When Jehad Nga’s photographed Somali pirates it was at a time when frigates not people were perceived as the main victims of their contemporary skull-duggery. It was also before American military engagement and the associated global media entered the fray
The main reason I focussed on Nga’s work back in December was because his pirate-subjects were imprisoned. Nga’s work at the time was featured in Time Magazine and The New York Times and I’d be lying if I wasn’t part of the consuming public that took more notice of the pictures than the politics.
Since the close of 2008, activities in the Gulf of Aden have ramped up. So has Nga’s career; in photojournalist terms he unleashed another blockbuster this week with his portraits of US Marines in the New York Times. I’ll confess – I’m a sucker; I think Nga’s Chiaroscuro portraits are irresistible. My only problem is that the same aesthetic has been put in place by Nga and I am left confused.
Nga described the jails in which Somali pirates were kept as dark and dank, so his visual language makes sense when working in that context. Has he made multiple photo essays of high contrast, using vibrant colour-schemes and dark negative space. Nga, has to my mind, forged himself a visual brand.
What is the end result of this? Is Nga just playing a longview game, in which his brand sustains longer than the stories? Is Nga just giving the public the cinematic frames it has lapped up previously? Is it problematic that he gives the same treatment to the ‘vilified pirates’ and ‘patriotic heroes’ we’ve seen in the newspapers this week? Are my queries unfair. After all one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. One man’s criminal is another’s political prisoner. Is it even Nga’s place to distinguish, or use visual devices to shape viewers’ thinking? We’d do well to remember Brando and Pacino played great villains, but they were villains we loved to hate.
What do you think? Do you contemplate the character of a subject differently when it is struck by bright pockets of light if it is an American soldier or Somali pirate? How do you reconcile that?
All images, except the Godfather II and Apocalypse Now still (final image) ©Jehad Nga.
Prison Photography 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 16, 2009 at 9:57 am
Sven
I don’t make a distinction at all. If it has artistic value it’s totally legitimate. They’re all human beings and who am I to judge their situation from a distance. I think it makes a powerful statement to have the portraits of the Marines right next to the pirates, like two ships passing in the night that for just this one moment in their lifetimes share the same space and each of their different stories weave together. It’s like prisoners and prison guards, on separate sides of the fence, and yet both touching the same fence. There’s something stirring about that, if not beautiful, in a more transcendent way. And ultimately, I believe, there’s a great lesson in that, too, that we’re not as far removed from each other as we think, that given just a few different twists of fate, we could be that person on the other side of the fence. Looking at our own shadow opens the way for compassion, and maybe healing, and art and poetry help us in finding the You in Me.
April 17, 2009 at 3:50 am
duckrabbit
Sven,
‘If it has artistic value it’s totally legitimate’
What does that mean? We should always be questioning ‘artistic value’ and we should always be questioning the messages that are implicit in art. These pictures were published in a news outlet. The fact that they raise questions gives them validity, but at the same time the pictures validate Peter’s questions.
Nothing it seems is off limits to art. That’s fine but then so is the opinion that much of art is a parasite eroding any sense of humanity. The truth is when we don’t see people, but we see art, the people are the losers.
You are mistaken, it is not common humanity on view here, but as Peter alludes, common artistic approach.
April 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Sven
duckrabbit, I may have understood the question Pete asked in a different way you did:
“What do you think? Do you contemplate the character of a subject differently when it is struck by bright pockets of light if it is an American soldier or Somali pirate? How do you reconcile that?”
The reason these images strike me as artistic even though they were published in a journalistic situation is that they are portraits taken in a controlled environment chosen by the photographer rather than a documentation or observation of their respective activities. Most photos we see on a daily basis are of a more journalistic nature showcasing marines or pirates in their different environments, thus defining them by their external circumstances. That, of course, is not a bad thing, it’s good to know what sets a marine apart from a pirate.
However, I do appreciate every now and then to get a view of the faces behind the settings and uniforms, and when I do, as in this case, the feeling it evokes is that the faces and expressions of the marines are very similar to the ones of the pirates: They’re both human, with all their fears, joys, hopes, and worries. So that’s why my answer to Pete’s question of whether I contemplate the character of a subject differently when it is struck by bright pockets of light if it is an American soldier or Somali pirate was “no, they both look human to me.”
Whether you call it art or not ultimately doesn’t matter, I don’t portend to know what art should mean to anyone else. To me, I usually call something art when it touches me on a deeper level, when there is more to it than meets the eye, and in this case, these photos did, for the very reason I explained.
April 17, 2009 at 7:08 pm
blaark
I’m going to have to agree with duckrabbit so far as your question of intent goes– looking over Nga’s various series it seems there’s a visual brand at play that has nothing to do with any particular subject matter… Nothing wrong with having a style and sticking to it, I think over-analyzing the political intentions behind the choice of light/shadow and the richness of color may be throwing you off course… But from a critical standpoint I think it’s a valid observation which should cause Nga to reflect on the possibly unintended impact of sticking to one vision regardless of the situation…
And it’s never unfair to ask questions, tho sometimes expecting answers can be…