How to promote a photography exhibit ?

[Paul Ozzello]

Just to emphasize 1st Amendment is applicable to government not being able to suppress your free speech not what private citizens can or can not do in the confines of their own property which this forum is one.

While this is true - it only contributes to people doubling down on their opinions and becoming more extreme. That’s why speech suppression is much more dangerous to democracy than tolerating speech we don’t like.

 

[faberryman]

I spoke to many business owners downtown who were very supportive of the truckers, one in particular, an immigrant from Iran that owns a pastry shop - was interviewed by the local press about how his business was effected. He told them how everyone was friendly and how they were all coming in to his shop to buy his pastrie ; and he was astonished when the published article misquoted him and saying how his shop had been negatively impacted. He called them back and was told - "it’s not the angle we wanted to cover".

What a surprise. Who saw that coming? Truckers sleeping in the cabs of their trucks all night wanting hot coffee and a fresh pastry in the morning.

I searched Google and was unable to find any stories on the trucker protest in which the owner of a pastry shop was interviewed. Maybe if I knew the name of the pastry shop I would have a better chance of finding the story in which he was misquoted.

 

[nmp]

While this is true - it only contributes to people doubling down on their opinions and becoming more extreme. That’s why speech suppression is much more dangerous to democracy than tolerating speech we don’t like.

I don't want to go tete-a-tete with you on this subject - let's just say I admired your photographic effort and if I understood where you were coming from, I wouldn't have bothered to partake in this thread.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

What a surprise. Who saw that coming? Truckers sleeping in the cabs of their trucks all night wanting hot coffee and a fresh pastry in the morning.

It was the perfect capitalistic moment to sell more stuff. If I had a shop I would have had signs everywhere welcoming the truckers and the thousands of curious citizens walking the streets to come to my shop. Especially after two years of strict lockdowns.

I don't want to go tete-a-tete with you on this subject - let's just say I admired your photographic effort and if I understood where you were coming from, I wouldn't have bothered to partake in this thread.

Me neither and I appreciate it.

The subject of my photos is a very political and controversial part of Canadian history and it’s almost impossible - and unnatural - not to include it in the discussion. Having message after message edited and deleted is a drag - and a little silly considering how political photography has been throughout history.

 

[MattKing]

And the reason that the thread is still here is because we value the role that photography plays in life - including political life.
I agree it is difficult to converse about the photography, without veering too far into the political realities that brought rise to the subject of the photography. But please do your best - we value your contributions.
I would really like the opportunity to meet you in person and discuss all these political and societal issues - I think we would have a fascinating discussion. Just like I would really like to see your photographs in person.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The subject of my photos is a very political and controversial part of Canadian history and it’s almost impossible - and unnatural - not to include it in the discussion. Having message after message edited and deleted is a drag - and a little silly considering how political photography has been throughout history.

If we were all in a coffee shop, face to face, a civil conversation might be possible. Internet forums are about the worst place for this type of discussion because people tend not to consider other peoples point of view, and it becomes a shouting match from one echo chamber to the other.

That echo chamber thing is a very dangerous Internet age phenomenon. I have to type "Fox News" into any searches I do on news items if I want to see their point of view...the search engine algorithms don't ever offer it as a search result. People have to go out of their way to get a balanced view; take flat Earth believers who used to be a scattered disconnected bunch, but now have conventions with people attending from a-round the world.

Dang! See what I did there? Stoopid Internet

 

[faberryman]

That echo chamber thing is a very dangerous Internet age phenomenon. I have to type "Fox News" into any searches I do on news items if I want to see their point of view...the search engine algorithms don't ever offer it as a search result. People have to go out of their way to get a balanced view; take flat Earth believers who used to be a scattered disconnected bunch, but now have conventions with people attending from a-round the world.

You must be using a different search engine than I am. When I search for articles on current news events, I get links to Fox News stories, and stories from every other media site under the sun.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

You must be using a different search engine than I am. When I search for articles on current news events, I get links to Fox News stories, and stories from every other media site under the sun.

Did a quick check and it was there, at the bottom of page one.

Still stand behind my point however; where the Internet can feed information to people in a very biased way, depending on their search history.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

But please do your best - we value your contributions.

There needs to be a better way to address political discussions than just banning them outright - especially since political discourse is often so tightly intertwined with photography. You mentioned other political discussions being a disaster. What does that mean ? People vehemently disagreeing with one other ? I can see intervening when discussions turn into personal attacks - and such discussions should be moderated.

I would really like the opportunity to meet you in person and discuss all these political and societal issues - I think we would have a fascinating discussion. Just like I would really like to see your photographs in person

Likewise - but it might get very spirited ;-) look me up if you ever come to Montreal !

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hey Paul, I really like the presentation of your prints...,which float mount method did you use?

If you ever find yourself on the northern sunset edge of Canada, give me a shout!

(I was born in Chicoutimi...my Dad worked with Alcan so all the kids in the family were born in Quebec. Moved here when I was 4, so retained no French, which I regret).

 

[koraks]

You mentioned other political discussions being a disaster. What does that mean ?

They result in direct personal attacks, snide comments and a toxic atmosphere. More importantly, they create sentiments and disagreements between peopleel that we then see flare up all across the forum in the form of "subtle" jabs. It would be one thing if the nastiness remained limited to the political threads, but the problems tends to spill over to the entire forum.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

They result in direct personal attacks, snide comments and a toxic atmosphere. More importantly, they create sentiments and disagreements between peopleel that we then see flare up all across the forum in the form of "subtle" jabs. It would be one thing if the nastiness remained limited to the political threads, but the problems tends to spill over to the entire forum.

That's true. It's happened to me on another site. I had to leave that site. But I blame management there. They refused to enforce their own policies against personal attacks.

 

[pentaxuser]

2 questions from someone the other side of the Atlantic: Paul, did Photrio's collective advice actually help with the outcome which appears to have been successful

To everyone now: Given the subject of the exhibition I wonder how it is even possible to have a in-depth discussion without it becoming "political" in some sense of that word?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

To everyone now: Given the subject of the exhibition I wonder how it is even possible to have a in-depth discussion without it becoming "political" in some sense of that word?

Some suggestions:
Discuss the role of photography and the photographer in documenting a political event.
Discuss Paul's photographic choices - e.g. using instant film to assist in establishing engagement when the subjects are likely to be distrustful of photographers.
Discuss using instant film to permit fast response in the midst of a chaotic and changing reality, followed by the presentation choice of making small enlargements.
Discuss how to mount and promote a show when the people depicted are extremely controversial - i.e. some of what we actually have done here.
Note how little reference I've made to the political positions, discussion of which will create a problem under our rules. It is the taking of sides or discussion of the controversy behind the event that creates the problem - posting about how to photograph the event and present the results is totally on point here.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

2 questions from someone the other side of the Atlantic: Paul, did Photrio's collective advice actually help with the outcome which appears to have been successful

To everyone now: Given the subject of the exhibition I wonder how it is even possible to have a in-depth discussion without it becoming "political" in some sense of that word?

pentaxuser

Hey pentaxuser - yes lots of positive contributions - especially the advice on getting an interview with a local paper - which I managed to do by contacting ine directly.

Something I didn’t expect (and probably should have) - a TikToker accusing the company that put up some posters (Diffusart) of my show of being racist and homophobic. She also apparently tore down many of my posters

 

[GregY]

I'll leave this in, but point out that it references a completely USA centric version of "free speech".

Exactly...... There are rights in Canada too, but there is no "First Amendment"... it's a different country with a different political structure.

 

[pentaxuser]

Some suggestions:
Discuss the role of photography and the photographer in documenting a political event.

Note how little reference I've made to the political positions, discussion of which will create a problem under our rules. It is the taking of sides or discussion of the controversy behind the event that creates the problem - posting about how to photograph the event and present the results is totally on point here.

Yes I think the point I was trying to make somewhat unsuccessfully it would appear is that in certain kinds of subject matter that has been captured in film, it is extremely difficult to have a discourse that is simply a technical discussion Yes, you the mods can take action to confine it to that but it then so quickly becomes a somewhat sterile discussion

Here's an example: I show the famous Don McCullen's "Thousand Yard Stare" and ask members what do they think of the shot as a photograph. Most might say "Great shot or no a very poor shot for the following photographic reasons . That's about as far as the discussion can go without at least touching on matters that are connected with feelings about war

If it is allowed to go any further it inevitably brings in "feelings" that within a few more posts are deemed "political" simply because of the subject matter

So to be on the safe side you issue a warning then feel the only course of action left is to lock the thread

It may be that unless we are able to run such threads with the kind of strict debating rules that can be applied as if we were having a live debate in the Oxford Union, there is no other way to stop things "getting out of hand"

However if this is the case then we might be better to proscribe the kind of subjects that have any chance of being "political " in the broadest sense of the word

Just a thought on my part

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Great shot or no a very poor shot for the following photographic reasons . That's about as far as the discussion can go without at least touching on matters that are connected with feelings about war

I don't feel that way. I think that one can reflect on the relationship between that image and the context it was taken in, without having the debate devolve into political statements of a problematic nature.

