your invaluable key points indicates so much to me and especially to my mates. Thanks a lot; from all of us.

    Comment by Pandora Bracelets | August 16, 2011 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: