opinion

All Eyes On Rafah

| Saskia

A few weeks back, this image was all over my Instagram feed, I think I’ve seen it at least ten times in stories. And I’m not the only one, it has been shared by 46 million people already (source). I immediately felt a connection to other images that became the face of historic tragedies, such as the world-famous photo of Thich Quang Duc, the Buddist monk that set himself on fire in 1968’s Vietnam.

Buddhist monk Thích Quang Duc burned himself to death in Saigon, 1968

Buddhist monk Thích Quang Duc burned himself to death in Saigon, 1968. Photo by Malcolm Browne.

But something stings me about the ‘All eyes on Rafah’ image, which is, to my trained eyes, obviously AI generated. I follow almost exclusively other creative people on Instagram, as I only have an account for my illustration work. Almost everyone I follow has been very outspoken against AI the past weeks, especially in the light of Meta’s new policy of using users’ data to train its AI model (source).

I do not wat to accuse anyone of hypocrisy. I’m just wondering, what does it say about our society that an AI image becomes the icon of this humanitarian disaster, when we live in a time that there never has been more photographic content of war than ever before? If you have a chance to share a tragedy where the world should take action, why not pick a photo made by someone who was there, at that moment, probably at risk for his or her own life?

Some writers have been suggesting the succes of this AI image comes because from the fact it is not as violent as the videos of the bombing and resulting fire (source). Graphic content is prohibited on social media, so I understand the need for imagery that is friendly on the eyes. Nevertheless, an image does not have to be graphic to be powerful. Most iconic historical photos that have shaped the public opinion of conflicts are not graphic at all. They suggest much more than that they show.

Starving Child And Vulture, Kevin Carter, 1993

Fairly simple pictures with strong impact. Left: A tortured detainee at Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq, 2003. Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. Ivan Frederick. Upper Right: A starving child and a vulture during the famine of 1993 in Ayod, Sudan. Photo by Kevin Carter. Lower Right: Drowned 3-year-old Alan Kurdi washed ashore in Bodrum, Turkey, 2015. Photo by Nilufer Demir.

In the case of the photo by Kevin Carter, the boy was on his way to an United Nations feeding center togehter with his aunt, only a few steps away (source). Vultures were common in the region even before the famine (source). It is the framing that suggests the vulture is waiting for the child which strengthens the impact of the image. (1)

After all, the World Press Photo of last year was a picture made in Gaza (source). There are plenty of powerful, SFW photos that could make the world turn its attention to this humanic disaster.

But is it a photo?

But maybe I shouldn’t compare the All Eyes on Rafah image to press photography? Even though the image is made by a photographer, I assume it is made far from the actual event, probably from the comfort of a desk. It is made by coming up with an idea beforehand and then executing it, so I should compare it to political illustration instead.

“Good news: we formally recognize Palestinian statehood!” “Well, I don’t recognize it anymore!”; Political cartoon by Michel Kichka (source).

Though, if I classify the image an illustration rather than a photograph, I should critique the idea behind it, as the visual is now completely independent of any real events. And then the ‘All Eyes On Rafah’ image falls short still: there are much cleverer illustrations made about the situation in Gaza than a bird’s eye view of endless tents. Humans are still endlessy better at creating thought-provoking images than computers, and with the current state of generative AI, the human still needs to provide the genius idea. Of course, most of the 43 million people that shared the image don’t know or care about generative AI or clever visual commentary, but most of those 43 million I follow do.

‘The First Intifada’, political cartoon by Mohammad Sabaaneh, inspired by Picasso’s Guernica (source).

Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the message behind the ‘Alle eyes on Rafah’ image might be partial to its success. Asking for the world to look at the situation, how can you be against that? It doesn’t specify what action the world should take, which is a much harder question to answer. A lot of political cartoons take a lot more opiniated stance in this conflict, and those opinions are much less supported as a whole.

About a week after I saw the Rafah image take over my feed I came across the story on the right, though far less shared I assume – it popped up only once. Is this a better image? It is at least more impactful if you ask me.

I hope I could at least introduce you to a couple of cartoonists that create thoughtful work about this conflict. I would be happy if I could perhaps stir your thoughts about what makes an image powerful.

If I learned anything from writing this, it is that visual journalism, to give the creation of images for press purposes a name, still relies on framing the situation. To make a powerful statement about actual events, you need an image that is designed, whenever on purpose or by chance. A truly objective image does not exist.