What we trigger on mostly as moderators is if discussions involve politics and policy in a normative fashion. And it turns out that for the vast majority of people, it's difficult or even impossible to reflect on something without being normative about it. For illustration there's a clear distinction between the following statements:

[OK EXAMPLE:] "The 1000 yard stare image conveys the personal drama that's inherent to a war that turned out to be nightmare more so than the fighting parties were prepared for, and it captures that drama in the eyes of a single individual that in some way we can all relate to."

vs:

[NOT-OK EXAMPLE:] "The 1000 yard stare shows how wrong the US were in trying to invade Vietnamese territory because by doing so the US just made the lives of many people miserable and it illustrates how Nixon's politics were abject in how they revolved around nurturing and protecting the military-industrial complex. The photo shows how the common man was the main victim of the inherently criminal nature of Republican policy."

The first statement would be a perfectly OK reflection that we, moderators, would likely leave alone just fine. That someone points out how the horrors of war manifest themselves in an image, and the degree of effectiveness to which the image captures them, is not inherently problematic. In fact, I think it's a useful observation that can be discussed in a relevant way.
The second statement we would see as problematic as it takes a clear position in a political debate and is guaranteed to act as an invitation for people with a different opinion to debate the issue. In fact, it is such a problematic statement that I hesitate to post it here even as an example with a clear indication that it is just an example. (and it does not express my views - it really is just a synthetic example, to be perfectly clear)

Because so many people struggle with making a distinction between neutrally reflecting on political context and proclaiming a political preference, we err to the side of safety and quench discussions that move towards the political fairly early.
The matter is of course complicated by the fact that it's not always such a clear-cut case as I've shown above. Of course, that example is a deliberately amplified one. In reality, the normative judgement or personal preference/position will be visible in more subtle terms/formulations. I suppose as moderators, we are relatively sensitive to such signals.

So what you call 'feelings' is indeed (I think) what we trigger on, but I wouldn't call them 'feelings'. Most feelings that people would express, we're totally fine with. See the first example - it revolve very strongly around feelings if you think about it. But when those 'feelings' are in fact normative statements about political preferences (and by extension, policy, legislature, policy implementation, legal enforcement etc.), then we generally quench and redact because from experience, we know that things tend to get heated.

The same applies to religion, but for some reason, on this forum, people are less liable to discuss this topic. I'm not sure why this is the case, while politics (and associated domains) continues to be a lure that some can't resist to venture into from time to time. But I think you can easily extend the example above to, let's say, the religious context of the iconic Nat. Geo. / Steve McCurry 'Afghan girl' photo. It's straightforward to come up with one way of reflecting on that religious context without it being problematic, and a way to make such a reflection very problematic and incendiary indeed.

I hope this somehow helps to understand why we do what we do. The underlying principle is always that we try to help people to interact peacefully and respectfully with each other. It's a deliberate choice that we choose to suppress some expressions in exchange for a more harmonious forum. In the end, a forum, and especially this one, revolves around information exchange. We have the firm belief that successful information exchange and conflict are at odds with each other.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't feel that way. I think that one can reflect on the relationship between that image and the context it was taken in, without having the debate devolve into political statements of a problematic nature.

What we trigger on mostly as moderators is if discussions involve politics and policy in a normative fashion. And it turns out that for the vast majority of people, it's difficult or even impossible to reflect on something without being normative about it. For illustration there's a clear distinction between the following statements:

[OK EXAMPLE:] "The 1000 yard stare image conveys the personal drama that's inherent to a war that turned out to be nightmare more so than the fighting parties were prepared for, and it captures that drama in the eyes of a single individual that in some way we can all relate to."

vs:

[NOT-OK EXAMPLE:] "The 1000 yard stare shows how wrong the US were in trying to invade Vietnamese territory because by doing so the US just made the lives of many people miserable and it illustrates how Nixon's politics were abject in how they revolved around nurturing and protecting the military-industrial complex. The photo shows how the common man was the main victim of the inherently criminal nature of Republican policy."

The first statement would be a perfectly OK reflection that we, moderators, would likely leave alone just fine. That someone points out how the horrors of war manifest themselves in an image, and the degree of effectiveness to which the image captures them, is not inherently problematic. In fact, I think it's a useful observation that can be discussed in a relevant way.
The second statement we would see as problematic as it takes a clear position in a political debate and is guaranteed to act as an invitation for people with a different opinion to debate the issue. In fact, it is such a problematic statement that I hesitate to post it here even as an example with a clear indication that it is just an example. (and it does not express my views - it really is just a synthetic example, to be perfectly clear)

Because so many people struggle with making a distinction between neutrally reflecting on political context and proclaiming a political preference, we err to the side of safety and quench discussions that move towards the political fairly early.
The matter is of course complicated by the fact that it's not always such a clear-cut case as I've shown above. Of course, that example is a deliberately amplified one. In reality, the normative judgement or personal preference/position will be visible in more subtle terms/formulations. I suppose as moderators, we are relatively sensitive to such signals.

