July 22 RAW

Following the terror attacks on July 22, 2011, in Oslo and on Utøya island the popular response was "more openness, more democracy". It was repeated by the Prime Minister as well. Sadly many people in position have not taken these words to be meant for them.
Since the attacks there has been a debate on the media's coverage as well. In my opinion most Norwegians don't realize just how insulated and sheltered they are in terms of media showing them, or rather not showing them, what happened on July 22. They got a glimpse last week when World Press Photo awarded a prize to a Swedish photographer, showing the full horror of Utøya.
I covered the bombing in Oslo. I have entered some of these pictures into the World Press Photo and Picture of the Year myself. I didn't see or photograph any dead bodies. I probably would have photographed them, if I saw them. I've asked myself a lot of questions regarding what I photographed and how I photographed it. What could I have done better (a lot!)? And what could the press in general have done better? I have some answers but many remain elusive.

All of the pictures I took in the centre of Oslo that day can be seen here. Unedited. No Photoshop. It is my way of saying : more openness!

(Due to a wrongly set time in one of my cameras, they are not in the exact order they were shot. So first there are the pictures from one camera (in the order they were shot), then the next. I've included the last frame prior to the bombing. Don't ask why. Think.)

Too Close For Comfort

The opening of the exhibition at Nobel Peace Center. Pictures by Tim Hetherington and Lynsey Addario takes us on a journey to the most intimate and vulnerable situations of two normally very closed groups of people. American soldiers and Afghan women, they are wildly different. But they share one thing: they don't easily let their guard -or veil - down in front of the camera.
No wonder it is packed inside the gallery. It is an opportunity to see great photjournalism and get a peek into lives - and deaths - so far removed from ours. We see the bare, dying body of 15 year old Zahra. We see the America soldiers reactions as they find they comrades killed in an ambush. We come to see this. To learn, to be informed, to be shocked, and to enjoy the art. Yes, to take pleasure in the craftmanship of the work in front of us.

I grab my camera. I see a girl straining to hear the Linsey Addario talk, she leans into a crack between the pictures to hear, but to me it look almost as she is looking closely into the eyes of a soldier's portrait. But I don't get the picture, she sees me, she turns away. She is too quick. She is too damn Norwegian! Then she leaves, the camera obviously to discomforting. She isn't going to let a stranger capture a moment without her say-so, however trivial. She came to see people at their most exposed, vulnerable, compromising and horrific times. Yet, as most Norwegians, she doesn't want share even an uncontroversial moment in a public place with someone with a camera.

It is symptomatic for Norway. Every day a bureaucrat will make a new regulation restricting access. Every day another security guards is added to the army of ignorance that is patroling shopping centers and subway stations. Every day a policeman will act outside the law to stop a picture being taken. Every day he will get away with it. Every day a politican hide an uncomfortable truth in a stack of papers. Every day money wins over nature.Every day someone will refer to other peoples privacy and security to protect their own.

But is OK. For we are Norwegians.

Crowdfunding - the new busking?

As the classic way of making a living as a photojournalist - selling pictures to newspapers and magazines - is dwindling many try crowdfunding as an alternative. There are different ways of reaching out to the public and many photographers have successfully raised an impressive amount of money. You can read more about varoius crowdfunding and even "crowdediting" in this Photoshelter Blog.

And at the time I am writing this fellow Panos photographer Patrick Brown is well underway to funding his campaigning photographic book called "Trading to Extinction."
I hope he reaches his goal, both the idea and pictures are great. It is an important issue (it really is - more on the word "important" later).

I have donated to such projects myself, which felt good. But in some ways I also find it troubling. Many of the projects I have looked at has been backed by a lot of other photographers. I am thinking : is this were we are now, photographers funding photographers? While it is nice to be supportive of each other it doesn't seem like a very viable business model, photographers swapping money with each others?

Ok, so the money is in, then what? This is a danger I see once the project is funded: The stories are are sold for pennies, so at least they are published. Becuse you told everyone this was an important story to "tell the world" when you asked people to give you 10.000 dollars or so. If the story only reach your 50 backers you really haven't "told the world" about your important issue, so you sell it cheaply. So in fact the photographic community (mostly) has sponsored the publishing media, often large media corporations, establishing even lower rates for stories. This in turn is undermining those seeking to get actual assignments or proper pay for their self funded projects.

Another concern is the approach taken by some photographers, where funding of their project have become so important it is the only thing we hear from them. Unless you pay them to get the "behind the scenes" story, that is. Personally I have endend some Facebook relations because there was nothing but endless calls for support and donations. Like a mariachi band you couldn't shake. Rather than sought after professionals, some photographers now unwittingly paint themselves as buskers. I fear it sends the wrong signals.

Some photographers certainly are not buskers, they are more like rock stars of our trade. I can understand why some photo interested people would back the latter. Famous by proxy if you like. But herein lies another problem: to what extent is the most "important" stories backed, that would otherwise go unmade? Are the " rock stars' " projects really the ones that need funding?

I see some names, and in their breif the list of clients include all the major publications of the world, Newsweek, Time, National Geographic, Geo, Der Speigel, etc. etc. And I am thinking: surely, if this is an important story one of these magazines would back it, have it made, and publish it? And if you are a well known member of any of the top pictures agencies, surely they would be able to sell your story through their channels?

So how, or to who, is the story important, if no publication wish to produce this story with its own money? Is it important merely to the photographer and the photo aficionados that is backing him or her?

One Facebook acquaintance of mine is a rather influentual photo editor, using many opportunities there to make calls for donations for various projects. It is very kind to spread the word, but after a while the phrase "very important project" has been totally watered down for me. I've had a look at many of these projects, they may be interesting, but I find few qualify as "very important". If they really were I'd also expect the photo editor to actully hire the photographers to do the job.

Now, this may sound as if I am opposing crowdfunding. For the record: I am not! I particularly like the fact that photographers can reach their audience unfiltered, and engage with people directly. And it is great that photographers can take charge over a story and bring it to the finishline themselves.

However, as this concept evolves I think photographers would be wise to carefully consider how they portray their projects and themselves in the pursuit of funding. And think twice about undercutting what market is left out there.