HOW TO
Awell-rounded photographer, Ammar Abd Rabbo has covered, over the past 25 years,
anything from catwalks to military parades, and back, from political leaders to
ordinary citizens taking them on. Throughout his career, he has opted for
provocative, uncompromising views: condemning the esthetics of misery rewarded
by photography prizes; embracing unapologetically the Syrian uprising, which he
photographed for all its magnetism and with all its warts; and pushing hard
against all barriers to visual representation in the Arab world, through
artistic exhibitions tackling such issues as cults of personality or taboos
pertaining to the female body. His thoughtful and introspective photography has
much to say about the region’s “graphic identity,” and thus how it portrays
itself and is perceived by outsiders.
Ammar, to what
extent have politics and conflict shaped the use of photography in the Arab
world over the decades?
Photography
originally was introduced to the Arab world by European orientalists, and then
adopted as a hobby by local aristocrats. The first Arab photographers can be
traced to the middle of 19th century, but the bulk of pictures that form our
vision of the modern Arab world were taken by photographers embedded in
colonial forces and reporters deployed by foreign press agencies. The regimes that
took power in the 50s and 60s started using pictures for propaganda reminiscent
of Stalinism—personality cults, the aesthetics of model societies, and so on.
The emergence of
an Arab press photography, offering a real alternative, occurred only belatedly,
in the late 1970s, with the Lebanese civil war. Local photographers proved
indispensable to cover a particularly fragmented conflict, and the militias
themselves sought to document their successes. A modern “martyr-ology” appeared
using portraits and scenes taken on the frontlines. The Palestinian Intifadas,
the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the uprisings that swept the Arab world as of
2011 favored the emergence of a whole new generation of Arab press
photographers. Due to deteriorating security conditions, locals were trained
and equipped in large numbers to produce the images needed to feed global
media.
So photography in
the Arab world is intrinsically political. If you ask children in Europe to
recall photos they have seen, they’ll mention advertising and then family
pictures. Here they’ll mention their president, perhaps some conflict imagery,
and finally commercials.
Part of why photography is so political comes from all the constraints that have long made it difficult to photograph these societies normally. In Tunisia under Ben Ali, you weren’t allowed to show veiled women. In Mubarak’s Egypt, photographers were arrested for broaching the topic of genital mutilations, although it concerned most women there. In Syria before 2011, you couldn’t take pictures of desperate poverty, religious symbols, or even high-end neighborhoods, where officials resided. So, you’d end up framing people reading newspapers in a café, say, because that’s all the regime would let you say about society.It has long been difficult to photograph these societies normally
In most places around
the world, a photographer seeks the “ideal photo” that fits their artistic
vision, or the “profitable photo” that meets the market’s standards. In this
region, you tend to go for the “doable photo,” namely what’s left when all the
political, religious, social and sexual taboos are done censoring the rest.
That has been
changing, of course, since 2011, with the breakdown of order and the
multiplication of smartphones, which mean that every Arab has become both a
photographer and a distributor. Images used to challenge political icons have
become more banal, as in the photo above—which captured a gesture unthinkable
prior to the uprisings. People now picture what they see and publicize it, for
better or worse: from shooting their own crimes to showing their society
unfiltered.
How do you explain
that photography—which at its inception was believed to be so truthful as to
literally capture the soul of the people it pictured—now evokes as much
distrust as any other medium?
“The camera
doesn’t lie,” goes the saying. But that is a lie in itself. Images have long
been manipulated, to the extent that Western countries in the 1980s began
setting out legal frameworks to roll back widespread abuse. In a sense, a more
cautious and discerning response to photography is the sign of a maturing
public, which doesn’t take things for granted. As a matter of principle, that
is a good thing.
But today we are
going overboard, distrusting everything obsessively. Part of the problem comes
from access to technology: virtually anyone can Photoshop an image, circulate
pictures taken out of their context and so on. Images from Gaza will be used to
talk about Syria or vice versa. The portrait to the right, for example, is a
conservative Syrian woman who took arms in Aleppo, which served to illustrate
all sorts of articles on female foreign fighters in Raqqa or Mosul… The
public is partly to blame, because it is all too keen to buy into whatever
supports its biases. We’ve ended up in a very paradoxical situation, where virtually
any picture can grab people’s imagination if only it is pitched as “unseen on
mainstream media.” Whole websites now function on the basis that mainstream
media supposedly lie, staking a claim to circulating more authentic
material—which usually is fabricated. They prove that the media lie by lying
themselves, and their lies catch on nonetheless. That’s how you get pictures
from the Arba’in pilgrimage in Iraq repackaged as “the 30 million Muslims
demonstrating against the Islamic State that mainstream media didn’t want you
to hear about.” It’s a vicious circle that further undermines trust.
