Afghan chadri (burqa), in black and white.
C&C welcome.

I'm quite surprised no one has reacted to this. This is a strong image with many levels of meaning. Thank you for posting. Best, Spyros

Thank you Spyros. Not many Fmers in Congo I presume. Interesting photos of yours on your Flickr stream.

Interesting image for sure and one I want to know more about.

'Covered' women usually turn away from the camera, I'm intrigued as to whether this is a posed shot or a documentary shot. I'm also wondering if the black was done in post.

Either way, you've created an amazing ghost-like image and a very topical one given Sarkozy's attempt at banning the burqa.

Spyros D wrote:
I'm quite surprised no one has reacted to this. This is a strong image with many levels of meaning. Thank you for posting. Best, Spyros

I would like to hear your thoughts on these multiiple meanings. It's nothing but an almost reverse silhouettte with no significance at all..

Spooky as hell.

Thank you all for your comments.

Liamh: This is posed shot of course and the backgroung was considerably darkened in post. In fact, the photo was taken in Thailand with a white Afghan chadri (burqa). You are right, this is a very topical photo considering the context in France.

Pilles: I would like to hear Spyros' thoughts on these multiple meanings but I disagree with you on the fact that this is "nothing but an almost reverse silhouettte with no significance at all". It is highly significant in fact.

I don't think it has any less impact because it is posed. It's still a surreal image.

I guess Pilles doesn't read a newspaper...

Personally I believe Sarkozy is right.
No where in the Koran does it say a women must cover her head
If they wish to by choice then they should be allowed but in societies where it is compulsory, it is men retaining their power over women
Well done and very topical
Tim

It is sad that the burqa evokes such repressive connotations. It is also sad that the connotations are simply "sexual" by historic content.

None the less, I very much like this image as a cultural statement.

tony

Tim Ashton wrote:
Personally I believe Sarkozy is right.
No where in the Koran does it say a women must cover her head
If they wish to by choice then they should be allowed but in societies where it is compulsory, it is men retaining their power over women
Well done and very topical
Tim

And it doesn't say in the bible that the Pope should wear a Mantum or Cardinals wear a Capello Romano. But they do and no one gets shirty about it.

My Grandmother, a catholic, always covered her head on a Sunday it was just the custom and she chose to do it. It's about modesty and respect.

In parts of Europe catholic women always wear a head scarf in public - does Mr Sarkozy want to ban that too?

In most countries it is a choice to wear a burqa or not - maybe not in Afghanistan, but it's certainly a choice in most places. Banning the burqa would give it a significance way beyond that which it is designed for and make it an icon for extremists.

I think Sarkozy, like all politicians, should stick to fiddling his expenses and stop dictating what people can and cant wear. The burqa doesn't subjugate women, politicians do that. Rant over

Interesting inputs. Yes, nowhere in the Koran does it say that women must cover their heads. Yet, there are passages mentioning headscarves and clothing tips. But this is not the issue and many women, at least in France, wear a niqab (not a burqa) by choice. Of course, some are coerced to wear the niqab. Therefore, the question, in a democratic society, is to know who is coerced and who is not. Of course, choice and liberty are contrained by cultural, social, political and economic values (cf. Hegel and abstract freedom vs concrete freedom). In free and democratic societies people should be allowed to wear what they choose. Now, should people be allowed to walk in streets with their face covered and refuse to unveil themselves when necessary (schools, hospitals, banks, ID control, etc.)? This is a highly complex and controversial topic. Photos, sometimes, raise some serious issues.

pachouvy wrote:
Afghan chadri (burqa), in black and white.
C&C welcome.

Careful, you may now be considered an infidel or a blasphemer (and we pretty much know how that usually turns out)...

Mike Ganz wrote:
pachouvy wrote:
Afghan chadri (burqa), in black and white.
C&C welcome.

Careful, you may now be considered an infidel or a blasphemer (and we pretty much know how that usually turns out)...

By definition everyone on this planet is an infidel to somebody and given the irreverence of your post, by definition you've just committed blaspheme

The 1st thing that comes to mind is the ghost has no eyes. A lot of us didn't know what a burkha was or even cared until several years ago. Pilles is right - and so is everyone else. The image begets opinions from each of us and different ones at that. Having said that, to me it is more than a 'simple' photo because I don't think I could simulate it easily. The white(s) looks hard to have shot with good balance. BUt also, it is inanimate... there is a person there most likely, but they are hidden. A distraught housewife taking a cigarette break crouched over with dirty hands, messy hair and unkempt clothing is also a very strong image to some. ...and to some it's a wench that needs to wash her goat smellin' arse. Aren't both right? Isn't that the point? Some get it, some don't. They all get something - even if they see that it is nothing. Thanks for sharing, I bet it looks awesome in large print!

pilles wrote:
Spyros D wrote:
I'm quite surprised no one has reacted to this. This is a strong image with many levels of meaning. Thank you for posting. Best, Spyros

I would like to hear your thoughts on these multiiple meanings. It's nothing but an almost reverse silhouettte with no significance at all..


Pilles, to each their own personal interpretation. Here are mine (no particular or coherent order):

1. Occultation of the human form
2. Monument to dignity
3. Isolation
4. black/white : right/wrong
5. reality and respect for cultural uniqueness
6. Rightful existence

To sum up, an image that evokes contrasting feelings, that speaks of our world as shades of grey even as it portrays cultural difference in stark terms.

