Boys

Nir

A young Jewish boy holds an Israeli flag at a counter-demonstration in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem


A young Palestinian boy tries to understand what Israeli flags are doing in his neighborhood, in Sheikh Jarrah


As the two young boys confront each other, for just a split second, frustration and anger form a raised fist in an act of retaliation with no real intent

Details of the event in my blog

bfjr

A conflict that seems to have no "Human" resolution.

Last shot

craig_d

No conflict has a resolution as long as one side insists on having something that doesn't belong to them and the other side refuses to give up what is theirs.

Please note that I carefully phrased that so as not to say which is which between the Arabs and the Jews, not because I have no opinion, but simply because I don't see dgrin as the best place for a debate on the subject and most Americans are pitifully ignorant about it (and kept that way by the refusal of most media sources in this country to present the issues fairly -- perversely, there is more open and honest debate about the conflict in the Israeli press than in the US).

The pictures are good, though. I like the fact that neither boy looks particularly happy about the situation.

Nir

Just put up a multimedia slideshow for a wider view of the event on my blog

TonyCooper

I understand why watermarks are used, but these are intrusive. The first and third images are ruined by the placement and size of the watermarks.

The watermarks may be appropriate in your blog or on your website, but posting the images here is an invitation to comment and critique. I think you do the images a disservice when you obscure them like this.

In the third image, I really don't sense conflict between these two boys. The boy in the forefront seems that he is confronting someone else and not the boy in the background. The boy in the background seems to be just that...someone in the background.

You were there, though, and you should know. I can only comment on what I see in the image as presented.

kdog

Poignant journalism, Nir. It's a shame you had to ruin your pictures with such an intrusive watermark. Honestly, what's the point of posting pictures that are so egregiously defaced like that?

Nir

Thank you for your comments and I appreciate your thoughts on watermarking!

bdcolen

Nir wrote:

I think it's great that you're working close, Nir, but I'd say this is an example of working too close, as these images really lack visual context. In the first, we can't see that the boy is holding the flag. Perhaps if you'd shot somewhat more from the left we might have. And even if we saw him holding the flag, we see nothing of what's going on - the photo just shows a cute kid with a flag.
In the second image, I have absolutely no sense of what I'm looking at. A child; a flag; that's it.No neighborhood, no sign of conflict, no sign of anything. And the third image? I don't see anger, I don't see confrontation, I see the raised arm and fist, but it doesn't seem connected to anything. Your images are usually quite imfornative. But as technically excellent as these are, they just don't tell us much. Sorry.

Nir

bdcolen wrote:

I think it's great that you're working close, Nir, but I'd say this is an example of working too close, as these images really lack visual context. In the first, we can't see that the boy is holding the flag. Perhaps if you'd shot somewhat more from the left we might have. And even if we saw him holding the flag, we see nothing of what's going on - the photo just shows a cute kid with a flag.
In the second image, I have absolutely no sense of what I'm looking at. A child; a flag; that's it.No neighborhood, no sign of conflict, no sign of anything. And the third image? I don't see anger, I don't see confrontation, I see the raised arm and fist, but it doesn't seem connected to anything. Your images are usually quite imfornative. But as technically excellent as these are, they just don't tell us much. Sorry.

BD, no need for "Sorry"! I truly appreciate your comment and you're absolutely right!
I chose to display these three photos because they spoke to me. I was there, I experienced it and these three photos have significance to me. But you're absolutely right - for someone who was not there they probably have no meaning at all! Shows how difficult it is to edit your own and how our interpretation of a photo is so subjective based on personal experiences.

Have you had a chance to see the presentation? I think it shows the wider picture.

bdcolen

Nir wrote:

BD, no need for "Sorry"! I truly appreciate your comment and you're absolutely right!
I chose to display these three photos because they spoke to me. I was there, I experienced it and these three photos have significance to me. But you're absolutely right - for someone who was not there they probably have no meaning at all! Shows how difficult it is to edit your own and how our interpretation of a photo is so subjective based on personal experiences.

Have you had a chance to see the presentation? I think it shows the wider picture.

Hi, Nir - The slide show with sound definitely provides more context - very nicely done.

But let me come back to these three, and your explanation:

"I chose to display these three photos because they spoke to me. I was there, I experienced it and these three photos have significance to me. But you're absolutely right - for someone who was not there they probably have no meaning at all! Shows how difficult it is to edit your own and how our interpretation of a photo is so subjective based on personal experiences."

One of the reasons I began teaching my MIT course - the full title of which is "Documentary Photography/Photo Journalism: Still Images of A World In Motion," was that I had become convinced that there is a quickly fading understanding of both the limitations and strengths of still photography - even on the part of many photographers. Because our world is so inundated with moving images, many people confuse the attributes of moving images- film and video - with still images. (This is particularly true for those who have come of age since the launch of MTV). But we tend to think that what we saw, heard, felt, smelled, when we were shooting a particular image is conveyed by that image. It's not unusual for me to comment on an image in class, explaining that it doesn't work, only to have the student tell me, 'but when I took this...'

All of which is to say that we need to think, before selecting images for sharing, whether they succeed as we think they do. As you say, these are meaningful to you, and they are meaningful to you not only because of what you heard and saw outside the frame as you shot, but also because of who you are and where you were, and what the social, political, religious, and historical back story is. But none of those things are in the pixels you have shown to us. And the only things we have by which to judge the image are its pixels, and perhaps its title. Period. End of story. So...

This is not meant as criticism, but rather as food for thought - or food for the trash bin - whatever.

Nir

bdcolen wrote:

All of which is to say that we need to think, before selecting images for sharing, whether they succeed as we think they do. As you say, these are meaningful to you, and they are meaningful to you not only because of what you heard and saw outside the frame as you shot, but also because of who you are and where you were, and what the social, political, religious, and historical back story is. But none of those things are in the pixels you have shown to us. And the only things we have by which to judge the image are its pixels, and perhaps its title. Period. End of story. So...

Words of wisdom! Thanks!