Martin Parr or the "Cancel Culture" at work

[Dali]

What is disturbing is the unconditional acceptance of a justice of social networks and other minorities which as such believe they can defy all logic and rewrite reality in the light of their own ideology. What is disturbing is to see that Stochkholm syndrome is so common among our contemporaries.

The irony here is that Martin Parr is a victim of what he believes in.

 

[AgX]

What has the Stockholm Syndrome to do with this all? I do not see the slightest link.

 

[Dali]

So you are blind, my friend.

 

[pentaxuser]

So you are blind, my friend.

I think the poster was asking a genuine question about what the Stockholm link is here and I must admit that I do not know either. So as someone asking a genuine neutral question: Can you please explain your analogy with the Stockholm syndrome

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Dali]

Not only is he unfairly accused of approving a racist approach but instead of humbly acknowledging an error in judgment (which would already have to be proven), he asks that the book be withdrawn from the sale and his fees be paid. has a charity.

In fact, he totally approves of what's happening to him. Hence my conclusion: Either Martin Parr is extremely stupid, or he overreacts as people with Stockholm syndrome would.

It's a bit the same thing that we see today with ethical groups being globally indicted for faults that they individually did not commit (do you have a slave owner among your acquaintances? Not me) but who find it normal and in some cases ask for more. Look at recent history and you will find a striking resemblance to the "re-education" of the masses under Mao Zedong ... Outside of democratic legitimacy, people are socially and professionally indicted, required to prove their repentance and allegiance to a social order imposed by a minority. At the time, it was seen as repression occurring in China. Today, in Western countries, it seems normal and even welcome.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the Stockholm explanation. I can see why you used it but I am not really sure it fits exactly. It just seems to me that his was a knee-jerk reaction because he felt that was expected of him. He looked at the wave of emotion triggered by the killing of George Floyd and decided that it was a wave that could seriously damage his reputational and likely his financial health as well if he attempted to defend his original position which depending on what he knew about the photographer's intention was either indefensible or needs Marin Parr to defend his original position because he knew that this was not an attempt by the photographer or himself in endorsing the book to cast racist aspersions.

pentaxuser

 

[jtk]

I think the poster was asking a genuine question about what the Stockholm link is here and I must admit that I do not know either. So as someone asking a genuine neutral question: Can you please explain your analogy with the Stockholm syndrome

Thanks

pentaxuser

Stockholm Syndrome is a pop-psychological term referring to purported emotional bonding by someone to the people who hold him/her captive.

Her lawyer claimed Patty Hearst bonded to the people who held her captive. Her alibi was Stockholm Syndrome.. the term was used to justify her crime.

 

[AgX]

So you are blind, my friend.

You better not use a term erroneously than to call instead another blind.

As Pentaxuser pointed out, here is no intimate situation during a crime, but instead a person is pulled into public with allegations. And seemingly adapts to outside social pressure. And in case it is not a daptation but sincere feeling of misbehaviour, the situation is still completely different from back then in Stockholm.

 

[Dali]

pentaxuser, of course it does not fit exaclty but it gives you the flavor of how I see the situation. I fully understand your last comment which seems logical: To me, what is not logical is Parr's reaction as it is the best way to encourage other "insulted" people to take social action outside of any democratic boundaries. To me, it is a clear regression.

 

[Dali]

Looks like I am not the only one to make some ideological connections about what happened to Parr and the way he accused himself... https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/27/the-cancellation-of-martin-parr/

And I don't see how someone would disagree with the conclusion of the article...

 

[Colin Corneau]

Martin Parr last week, Magnum this week...let's start a betting pool on who the Woke Folk direct their righteous Twitter anger on next. I'm calling Bruce Gilden, first week of September.

 

[jtk]

Martin Parr last week, Magnum this week...let's start a betting pool on who the Woke Folk direct their righteous Twitter anger on next. I'm calling Bruce Gilden, first week of September.

I don't care much about the fantasy politics of this, but I do think it's terrible that this celebrity photographer (reportedly) endorsed without having viewed.

 

[reddesert]

This thread reads like a number of people who have been in a dominant position are upset that people who previously could not get their voices heard, now have the temerity to criticize them openly.

To be a champion of free speech also means needing to weather criticism if other people direct it at you - it's their right to speak. Sometimes it's warranted. We all have blind spots and have said or done things that were hurtful to other people. Culture changes, meaning that jokes, allusions, and words that were marginally acceptable (or at least tolerated) when I was a child are no longer acceptable. In fact, they never were OK, but forty years ago the people whom the gibes were directed at were not as free to object.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Martin Parr last week, Magnum this week...let's start a betting pool on who the Woke Folk direct their righteous Twitter anger on next. I'm calling Bruce Gilden, first week of September.

Twitter is very much a mixed bag. I do spend some time there but have become increasingly cautious of social media.

 

[Colin Corneau]

This thread reads like a number of people who have been in a dominant position are upset that people who previously could not get their voices heard, now have the temerity to criticize them openly.

To be a champion of free speech also means needing to weather criticism if other people direct it at you - it's their right to speak. Sometimes it's warranted. We all have blind spots and have said or done things that were hurtful to other people. Culture changes, meaning that jokes, allusions, and words that were marginally acceptable (or at least tolerated) when I was a child are no longer acceptable. In fact, they never were OK, but forty years ago the people whom the gibes were directed at were not as free to object.

