For me, the strength of photography lies in its ability to evoke humanity. If war is an attempt to negate humanity, then photography can be perceived as the opposite of war.
If you make an honest picture of war, it will be an antiwar photograph.
I used to call myself a war photographer. Now I consider myself as an antiwar photographer.
I became a photographer in order to be a war photographer, and a photographer involved in what I thought were critical social issues. From the very beginning this was my goal.
The pictures that were coming from Vietnam were showing us what was really happening on the ground level. It was in contradiction to what our political and military leaders were telling us. They were straight forward documentary images. A powerful indictment of the war, of how cruel and unjust it was. When I finally decided what to do with my life, it was to follow in that tradition.
The greatest statesmen, philosophers, humanitarians ... have not been able to put an end to war. Why place that demand on photography?
I want to record history through the destiny of individuals who often belong to the least wealthy classes. I do not want to show war in general, nor history with a capital H, but rather the tragedy of a single man, of a family.
Photojournalists know the horrors of war can only be exposed at close range. Kodak Film.
Photography can be perceived as the opposite of war.