Photography is a medium that can connect very directly to people
We’ve reached a
point where people tell me “I can’t believe anything anymore…” That doesn’t
make sense either. A balance must and can be found. With modern technology, it
has become extremely easy to trace an image’s origins and misuses. There are
also basic rules that people should familiarize themselves with, as they
produce and consume imagery. A picture is valueless without a date and a
caption, both of which can be verified. Contextualization is key. And there are
red lines not to cross, such as removing any component of a picture. This is
where visual education, in schools, via social media or on television, would be
an obvious tool.
Why does an image
bring into play a certain “visual education” that will determine the way
it is perceived by the viewer?
A picture draws on
a broader cultural context, which puts it into perspective. A photograph may,
for example, hint at all sorts of cultural frames of reference: great artistic
movements; the personal styles of famed artists and photographers; religious
and cinematographic iconography; and so forth. This backdrop contributes a lot
of meaning to the image. The viewer’s ability to detect these influences and
use them as interpretative tools is what I call “visual education.”
Our relationship
to our visual environment is something that we build over time, starting in
childhood. European children will critically discuss photos and artwork at
school, and visit museums and exhibitions. They develop a sensitivity to
various styles. They naturally associate black and white photography, for
instance, with higher quality—when Arab viewers do the opposite. The visual
environment itself is shaped by the public it caters for. Advertising will be
more sophisticated in a place where the target audience is visually educated,
and more literal elsewhere.
Photography is a
medium that can connect very directly to people, who may feel enthused,
revolted or otherwise touched, regardless of their level of visual education.
But the exact nature of their reactions will be very different depending on it.
Some people perceived the American soldier in this photo as a symbol of
arrogance, bringing out extraordinarily aggressive feelings in them; others
were struck first and foremost by his diminutive size—a human speck lost in the
magnitude of events, insignificant in the greater scheme of Iraq’s history and
civilization.
These variances
may have a cultural, geographical basis. People in different settings display
distinct pictorial “aspirations.” In a pacified European environment, raw
violence, for example, is a no go. In the Arab world, which is instilled with
all sorts of violence, people expect it, as if they were saying “this is what
we are going through, and this is what must be shown”—even if it entails
dislocated body parts and dead babies. In Aleppo, for example, Syrian
photographers could not understand why the pictures that best captured what
they were going through were completely unsellable on a Western market.
There is,
generally speaking, a more literal rapport to photography in the Arab region
than in Western circles. Arab newspapers, most of which don’t even have an
official photo editor, typically publish images that simply repeat what is said
in the text. Pictures are not seen as having more than a basic illustrative
value, which is reflected in how often they are used with no respect for
copyright, context and captions… In Europe, publications invest in graphic
design and sport ambitious visual policies. A photo tends to add something and
speak for itself. Many cover photos are chosen precisely for their unique
expressiveness, rather than their direct relationship to a given headline.
The issue of
lagging visual education in the Arab world is important in at least two
respects. On one hand, perceptions of the region are deeply influenced by the
flood of imagery that emanates from it, which occupies a disproportionate space
in global media while often contributing to reductive perceptions. Many
prizes go to powerful pictures from the area, but the region must play a much
more active role in portraying itself on its own terms. For now the Arab world
is largely underequipped: we don’t understand visual representation enough to
produce and disseminate imagery that suits us.
On the other hand,
in the absence of a solid visual education, people are more susceptible to
manipulation. They fail to deconstruct and question a picture, rather
dismissing it or, on the contrary, taking it at face value. This is something
the so-called “Islamic State” (or Daesh) turned to its advantage. It developed
sophisticated visual products that were quite effective on people with limited
ability to interpret them.
1 November 2017
Illustration credit: Ammar Abd Rabbo photographs / licensed via ammar@ammar.com.