"Making assumptions and blanket judgements are wrong -- and so here's some I'm going to make to prove it!"

Let's not mistake warranted criticism and receptivity to alternate ideas (good things, we agree) with the new sanctimonious Woke puritanism that hijacks issue after issue and obliterates debate (which is needed to refine and improve societal ideas) in favour of cancellation.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

The truth of history is being called into question. Easy as there's no one to refute the second guessing. That's not to excuse the mistakes (and downright viciousness of some) of our predecessors but as it will leave us nothing to refer to in the future how will we stop making the same mistakes? One only needs to look at the blight of ultra right wing activities occurring in Germany.

 

[Dali]

reddesert, when a photographer publishes a book explaining his approach, everyone is free to like it or not, there is no obligation one way or the other.

On the other hand, when a student says she is shocked by this book, we are asked to believe her, to consider her as the expression of the truth and to make amends.

A 20-year-old student who spends 18 months attacking a photographer is not for me the exact image of freedom of expression but rather the tangible proof of an ideology at work. When we see how this ideology views freedom of speech as a one-sided right, one can consider your comment as inappropriate.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

https://www.martinparr.com/apology/

Disgusting.

Just another idiot in the packed crowd.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Unbelievable! I'm glad Parr got canceled for being involved in this reprint. If you want to be upset about something, it's the racism in this book and the photography world elites who help spread it.

Yeah right, let's just burn all history books because that will really erase it for good and make us all so much better for it. Also, let's crucify all who dared to participate in their reprints, boycott print shop which put them on paper, burn down headquarters of the publisher, and hang the editor while at it. Yeah, so much better. Yeah, it is sarcasm. As for you, you can hide, or ... chose to learn from history as that is the only way to right a wrong, when there was one.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The fact that Martin Parr does not assume his opinions and under criticisms from thin skin ideologues shows a clear submissiveness to anti-white racism. Who is this Mercedes Baptiste Halliday? A noboby who was "totally disgusted and outraged" by Butturini's book. If everyone on earth being "totally disgusted and outraged" by anything in life shall get such attention, things are going to be quickly unmanageable: Close all the museums, don't dare to edit a book, don't post a picture or write an article on the internet, don't even plan an exhibition, high chance you get in trouble as you will always find someone "totally disgusted and outraged" in front of you. A new censorship age is born and I am disgusted to see how it is fully approved by those who should defend culture and history.

Martin Parr: White, straight, over 50, he checks all the boxes to be a easy traget and he fully accepts it. Who is next?

The hypocrisy of this "movement" is simply astonishing. The fact that some diploma wise educated people are big part of it only tells me that things changed. Going to get a degree used to mean getting smarter, more logical, have better grasp of why humanity converged and diverged off an on as history played itself out. Now it appears the higher the degree on the wall, the higher the level of lunacy.

There has been so many "artists", widely published, with truly disgusting work in the past and not a peep anywhere, certainly no public lynching. Now the very specific targeted "disgust" is on front pages wherever you look and when you see it, you than look at your last drink just to be sure you're not hallucinating.

 

[pentaxuser]

Why are you defending art world elites who perpetuate racism?

I thought we were trying to establish whether the picture was deliberately racist and there were some grounds to conclude that it may not now be possible to establish this

I admit I am assuming that you believe this particular photo is an example of art world elites who perpetuate racism in present times which may be an unwarranted assumption on my part. If so who is principally to blame? The photographer or Martin Parr or are both equally guilty . Was it deliberate or simply a case of not being aware of the connotations that might be made in your opinion?

Can you say who these art world elites are currently?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[perkeleellinen]

Years ago I commissioned a tutor to design a course for undergraduates tentatively called 'Banned Art' - it would look at things like Degenerate Art in the 1930s and more modern stuff like 'Piss Christ' and the Sensation exhibition (1997). The idea was to get students debating and thinking through different perspectives. This incident is a good case study that could very well have made it into the course. In the end the course never ran, the tutor did a lot of work on it but he wanted to look at satirical cartoons of holy figures which gained the attention of risk management types and we never got out of that process.

 

[warden]

Years ago I commissioned a tutor to design a course for undergraduates tentatively called 'Banned Art' - it would look at things like Degenerate Art in the 1930s and more modern stuff like 'Piss Christ' and the Sensation exhibition (1997). The idea was to get students debating and thinking through different perspectives. This incident is a good case study that could very well have made it into the course. In the end the course never ran, the tutor did a lot of work on it but he wanted to look at satirical cartoons of holy figures which gained the attention of risk management types and we never got out of that process.

That sounds like an excellent class.

 

[Colin Corneau]

From the acerbic observant RoguePhoto on (ironically) Twitter:
"The only modern way to do social commentary is to pick a side; set the other side up as a monster; and annihilate the monster as loudly and as violently as possible....
In modern theory, inviting conversation is tantamount to capitulation. If you let "them" in, pretty soon it's Nazis everywhere. You cannot permit a toehold. No conversation."

https://twitter.com/amolitor99/status/1296442979318734849?s=20

 

[Colin Corneau]

A clear headed, objective accounting of the story:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/cultuur-m...grace-after-being-accused-of-racism~ba5a826c/

Note how the 20 year old refused to respond to an invitation to speak and work with Parr on the issue, had her father field media queries and overlooked salient and relevant facts about Parr's actions.