I covered the Anti-War protest at UC Berkeley Sproul Plaza today.
Here are a few select photographs from that event. Both
'Anti-War' and 'Pro-U.S. action' supporters were present. In one
of my shots, you can see some heated debate taking place.
All shots were taken with Leica M6 TTL and 35 and 50
Summicrons. My cheapy flatbed scanner and one hour
processing probably doesn't do them justice though.
-- Tristan Tom (tristan@tristantom.com), October 09, 2001
Answers
http://tristantom.com/berkeleyprotest/
-- Tristan Tom (tristan@tristantom.com), October 09, 2001.
Tristan:
Nice work!
First, let's make this link click-enabled.
Second, I can't help but wonder if the anti-war protesters of
Berzerkeley have any kind of real life...
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 09, 2001.
Thanks. The UC Berkeley newspaper had a better photo;
Daily
Californian
but hey, it was my first protest..
i'm not going to comment on the politics of it, my aim was just to
cover the event...
-- Tristan Tom (tristan@tristantom.com), October 09, 2001.
Second, I can't help but wonder if the anti-war protesters of
Berzerkeley have any kind of real life...Just because one
doesn't agree with the politics here doesn't mean that one has to
make fun of these people, who are, I'm sure, quite sincere in their
beliefs.
As for the photos, I would personally try to get in
closer, isolate the subjects, pay attention to the lighting, etc.
This type of photography is very difficult to do well.
-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), October 09, 2001.
I'm with Jack. No one is arguing with their right to protest. I
just think we shouldn't exaggerate their importance by means of news
coverage and photography.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 09, 2001.
Eliot,
You seem disturbed that one can show pictures of people that do not
share your opinions. While I will certainly not regret the Taliban's
regime, I am not convinced that these bombings will bring us closer
to a safer world. By acting the way the US does, more people risk
being influenced by the discours of extremists ... with just more
pains and suffering in the future. So Tristan, congratulations for
posting your pictures and I am happy to see that in the US they are
people voicing their concern, and their legitimate worries. Let's
hope those responsible for the 9/11 will be brought to justice
rapidly and let's hope no more killings to occur. The US is still a
place of freedom, and Tristan's pictures just show us people can
debate ... so Eliot, please let people express themselves.
-- abischop (abischop@earthlink.net), October 09, 2001.
Why not cover it in the news and with photos? The fact that various
opinions are allowed to be expressed in the US are one of the good
things about this country. If only those things that the majority of
people agree with deserve to be in the news, I think that is
unhealthy. If I was 18 years old right now, I might have a different
take of what is going on myself!
-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 09, 2001.
Andrew
As I say, they are entitled to express their opinion but they are
not "entitled" to news coverage. That is a choice, which I
personally reject. The problem, you see, is that some 94% of
Americans support the war at this point, and these protesters are a
very minor marginal faction. The news coverage makes it appear
(through the lens of the camera) that they are more numberous than
they really are.
The vast vast majority of people, who support the war, aren't out
protesting. They don't appear on TV and in these photos. This is
not Vietnam, no matter how much people at Berkeley would like to
think it is. Let them march and yell as much as they want, but my
guess is that as soon as the TV cameras and photographers left, the
protests would end.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 09, 2001.
The problem, you see, is that some 94% of Americans support the war
at this point,
Geez, not this again. Let's just leave all the political discussions
aside shall we? Eliot, what do you think of Tristan's photos? Should
a different focal length be used, different film? What do you think of
the compositions?
-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001.
Tse-Sung and Tristan
As far as the photographs, they are definitely well done and to the
point. I have trouble judging scanned pictures on a small screen,
becasue so much is lost as compared with large sized projected
images, with their eye popping detail and contrast. I think the
composition is quite good. Lens choice seems fine, I think that's a
matter of personal taste between 28, 35, and 50 mm. On my computer
screen, the images appear a little too dark and contrasty for me.
But this could just mean something was lost in the translation
process. If this was Velvia or another slow slide film, especially
if it were rated faster than the nominal speed, one could get this
result, which is worsened by the harsh overhead lighting conditions.
The best "protest" photos I have seen were taken during the Vietnam
era by a famous street photographer Gary _____ (I forgot his last
name, but his work has been displayed at MOMA in New York City). He
photographed using two M4s, usually in B & W, without a lightmeter.
They say he took thousands and thousands of pictures, then edited
them months to a year later. Certainly eccentric but very
effective. Perhaps someone else can remeber his last name. For this
type of photography, there was simply no one better.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 09, 2001.
Winogrand?
-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.
Yes. Gary Winogrand. That's the guy. With screwy compositions,
tilted horizons, and all, his photographs had unusual emotional
impact.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 09, 2001.
Agree or not, the right to protest is what we are ultimately
defending. Besides, there is something in the water at CAL.
-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001.
As far as the photos go, You sure had your hands full with that
bright California over head sun-looks like fill flash (with a higher
sync speed than 1/50 second)would have helped in many of the shots to
bring out shadows in people's faces so you could see the expressions
better. By the way, I live 10 minutes from Berkeley, you must be
nearly a neighbor. I think there's more than a few Bay Area folks
who post here.
-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 09, 2001.
Agree or not, the right to protest is what we are ultimately
defending. Besides, there is something in the water at CAL.
You're telling me! No self-respecting Berkeley student would be caught
carrying the signs depicted here:
3_jpg.htm
5_jpg.htm
8_jpg.htm
1_jpg.htm
They must be from Orange County or something.
;-)
-- Go Bears! (tsesung@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001.
They're not from Orange County. We have better things to do with our
time: work and pay the taxes that support many of those in Berkeley
(and their right to protest).
-- Tony (aknapp9@home.com), October 09, 2001.
Even mediocre photographs and a cheapy Web site can gain
some attention if it deals with a salient topic. I have gotten over
3500 hits since Monday to my protest photo site:
Berkeley
Protest
My goal in striving to be a good documentary photographer was
never to allow my political views to color the photographs. I
aimed simply to cover the event and to do it truthfully.
It has pained me that I have received several comments
thanking me for showing more supporters of the U.S. bombings
than protesters of it. This pains me because the plain truth is
that the anti-war protesters outnumbered the supporters at this
event. I know this, I was there. However, the U.S. supporters
were more militant and loud, and gained more attention
because of that fact.
However, in an effort to better portray the event as it really
happened, I have re-edited the web presentation. I did not
remove any photos, but added a few such that it overall better
represents the reality of the event and who was present, etc...
What is most difficult about having documented this, is the fact
that I am human and naturally have my own beliefs and feelings
about the situation. Putting that aside, striving to capture the
event in a pure fashion, and then editing and portraying my
photos likewise has been difficult for me. Strangely, I have the
power to color my portrayal of the event by choosing which
photos to show and which to hide. But I was witness to both
sides of the argument and wish to portray that...
-- Tristan Tom (tristan@tristantom.com), October 10, 2001.
What is most difficult about having documented this, is the fact that I
am human and naturally have my own beliefs and feelings about the
situation. Putting that aside, striving to capture the event in a pure
fashion, and then editing and portraying my photos likewise has been
difficult for me. Strangely, I have the power to color my portrayal of
the event by choosing which photos to show and which to hide. But I was
witness to both sides of the argument and wish to portray that...
Tristan, you have made this discussion interesting again. This just
shows that there is no such thing as an objective photograph. The
choices of the decisive moment and composition determine what part of
our reality we crop, temporally and spatially, to make the photograph.
The collection of images, and their sequence, even more so. People
think that documentation creates an objective outcome, but we know it
doesn't. Salgado has very strong opinions of the people and their
plight that he photographs, and of the message he is trying to get to
the rest of us. It makes sense you would too, and as a journalist, or
creative individual, you may allow yourself to integrate those
impressions into your work.
You may be very much against what the more numerous protestors are
saying, but that doesn't mean you should manipulate the images in order
to meet your political objectives. What is more interesting is what
feels 'painful'- the fact that your opinion, in this instant, seems in
the minority. How you engage with that could be an important subtext
of your photographs. Or- you might change your opinion after all.
I often find that my best travel photos are done when I'm alone. I
feel the imperative about recording visual impressions to share later
with others, which diminishes if I'm with someone who shares the same
experience. Traveling alone with a camera is a way to have a dialogue
with what one sees. Perhaps you can view this work as more of a
dialogue, without any pretense of objectivity since it relates to a
topic that you have strong feelings about. This is happening in your
own backyard, and you have a strong opinion. What better way to engage
with it than with your camera.
In the end, the photographer is always present even though one may not
see him or her in any of the photos.
-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), October 11, 2001.
Another demonstration: No debate, just solidarity.
.
-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 12, 2001.
Wow, has this post ever opened a can of worms.
First, everyone (in this country at least) has the right to express
their opinion in a peaceful way and also in a way that respects
others.
Second, I think it is fair to question the motivation and sincerity of
some of the protesters. My experience in having got in discussions,
debates and arguments with such people over the years is that a lot of
them are not sincere and really have no idea what the issues are, the
history is and what's really going on - a lot of them are followers
and air heads - usually there are a few who have all the facts and
just don't come to the same conclusions as I do but at least they know
why they're there. But those individuals are few.
How should we react to the events of the past month? Most of the
protesters will tell you that violence does not solve anything. They
all want to stand around and talk about how terrible this is, hold
hands, sing Kumbaya and then finish with a great big group hug and
think they have solved the problems of the world. Like I said above -
most of them are air heads.
Violence does solve problems - not all problems and not random
violence but the history of the world has many examples of where the
use of force has solved problems. The only 'problem' which remains is
that men have an inherently short memory and a problem once solved
will come up again if those who are supposed to be watching are not
dilligent.
As for those who chose to protest - freedom is a wonderful thing,
isn't it. You don't find many protesters in Kabul do you. What is
important here and what the fight is about now and has been many times
in the past is freedom. I would agree that the freedom I speak of
should be extended to the decendents of the Philistines - presently
known as the Palestinians - they need their own state as much as
Isreal needed its own state. They need to live with self rule and
have a right to live as much as those in Isreal. However for those
violent militant Muslims who want a global pan Islamic nation, I would
rather not. I enjoy living in a free country where the church does
not enjoy undue influence over the affairs of the state and where I am
free to worship God as I choose.
If violence and the use of force is necessary to punish those who
would commit violent acts against any sovereign nation, then so be it.
They were given the choice and chance to act as a responsible member
of the community of nations. Even such poorly developed nations as
Pakistan have realized that we cannot live in a world where a few mad
men are free to do such terrible acts of violence - they have aligned
with responsible nations and demonstrated that even though they have
furthered the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, they can
and are acting responsibly.
For those who want holy war, I say holy shit, bombs away. For those
who realize that we have now and will always have differences and both
respect the differences and want to have a peaceful coexistance, I say
you are my brothers. I find it amazing that from the life of Abraham
came three great religions. We all worship one God and the same God
yet we can't agree on anything. As the Bible tells us (old testement
so it applies to all three) God created us in his image yet we all
look different. That image God saw of himself must not be what we see
in each other - we must look deeper. So too, as God created us all to
look different, could it not be that he created us all to think
different and in doing so made it necessary for him to speak to the
hearts and prophets of the three great groups in slightly different
terms. We all got the same message - that he is the one true God,
that we should love one another and care for one another etc.
However, in speaking to each group in slightly different terms it is
only the details of how we worship and live our lives that are
different, not the core beliefs. They should we not honor him who
created us and love one another, even those whos core beliefs are the
same but practice their worship in slightly different ways?
What's the use - no one has listened to this line of reasoning in
thousands of years - no one is going to listen now.
Speaking of photography, I liked the photos. I must be a very
uncreative photographer - I look at the work I see posted here with
lots of envy - I wish I could see what you all see when its time to
press the shutter.
-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), October 12, 2001.
Mark,
As a recent graduate of UC Berkeley I feel as if i have some
perspective as to the protesters from that area of the world. I do
not think "most" of them are air heads. Now, you may call them
airheads, but UC Berkeley remains one of the top 10 Universities in
this country in terms of Academic Reputation for one simple reason -
there aren't too many airheads there (although they are some for
sure). i think the people you (and I) disagree with are simply
idealists. I for one am not one, and that is why i will help the
world to continue as it is.
In Berkeley many people are idealists... many will be scoffed for
their radical beliefs, but in the end idealists are the ones that
change the world. In the 20th century I can name a few idealists:
Hitler (I didn't agree with his idealism, but he did have
an "ideal"), M. L. King, Einstein... i know these people are used
excessively and are cliched, but the fact remains that they saw a
problem with the current state of affairs and wanted to change it
(for the better or worse). Idealists are needed to counter "us"
realists - those that have lost or have never had the faith in human
kind to induce radical change. I wish i were the idealist I was 10
years ago, but in the end that passion has disappeared.... it is sad
that there aren't more protests around this country, and that people
feel that being hardened to the ways of the world is a great thing.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
I personally cannot imagine such a place, but there is no need to
claim anybody with such ideals is an "airhead." For many this would
be an ideal world...
As a side note, I like your argument about religion. I personally
think no religion (as a confining institution) would be great - then
we wouldn't be hindered in our communion with God, through ridiculous
fanatics like many tele-evangelists or hard-line Islamic terrorists
-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), October 12, 2001.
Airheads, idealists ... that is too simplistic but also an easy way
to downplay the role of the protestors. Violence might sometimes be
necessary but blind violence without reflexion is useless and scary.
First I think no one will regret the Taliban and their regimes, but
why did the US support that regime knowing the attrocities that
regime has done...notably towards women (see www.afghan-
web.com/woman/ or www.rawa.org). Before bombing Afghanistan, I think
those, in the US, responsible in supporting the Taliban should be
made accountable. If Ben Laden received supports from the CIA, those
in the US responsible should be made accountable. There is no debate
in the US, the news coverage is very poor (except maybe PBS) and does
not inform the public adequately, and it is no surprise protestors
come from the universities' crowd. Second, violence brings more
violence: what has Mr. Sharon achieved in Palestine and Israel?
Security? No. Peace? No. WHile he was escalating the repression,
attacks by Palestinians have increased in intensity. The current
bombing of Afghanistan is likely to increase the number of people who
believe the US is evil. What should be done then? First stop
supporting any undemocratic country and dictatorship. Second,
revising the foreign policy perceived as unbalanced. The US image in
the population is not bright because either the US is perceived to
support unpopular and non-democratic government (Taliban, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan... even Irak before 1990), or as an oppressor
who indistinctly bombs and let starve innocent civilians. It seems
now that the US understand that the Israeli-Palestinian must be
resolved along the UN resolution ... let's hope it will work... but
what if violence is the only way to force the Israeli out of the
occupied territory? Would violence be acceptable to you then? To me
violence rarely help achieved anything ...
-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), October 14, 2001.
Oops, way too much "political agenda" is creeping into this thread.
Please, let's keep it on track.
Angelique, your post alone is going to generate some personal email to
me, as moderator, pleading to kick your ass out of here!
All, please, talk about the photography! I don't want to lose
participating Leica enthusiasts from this forum.
-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), October 14, 2001.
Angelique, your post
alone is going to generate
some personal email to me,
as moderator, pleading to
kick your ass out of here!
Why- because she is critical of
US policy? If you silence her
then the terrorists will have
done far more damage.
One of the biggest things
terrorists fear is rational
debate.
Consider- there were
moderate voices among the
Islamic activists- and they
were silenced, leaving only
the extremists to duke it out
and to bring to fruition their
darkest nightmares.
I agree that this forum should
be about photography- but
don't kick someone out just
b/c their words may appear
to be in the minority. Kick
out Tristan's as well, and
everyone else's.
My $0.02.
-- TS Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), October 14, 2001.
Tony
At the risk of repeating myself: I think that all of us
here are grown up enough to handle a thread that touches vital concerns
- alongside hundreds of those on DOF and brand matters. These are
exceptional times and we have an exceptional forum - educated,
passionate, informed, concerned. And isn't it just *great* that our
concern (for one another!) goes so far? BTW, everybody who doesn't
think so and feels too faint-hearted to cope with a differing view on
the world might as well just stay off...
To throw in my 0.02,
I'm a European, so please excuse my distant view on the US. I think the
US has an amazing ideal: to welcome so many different races,
nationalities (of origin) and religions under one roof - in short:
democracy within. But I think it has an equally amazing Achilles' heel
(or blind spot, optically speaking...): a lack of sensitivity for
anything *outside* the US.
What is happening now (and believe
me: I'm speaking for *many* Europeans who prefer halftones to black and
white views) is exposing this blind spot even more strongly. If this
shall make the world unite, it will be in fear and anger. If this is
what the good are supposed to do with the bad I would rather be neither
of the both. In this, I suppose, I relate to the tens of thousands of *
marching* pacifists (a similar number made the Berlin Wall crack...)
who apparently are being ignored by the US mainstream media.
IMHO, if we want to call ourselves photographers we have to keep our
eyes open and make our views available and exchange them and I think
Tristan has done a great job posting.
-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), October 14, 2001.
I wrote to Angelique personally and learned that she did not mean to
say that "she did not (or will not) regret the taliban regime,"
and needless to say I feel much better.
I agree with Tse and Lutz to the extent that we are all grown-ups and
should be able to tolerate differing opinions and discussion of vital
concerns. But I hope it can be understood how the "regret" statements
were freaking me out.
-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), October 14, 2001.
The "airhead" statements are what's freaking me out.
-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), October 14, 2001.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