(1) Carter received a lot of criticism at the time of publication for not helping the child. The general public did not know that he and his collegue were led around by rebel soldiers and told not to interfere with the situation. Photographers were also told not to touch anyone in fear of spreading diseases. Carter took his own life four months after he received the 1994 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography for this picture, unable to live with “the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain”.

The Cult of Mastery

| Saskia

A few days back Rembert Montald gave a talk at a Discord server I’m in. Rembert works at Riot Games as a Storyboard Artist and shared his methods and techniques for drawing human anatomy.

Rembert is an amazing artist and I don’t want to discredit anything he said or believes. Life is different for everyone and we all take different lessons from it, Who knows, I might change my mind about the following ideas in a few years down the road.

That said, during his talk I recongised an attitude I notice in more artists working at AAA studios in film, games and animation, which I’m going to dub ‘the cult of mastery’ from now on. Rembert told us he didn’t feel ready for the industry yet after graduating from art academy, and wanted to continue his studies before trying for a job. He moved to Croatia because of cheap living, got a part-time job to survive and devoted the rest of his time to study and practise. He even hired a private teacher to improve his anatomy knowledge.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, it’s actually pretty remarkable if you decide to improve your skills on your own: it takes a lot of discipline! A lot is said about the disconnection between art academy courses and the industry, especially the entertainment industry – the vast majority of artists I know have learnt their technical skills online and by themselves instead. Secondly, as anybody in a creative field, perhaps really everyone, should be prepared to keep honing your skills during your professional life. You better like to learn new things!

What irks me though, is that a lot of these artists somewhat promote the idea that the only way to work at these large prestigous studios, or get work in the industry in general, is by devoting all your free time to practise your technical skill. It is often flavored with a “my work is not even that good” attitude, despising any work they made older than a year and praising old masters. Bonus points if John Singer Sargent is their favorite artist. I even encountered some toxic cases online saying you’re not a real artist if you don’t practise all the time.

horse studies
Recent horse studies – for an hour, yes, but all day every day? No thanks!

Now I think I do have some discipline, learning myself C# and things, but no way I could force myself in drawing hands for months, hours per day, with the sole goal to master my anatomy skill. I do practise regularly and try to study new subjects when a commission asks demands it. But art or illustration isn’t technical prowess alone, isn’t it?

I rather split my ‘study time’ between technical skill practise such as anatomy or composition, and trying out new tools, software or techniques. I think these forms of ‘play’ are just as important as the technical stuff for being creative. We are, after all, asked to bring something from ourselves to the table, aren’t we? Rather than providing the client with meticulous rendered anatomy that is perfect, but also universal, we should add something that only we can. I could go even further: if your drawing skill is perfect but you don’t put something from yourself into it, why should I hire you? There’s always someone who will do it better or cheaper.

And this is where I think devoting all your time to technical exactness also hurts you: you need time off to nurture and explore what makes you you. You need those walks outside, fun conversations with friends, games to play, books to read, even those mindless minutes in line before checkout in the supermarket. Art is about life, so how create art if you don’t live life?

crocodile creatures
A page from my sketchbook where I just played around with crocodilian features

If the cult is right and a life devoted to study is the only way to get in AAA, I’m happy to do small indie projects for the rest of my career. It might not be so prestigous, but if it pays ok I’m happy! I’d like to paraphrase Cécile Dormeau here: I am being paid for the work I do, so it is appearenly good enough. It’s not good enough for all clients, but that will never be the case anyway.

I also don’t believe you have to study so rigourously all the time to get to the top, really! There are examples of artists who have followed their own path and found succes that way, such as Loish and Iris Compiet. And let’s not forget, knowing the right people is just as important as your portfolio. There are always multiple ways.

What also worries me, is that people who don’t have that immense discipline to practise their skills daily will believe being an artist is not for them. Discipline is a good skill to have, but so are soft skills – which might be even more important in the equation of succes. When starting out you will hear that your work is not good enough a few times. It happenend to me and still happens sometimes – but that doesn’t mean you have to block the next months for rigorous training. Keep making work and learn at your own pace!

So, if I would be in any position to give career advice (which I don’t deem myself to be with only two years of experience), I would say:

  1. Yes, work on your technical skills, as they are foundational for all representive art, stylized or not
  2. But focus too on the things that make you you, be it stylistic choices (the way you draw hands), subjects (horses, fighter jets, anything), or just your opinion on the world!
  3. Have fun! This is the most important as it will lead you to what makes you you. And it keeps you going!