Well and rationally countered, Bob.
keith whaley
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
BTW I have a real problem with the Afghan Girl pic
I'm not quite sure how you can have a problem with the original photo. As far as I know, when he took it he was not really aware of what he had in the can until it was processed. He was taking photos around a displaced persons camp, as that type of photographer does every day, and she was just one of many.
It seems to me that unless you have a problem with that type of photography in general then it is probably rather inconsistent to single out that particular picture.
and worse the fact that he went back for another dip at the trough,
I think you're putting a very negative spin on his motives. According to what I have read, he returned many times looking for her to try and learn what had become of her, partly to satisfy public curiosity, partly to satisfy his own, and partly to tell her the story of her photograph. Eventually he succeeded.
as far I I'm aware she's still no better off even after all it's done for them (McCurry and NG).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html
NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the woman in question. Here is some information about it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1205_031205_afghanfund.html
It's probably true that National Geographic and Steve McCurry have made more money out of the photograph than the fund has earned, but that is one of the dilemmas of having professional journalists telling us about the world. Different journalists resolve the dilemma in different ways.