So what you call 'feelings' is indeed (I think) what we trigger on, but I wouldn't call them 'feelings'. Most feelings that people would express, we're totally fine with. See the first example - it revolve very strongly around feelings if you think about it. But when those 'feelings' are in fact normative statements about political preferences (and by extension, policy, legislature, policy implementation, legal enforcement etc.), then we generally quench and redact because from experience, we know that things tend to get heated.

The same applies to religion, but for some reason, on this forum, people are less liable to discuss this topic. I'm not sure why this is the case, while politics (and associated domains) continues to be a lure that some can't resist to venture into from time to time. But I think you can easily extend the example above to, let's say, the religious context of the iconic Nat. Geo. / Steve McCurry 'Afghan girl' photo. It's straightforward to come up with one way of reflecting on that religious context without it being problematic, and a way to make such a reflection very problematic and incendiary indeed.

I hope this somehow helps to understand why we do what we do. The underlying principle is always that we try to help people to interact peacefully and respectfully with each other. It's a deliberate choice that we choose to suppress some expressions in exchange for a more harmonious forum. In the end, a forum, and especially this one, revolves around information exchange. We have the firm belief that successful information exchange and conflict are at odds with each other.

The problem with your example is that a photograph that turned people off against the Vietnam war, a political discussion, could be the very essence of the photograph such as that one of the little girl who was burned by Napalm in Vietnam. How can you not discuss that photograph in the terms of the political effect it had on a country?

I think the best way to handle this is just to forbid personal attacks and let discussions go where they may. As long as people are not personally attacking one another then the discussion should be open. Then you don't have to worry about the politics of it. If they personally insult somebody then ban them from that thread for a week or two or some other measure. That'll get their attention and keep the personal attacks down. I think it's the personal attacks that become the problem not the politics per se. At least that's my opinion which of course is political in nature.

 

[nmp]

The problem with your example is that a photograph that turned people off against the Vietnam war, a political discussion, could be the very essence of the photograph such as that one of the little girl who was burned by Napalm in Vietnam. How can you not discuss that photograph in the terms of the political effect it had on a country?

I think the best way to handle this is just to forbid personal attacks and let discussions go where they may. As long as people are not personally attacking one another then the discussion should be open. Then you don't have to worry about the politics of it. If they personally insult somebody then ban them from that thread for a week or two or some other measure. That'll get their attention and keep the personal attacks down. I think it's the personal attacks that become the problem not the politics per se. At least that's my opinion which of course is political in nature.

Except that the intent of this thread titled "How to promote a photography exhibit?" was not about discussing OP's photographs and their impact.

:Niranjan.

 

[koraks]

The problem with your example is that a photograph that turned people off against the Vietnam war, a political discussion, could be the very essence of the photograph such as that one of the little girl who was burned by Napalm in Vietnam. How can you not discuss that photograph in the terms of the political effect it had on a country?

Well, I think if you re-read my post and reflect on it some more, you might reach the conclusion that you can in fact discuss that without being politically normative. And at the same time, the fact that you ask this question and seem to struggle with separating an objective from a normative discussion illustrates precisely why we're not very optimistic about the possibilities of expanding current rules on political discussions

In the end, it's very simple: if everyone is respectful, thoughtful and constructive all the time, then you don't even need to moderate a forum. Given the fact that people aren't like that all the time, especially online, means that you need to draw the line somewhere.

Thanks for your further suggestion concerning personal attacks; this is something we're indeed keen on preventing and perhaps more so than we've been before. Having said that, there's always a grey area of what constitutes a personal attack. I think we're now leaning towards erring on the side of safety a bit more so than we used to.

Except that the intent of this thread titled "How to promote a photography exhibit?" was not about discussing OP's photographs and their impact.

Ah, yes, and the intent of this thread was probably also not to have an in-depth discussion on how this forum is being moderated, which rules apply etc. So I propose that we leave that tangent for now and go back to Paul's expo. I just hope to have shown, and Matt as well, that we think about these things and are prepared to explain why we do what we do. But perhaps a different place is better suited for this kind of thing.

Sorry for participating in hijacking this thread!

 

[MattKing]

In retrospect, I think that we should have moved all this sort of discussion to a new, linked thread in the Feedback and Discussion sub-forum.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does it really matter? I never look at the topics. I only search on new posts and look at their titles and then open those I'm interested in. Who cares what folder they're in? Do people really look by topic? Maybe I should start a discussion thread on this. Where would it go?

 

[koraks]

Alan, Matt's comment is about how this thread moved far away from Paul's project. Shall we allow it to meander back to that, now?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, Matt's comment is about how this thread moved far away from Paul's project. Shall we allow it to meander back to that, now?

Oh sure. Sorry I hijacked it.