Her photos are amazing. These people look beautiful, I especially love the 2nd photo of praying Muslim men, and the 3rd photo, the girl looks so sweet. These pictures makes me want to visit Uzbekistan, but then again I've always wanted to visit Central Asia so badly.

I see nothing offensive about these pictures at all. The Uzbek government needs to get a grip!

It's nice that you can empathize with a government responsible for some of the most vicious repression of journalists in the entire world.

http://www.rsf.org/Uzbekistan.html

The U.S. of course will say nothing more than shame shame about this, because they need to make nice with Uzbekistan so they can better make war in Afghanistan.

You are of course taking the government's sentiments of concern at face value - is there something inherently wrong with this representation? The analysis of representation politics presented here seem influenced by the idea of 'modernity' as superior to backwardness.

I suspect the Uzbek government would prefer to only show promotional photographs of the gleaming mid-rise towers of Tashkent (which look precisely like , in order to promote foreign investment. Have you ever seen the "Invest in Georgia!/Macedonia!/Kazakhstan!/etc" ads that countries run in the Economist? They always make sure to present their country as as bland and modern as possible so as to not scare off those with money who might be offended by anything not tidy and American-looking. There's absolutely no reason to hem and haw over who's in the right here.

The photos are really good.

But quite frankly, I’m surprised to read that you can see “both points” of this issue.
You state, “The problem is that Akhmedova’s photographs may be the only representations of Uzbekistan that some people ever see.”

I take issue with this for a few reasons. First, by “some people”, do you mean Americans or just simply non-Uzbeks? A minor point perhaps. But if it is the former, then I think it is problematic to focus primarily on how we Americans might view these photos as a representation of Uzbekistan. Honestly, it seems a bit too pedantic and distracts from the real disheartening issue (claims that Akhmedova has defamed Uzbekistan).

Second, the photos themselves do not create the representation; it is the interpretation of the image that creates the representation. Yes, we Americans may have a limited perspective on Uzbek life and these photos could potentially create a singular representation. However, that is our problem and not the fault of the Akhmedova.

I was also shocked at the empathetic response to a repressive government action. If Uzbekistan wants to provide a wider variety of photos, the government is certainly at liberty to do so. One might assume that a government would have more resources, etc. than a single individual to launch a campaign of its own, or hire its own artist-photographers to capture the images it prefers. Why should a government persecute a *single individual*, with little money or political power, to achieve this end through censorship, which will almost certainly compound its negative image? And why would you sympathize with that?

"Frankly, I can see both points."

There are times that it is possible for a mind to be too open.

Of course I agree with everyone's basic point, that government censorship of artists and journalists is plain wrong. If the Uzbek government has another image of their country they want to promote, they should commission and distribute their own photos.

What gets me about these photos, in addition to their beauty, is that everyone in them looks happy. So often when we see photos of people (particularly children) in less industrialized countries the subtext is "please, adopt us and get us out of here!" But the people look perfectly happy with their lives, and why shouldn't they be?

didn't they sue Sasha Cohen for Borat as well?

I think you are really confusing two separate issues.

Whether or not there are other photographs/representations available should not have any impact on whether or not Umida Akhmedova's photographs can be considered defamatory. No photographer is morally or legally obliged to represent more than their own personal point of view in their work, and it certainly is not their responsibility to ensure that other photographers are presenting different aspects of their subject to the public.

It may very well be a "problem" that there are not more images of Uzbekistan, but whose problem is it? Certainly not Umida Akhmedova's. Rather than spend money bringing her to court, perhaps the government could sponsor other photographers and promote a diversity of perspective.

Again, though, none of this has anything to do with whether or not Akmedove's photos are defamotory. By saying that you "can see both points" you are implying that a case could in fact be made for this claim, but you have presented no argument to support that.

Knowing nothing about Uzbekistan and looking at these photos, I saw great beauty. I love the second photo in particular - I have a great appreciation of aging faces. So much more interesting than youthful smoothness, to me.

Of all the possible associations I would have made with these photos, poverty wasn't even on the list. Without reading the accompanying text, it would not have occurred to me.

Those are the only mental pictures I have of the country and as such, when I saw them rounding the internet a while ago my primary thought was wow, such squalor. I didn't know they had it so bad there. And moved on to next story.

The national policy of make an example of artist and control rather than encouraging expression naturally wouldn't be my first choice.

I can see how the photos can be seen as kicking the country when its down (art as contributing to problem and capitalizing on it) just as easily as drawing attention to problems to fix (art as cooperating to raise awareness about the country, ugliness and beauties).

That's Crazy.

I have been to Uzbekistan as a contractor on a USAID project on several trips of months each. These pictures portray the real Uzbekistan, once you get outside Tashkent and Samarkand. I'm not saying that's a good thing; the poverty is heartbreaking. But to see both sides of the issue? Jesus christ! One side of the issue is a journalist taking beautiful pictures of a wonderful country that needs help, on the other is a repressive, murderous government squashing speech to cover its tracks.

I've said it before, and I say it aloud almost every time I read this site (but being challenged is good!): for a blog hosted on "thesocietypages.org", the people who run this blog have absolutely no conception of the context of anything they babble about.

Shameful.

Thanks to the Internet, "we in the U.S." can see loads of images from Uzbekistan with only a few keystrokes. I'm pretty sure most of them are not from this photographer. That side of the argument does not hold water.

While I agree with the other commenters that there is no excuse for government censorship, I don't think the post was trying to argue otherwise. I'm from a country that gets pretty bad press in the 'west', and I can understand how images that reinforce the negative stereotypes about your country can be tedious and frustrating. I'm not suggesting for a minute that the negative aspects of life in any country should be glossed over, or that repressive governments should be given a pass for any reason. But it is possible to believe that and still understand at a basic level, with all other relevant caveats in place, the sensitivity to negative representation that has the potential to overdetermine a country's image to outsiders that this post is trying to talk about.

I find the belief that there are no other representations interesting. I've seen several other photos and videos of Uzbekistan in the course of the past ten years. Does the fact that you haven't, mean that there are none?

I think it's interesting that in making a big deal about this, the gov't is actually ensuring that quite a lot of people will see these photos. If they were worried about people seeing them, why plaster them all over the news?

I think there is a difference between understanding why a government would take a certain stance, and agreeing with/approving of that government's actions. I think it is sociologically important to discuss and understand what motivates governments, even if we don't approve.

I think it is unreasonable to assume that because I, as an individual, will take the time to look up more information about Uzbekistan and develop a more complete and complex view of the society, that all people will take the time and effort to do the same.

I think it is fair to assume that if the Uzbek government is concerned about how Americans view them, then it is valid to talk about the viewpoint of Americans. That does not mean it is not valid to talk about others' viewpoints as well.

Perhaps this isn't the full set, but to me, these pictures don't look any worse than a lot of photos of remote, agrarian societies.

I don't understand the "I see Uzbekistan's side" part either. I mean, there is nothing even remotely derogatory about these photos. No, they are not showing an incredibly metropolitan and urban lifestyle, but they are beautiful photos of Uzbek people and the government is completely unjustified in putting her on trial at risk of doing hard labor for taking pictures of people doing things.

Quite frankly I am shocked that you could see Uzbekistan's side.

She shouldn't be guilty for taking pictures of her country. Photography is an art and is a way to express life. It's not necessiarly putting down the country, and making it look bad. Everyone should have the freedom of having a camera and taking pictures, especially if it is of your own country. The pictures that she took showed no discrimination to the country. In the pictures she was simply showing her religion and the people.