Steve McCurry’s photo of Sharbat Gula, titled Afghan Girl, appeared on the cover of National Geographic in 1985 during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It quickly became one of the most famous photos in the world. McCurry’s work covering the mujahideen’s long fight against the Soviet war machine in the mid-to-late 80s further cemented his position as a hugely influential photojournalist.
Vice gave him a call to find out about nearly getting killed on the job, and the effect of seeing so much horror over so many years. The interview captures the challenges in documenting war zones and distraught areas of our world.
VICE: Hi, Steve. Afghan Girl is probably one of the most iconic images of the 20th century. Is it ever annoying that, from all of your work, one image is seen as so representative of your career?
Steve McCurry: Not at all. In fact, the contrary. I don’t think that has ever occurred to me.
You worked in Afghanistan for a long time. How do you feel the situation in the country has changed since the Soviet war?
It’s always a dangerous place, and there has always been ongoing fighting. Any time you’re in a combat situation, it is dangerous. I think in the beginning there was a lot of goodwill toward foreigners, or to pretty much anybody who was willing to support or help the people there, which included the West, and, effectively, pretty much anyone aside from the Soviet Union. India, Europe, China, and the US were all welcomed. Now there is obviously opposition in Afghanistan—the Taliban see the West and NATO as the enemy, so by virtue of my birth, they now see me as the enemy. Before they were taking hostages and asking for ransom, now they just kill you for political reasons.
Does Afghanistan feel more dangerous than other places you’ve worked?
All these places, war zones, present different problems. Afghanistan, Iraq during the Gulf War, places like Beirut or Cambodia. But yes, perhaps Afghanistan was the most dangerous. When I was there back in 1979–80 with mujahideen fighters, I was often days from help, out on location, perhaps two days from the nearest road, often with men who were not well trained and with whom you had a lot of communication problems and language barriers. You were being bombed with mortars and artillery and aircraft, and you’re with a bunch of ragtag fighters, who were certainly brave, but maybe short on training.
Has anyone ever attempted to sabotage your work?
Yeah, I have been sabotaged in the sense that I was not able to leave my hotel or do work. I wouldn’t say I was a hostage, but I was a captive, I would say.
Has your time in war zones affected your relationship with politics?
There are so many different issues. I ultimately think that people want to be respected, and there is often a power struggle in places where you have war; in the case of Lebanon, it was between the Christian faction and the Syrians, or the Muslim faction or the Palestinians. In the case of Afghanistan, it was what’s now the Taliban, or Pashtun against some other ethnic divisions. Places like Kashmir, it’s the Muslims against the Hindus. It usually boils down to a power play. I don’t know if that answers your question, but the reality is that I think sometimes somebody wants to just take control and take the power, and they want it by any means necessary.
You have been in some very dangerous situations. You were in a plane crash, you’ve been shot at, shelled, etc. What’s the decision process like when you’re faced with getting the photos versus taking huge risks?
I think you always want to work in a margin of safety. I think somebody who is a reporter or photographer needs to be working with good people, translators and guides, assistants who understand the situation. You want to be careful. So yeah, I think that’s the way I’ve always tried to operate—it’s not just sort of winging it. Obviously places like Syria or Libya are risky, but you still want to try to work in the margin of safety as best as possible.
Have you ever misjudged a situation and suddenly realized it was considerably more unpleasant than you initially thought?
One time I misjudged a situation with the small plane in Yugoslavia, which the guy crashed into a lake. That was… well, I don’t know. There is always a balance you’re trying to achieve when you’re in these places. On the one hand, you do have to take some sorts of risks—you can’t be too timid. But you need to calculate the risks. You weigh the situation, and sometimes it’s a bit random, you’re never quite sure. It’s not an exact science because everything keeps shifting. But you do your best, and you just hope for the best. You can be killed walking on the street in London or New York, you know?
Do you think that you have become at all desensitized to danger?
I think with more experience you realize the precarious nature of working in dangerous places, and perhaps you’re a bit naïve at the beginning, and you don’t understand all the aspects or dimensions or possibilities of what you are dealing with. I don’t think you ever get used to it, or get comfortable with it. The way you deal with it may change, but I don’t think you ever become desensitized. It’s never routine. If you’re telling a story or reporting on a situation, you have to manage the work you send in and manage it in the best way possible. But no, I don’t think you ever get used to it. I think violence and war are always horrific.
Magnum is probably the most famous photo agency in the world. Even if you haven’t heard of it, chances are you’re familiar with its images, be they Robert Capa’s coverage of the Spanish Civil War or Martin Parr’s very British holiday-scapes. Unlike most agencies, Magnum’s members are selected by the other photographers on the agency, so becoming a member is a pretty gruelling process.