Spyros

liamh wrote:
I don't think it has any less impact because it is posed. It's still a surreal image.

I guess Pilles doesn't read a newspaper...

I'm terribly sorry. Nothing here mentioned that the pic is a "statement".

pilles wrote:
liamh wrote:
I don't think it has any less impact because it is posed. It's still a surreal image.

I guess Pilles doesn't read a newspaper...

I'm terribly sorry. Nothing here mentioned that the pic is a "statement".


Every picture is a statement of some kind.

Haven't your years of experience taught you that, yet?

<Chas>

liamh wrote:
Tim Ashton wrote:
Personally I believe Sarkozy is right.
No where in the Koran does it say a women must cover her head
If they wish to by choice then they should be allowed but in societies where it is compulsory, it is men retaining their power over women
Well done and very topical
Tim

And it doesn't say in the bible that the Pope should wear a Mantum or Cardinals wear a Capello Romano. But they do and no one gets shirty about it.

My Grandmother, a catholic, always covered her head on a Sunday it was just the custom and she chose to do it. It's about modesty and respect.

In parts of Europe catholic women always wear a head scarf in public - does Mr Sarkozy want to ban that too?

In most countries it is a choice to wear a burqa or not - maybe not in Afghanistan, but it's certainly a choice in most places. Banning the burqa would give it a significance way beyond that which it is designed for and make it an icon for extremists.

I think Sarkozy, like all politicians, should stick to fiddling his expenses and stop dictating what people can and cant wear. The burqa doesn't subjugate women, politicians do that. Rant over



I did say that it should be the choice of the individual, not a rule forced upon the individual by religous fanatics which is the case in where the wearing of a Burqua or headscarf is compulsory. You only have to be aboard your Lufthansa flight out bound to Frankfurt to realise what the majority of educated iranians think of the policy. As the wheels of the plane leave the ground every woman on the flight is on her feet removing their headscarves and mantous.

Two years ago in Iran my wife and daughter in towns outside of Tehran were regularly "jostled" should they allow their headscarves to slip back, even the slightest amount.

Quite frankly, imo religous fundementalism, whether it be Islam, Christian, Jewish or Hindu (And of course Mammon) is the greatest threat to world peace humanity faces today

Tim

Tim Ashton wrote
I did say that it should be the choice of the individual, not a rule forced upon the individual by religous fanatics which is the case in where the wearing of a Burqua or headscarf is compulsory. You only have to be aboard your Lufthansa flight out bound to Frankfurt to realise what the majority of educated iranians think of the policy. As the wheels of the plane leave the ground every woman on the flight is on her feet removing their headscarves and mantous.

Two years ago in Iran my wife and daughter in towns outside of Tehran were regularly "jostled" should they allow their headscarves to slip back, even the slightest amount.

Quite frankly, imo religous fundementalism, whether it be Islam, Christian, Jewish or Hindu (And of course Mammon) is the greatest threat to world peace humanity faces today

Tim


I hear you Tim. I've also seen the inflight 'quick change', many times and I agree with your conclusion. My point is politicians shouldn't meddle in these matters, as they'll only succeed in creating more division.

For what its worth, I think the second greatest threat to world peace is apathy, so it's good to talk...

And hey, I did say the photo was topical

Best,

Liam.

+1
thankyou for your wisdom Liam
Tim

liamh wrote:
For what its worth, I think the second greatest threat to world peace is apathy, so it's good to talk...
Liam.


I used to be apathetic - but now I just can't be bothered!

I like the image although just a smidgeon of more detail might have been nice

squareeyez wrote:
The 1st thing that comes to mind is the ghost has no eyes. A lot of us didn't know what a burkha was or even cared until several years ago. Pilles is right - and so is everyone else. The image begets opinions from each of us and different ones at that. Having said that, to me it is more than a 'simple' photo because I don't think I could simulate it easily. The white(s) looks hard to have shot with good balance. BUt also, it is inanimate... there is a person there most likely, but they are hidden. A distraught housewife taking a cigarette break crouched over with dirty hands, messy hair and unkempt clothing is also a very strong image to some. ...and to some it's a wench that needs to wash her goat smellin' arse. Aren't both right? Isn't that the point? Some get it, some don't. They all get something - even if they see that it is nothing. Thanks for sharing, I bet it looks awesome in large print!

Hey, I really like that. It's one of the very few intelligent, thoughtful analyses I have heard, here or elsewhere. I wish I had said that!!

pilles wrote:
I'm terribly sorry. Nothing here mentioned that the pic is a "statement".

What is this? the man who posts threads admonishing those who apologise for their post is apologising in his!
You'll not live this one down Piles

forrest5000 wrote:
pilles wrote:
I'm terribly sorry. Nothing here mentioned that the pic is a "statement".

What is this? the man who posts threads admonishing those who apologise for their post is apologising in his!
You'll not live this one down Piles

Point out to me where I apologized for anything! You'll stretch anything to make your point, huh? My comment was a wish for an addition, not a previous opinion.
The only apology I would make is if I offend someone. And if you believe that I've got a little piece of waterfront property in Arizona I'd like you to look at.