EDIT: Please read my Comments Policy before commenting on this post. In a nutshell – you are free to express dissenting views, but if you want your comment published, keep the discussion civil. It will also help if you have enough basic reading comprehension to grasp that this post has been up since 2002. Thanks so much xx
I bought a copy of the April National Geographic today. It’s not something I normally do, but I was struck by the cover, – you know the photo National Geographic always show of the young girl with the very striking eyes? They had found her and re-photographed her as she is now. In the story that accompanies the photos, the photographer explains how the original photo was taken; he asked permission to enter a school and asked one of the young girls – who had never had her photo taken – if she would allow him to do it. He says he was aware that since she was a only a few years away (at most) from putting on a veil, that she and others may have been reticent about the photo, but that didn’t stop him.
15 years later, they (along with documentary crew!) started searching for her, no doubt to provide a sense of happy ending to America with regards to both this woman and Afghanistan as a whole post Sept 11. Eventually they succeeded.
If in the older image, she was tough, curious, perplexed, somewhat intimidated and defiant, in this photo she looks hostile, humiliated, resigned and violated. It is as if more than her veil has been ‘ripped’ from her face, but her self-respect. The veil and what it represents is obviously important to her, as she comments that it is a “beautiful thing”. Her name is broadcast in print. I imagine that to her, exposing her face and identity to the world (and thus to men to whom she is not related) is a rape of her most private self.
I see photos of her husband and brother sitting next to her proprietorialy. I see the photographer once again appropriating her image to publish via tv, video, internet and paper. The photographer notes (in a somewhat condescending way) that she won’t look him in the eye – or any man who is not her husband for that matter – that she will only look into the camera lense. He notes that the photos he has taken of her are the only photos she has ever had taken of her.
A photograph is an image, albeit one that reflects the photographer as much as the subject herself. The photographer in this instance is not concerned with ‘The Afghan Girl’ as a woman or as a human being. She is an object, the end goal of a quest, and hence his interest in her is only concerned with greater glory for himself and The Story. He does not allow us to get to know her, beyond his romanticised vision of her life, his view of her and her convictions as quaint and exotic. She is the Mysterious East personified, and stripped bare and barren, deviod of any meaning beyond what the Civilised West chooses to give her.
If ever photography was guilty of stealing souls, it is the case here.
Excellent post, my friend. Stumbled across this. Keep it up.
I just stumbled by as well. I feel like I’ve visited before. You did a good job of explaining why the second photo gives me a weird “sinking ” feeling.
Lay off the coffee. If she and her family felt “raped” by the photograph, the photographer and the attention that came with it, they would not have never allowed the second photograph to have been taken.
National Geographic does fantastic work. They open up a world that, to most of us, would otherwise remain unknown. Your article was the first I have ever read that took such a negative view of their work.
Recently, in Perú, a team of journalist and photographers for National Geographic were robbed while doing a story about the Nasca lines in the south of Perú, and there was not a single editorial response in the local papers that expressed anything other than shame and embarrassment.
The Peruvian viewpoint was that National Geographic was doing a great thing for the country. The magazine helping to bring attention to part of the storied history of their country.
Devon, you are entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, I think you have missed the crucial point that her husband gave permission for the shoot. I doubt her opinion or permission was sought or given.
I think its sad that so very many people(esp. men) are so very small minded. No one has the right to own anyone, no matter what country you live in. A life should be celebrated and enjoyed never held back and smothered. Shame on them for being so selfish and big headed. Those who take away fire from life should have theirs removed and thrown into isolation. Let them dwell.
Amazing that you can see “she looks hostile, humiliated, resigned and violated. It is as if more than her veil has been ‘ripped’ from her face, but her self-respect.”
I think she looks like a hard working, devoted Muslim wife and mother, who lives in poverty, and has had little education. We probably ought not apply western values to her, she obviously doesn’t want the attention.
What the hell is wrong with you all. Who the F*** gave that bloody monster of a photographer a camera? So that he could abuse the rights of an innocent girl, so he could become famous. I’m an Afghan and i find it disgusting how this man has taken her photo and posted out so the entire world can see her. Women in Afghanistan are already intimated, abused and taken advantage of. And to post her picture out so that all the western world can see her is almost the equivalent of rape. And to Devin. You are an ignorant, westerner with no understanding of what it is like to be an afgahn. Yes you say that national geographic writes great articles but what has it done to recognize the trouble going on in my country other that inform you ignorant people of false information. You have no right to question the girl, saying that she is the one who gave her consent for the photograph, it was her husband, so get a life and F*** off.
I agree with Rose and Devin, I can sort of see both sides of the scale on this. I think it is a violation of the woman, and that she seems intimidated by the photographer, but also I do think that the photograph is interesting, showing how the girl has developed into a woman. Her face to me shows hard work, but also maybe a cry for help.. I’m not claiming to be an expert or anything, thats just my opinion.
If you’re going to lash out at the world, there’s a lot of different targets to choose from. National Geographic photographers are not high on the list.
I feel sick that my countrymen are in Afganistan fighting and dying for people like Rose above.
EP – Mustn’t attack National Geographic photographers? Just because some dill like you thinks talking about the politics of gender, religion and colonialism isn’t ‘high on’ (presumably) his list? Get a life.
Also, Brad – I’m kind of sick that this post has been up on the internet since 2002 when the National Geographic issue was published, but has only recently being found by jingoistic Americans who can see nothing wrong with their invasion of Afghanistan and just WILL NOT allow anyone else to hold a differing opinion about it.
Personally, I find this a big violation of her cultural and religious values. Obviously her husband gave permission, probably without a second thought. In Afghan culture, the host if very hospitable, so the husband was MOST likely trying to just be nice. He probably didn’t even know what his decision would mean. i also agree that national geographic has its pros, but it also has its cons(like everything). I am Afghan and Muslim. If a man came up to me and asked me to take off my scarf, so that he may show the world how long my hair has grown since the last picture(during the time of my younger years), i would probably laugh and tell him to get another person to defile. BUT then again…im not in that society….and even if i was..i would still FEEL wrong, very wrong about the whole shoot.
wow this is long, but i really liked this post, so i just had to respond. thank you.
Has anyone responding to this post personally met or spoke with the “girl”, or her husband? No? Then I don’t think the detractors of this beautiful work of art or the artist are in any position to comment on how, or what, or why the “girl” or her husband feel about it.
I have stumbled accross this photo many times over many years, and I appreciate it for what it factually is: an image. It is an image that has inspired emotion, mystery, and imagination in me. It has done exactly what art is supposed to do, and the artist should be commended, and I highly doubt that the photo was obtained with either force or threat of force. In fact, I am pretty sure that the photographer politely asked to take the images.
So why don’t you violent liberal scum get a grip on reality, and stop injecting your personal politics into areas where it is not wanted or warranted.
I must admit that the photo of this woman as a girl has always intrigued me. It is beautiful. Her eyes almost look through you. Seeing her as an adult gives me chills. I agree with you that she looks as though she has been violated and I cannot imagine the humiliation that she must feel by be being made to take off her veil. While I wish that it was not a part of her existance to be expected or required to cover her face, it is. I am sure that it would feel the same if my husband forced me to be photographed by a stanger without my top. The beauty of this woman has nothing to do with her face being covered or uncovered. Her eyes tell her tale. It is apparent that she has let a hard life, and the light has left her eyes. Thank you for your post, even if I am several years late reading it.
I am an EDUCATED Afghan woman, and I am a little repelled by your comment “ROSE…?” If the lady did not want her picture taken-she WOULDN’t have allowed it! God! She was beautiful and now the whole world understands that Afghan women are beautiful as well. Get over it. I’m proud and I am sure she is too. Her husband was smiling and proud while they shot her pictures as an adult. She seemed somewhat apprehensive-but not because she was humiliated, or exploited but more likely because she was afraid of what the people in her town would say. I’m sure she’s not used to that sort of attention. They didn’t force her to pose as an adult. As a child, they still asked. Typical “Afghan” drama, Rose.
I must have missed the part where she was forced to take her hijab off…? There are A LOT worse things going on in my counrty and most of it is being done by their own “men.”
I actually think her look in both pictures is quite similar. I see a kind of wild and somewhat scared look in the picture where she was younger, a look that I see in the new picture as well. Just more mature, less wild and as if she’s very tired.
I don’t see what you describe as her most private self being raped (!!?). How can you make such horrible assumptions about the photographer? Of course she was the object in that moment, where he wants the photo of someone who might very well be or has been his muse to be perfect, as he is an artist. But I’m sure it’s not as if she’s just an object to him outside of the photo as well.
And besides all of that, her ‘violated’, ‘resigned’ look. I guess the years have not been so kind on her! I have no idea how it is to be in such a constant war OF terror but try imagining how you would look. Who cares about a veil when people are ACTUALLY being raped and killed all around you.
You even go as far as saying that this is like “stealing souls”, while the artist most likely just wanted to take another photograph of this woman that for some reason has captivated us all for all these years. I’m sure he was still fascinated by her himself.
The reason she looks tired, broken, etc in the second picture is mostly due what she has been through in her life.
Sometimes, when the hardships of life go on for too long, even in their real smiles you can see signs of sadness. It is because the muscles of face start to get the shape of the expression that is very often on the person’s face, in this case; tired and sad as the result of hardship and wars.
Since no one is really aware of the context of which the photo was taken, maybe she personally chose to be photographed or maybe not.
THAT does not sound like the behaviour of someone who has consented to the interview or the photo.
Notice also how much her husband speaks for her, not allowing her her own voice, even ‘correcting’ her about how old she was when she married. The husband grandstands. She wants to hide.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words and this thread certainly demonstrates that. I myself always wondered what ever happened to this beautiful girl whose photo I saw so many times over the years.
Am I the only one who saw the follow up on TV? They went to Afganistan, searched for this girl and found her and her family. The whole thing was on 20/20 or 60 Minutes or one of those shows. I don’t recall anything that appeared as a violation of any sort. I just remember her as being camera shy as I’m sure any woman in that society would be.
I think some people are creating a big controversy where there is none. Would a big TV network go out and “violate” a woman and then show their cruelty to millions of viewers? Was there condemnation in the media? Let’s get real.