Martin Parr or the "Cancel Culture" at work
-
- Thread starter Dali
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon Fe10
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale M-Mount Lenses (Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander)
- Started by Steinberg2010
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale NEW UNUSED FIDELITY 13x18cm boxed, 4 pieces.
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF 4x5 to 13x18cm POLAROID 54 adapter
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
- Status
Any context to what "the spread" is about?
Overall, his "apology" is pretentious and self-serving. If he failed to review the material then he really has no right to demand that the publisher destroy all copies of the publication - unless he is willing to pay for it himself.
Addendum:
Apparently this is what the uproar is about:
https://singularimages.net/2020/07/24/editorial-martin-parr-and-gian-butturinis-london/
Overall, his "apology" is pretentious and self-serving. If he failed to review the material then he really has no right to demand that the publisher destroy all copies of the publication - unless he is willing to pay for it himself.
Addendum:
Apparently this is what the uproar is about:
https://singularimages.net/2020/07/24/editorial-martin-parr-and-gian-butturinis-london/
Last edited:
There is A LOT in play here.
Exactly what do you find disgusting.?
OP
OP
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?
Martin Parr: White, straight, over 50, he checks all the boxes to be a easy traget and he fully accepts it. Who is next?
Last edited:
Yeah...OK.... i am not seeing Anti-White Racism here.
Just a raucous reaction over the pairing of those two photos
I am not sure if the article determined if there were pairings, of other photos "Like That" in the book.
If that is the premise of the whole book or a big part of it, i can understand the outrage.
If it is just those two photos, it seems ridiculous.
A simple Disclaimer/Explanation of the offensive photo pairing would seem to be sufficient.
....that is the way the original photographer published the book,
I am not sure that Mr Parr should share any "Blame" for anything.
The book was assembled in 1969.
Did Mr Parr really have anything to do with the reprinting project, or did he just license his name, or lend it to the new publishers.?
Was he aware of the book at all.?
Did he admire the original photographer, or did he just think he was facilitating the reissue of a book by a dead artist.?
LOTS of censorship in the last few years.
Each case needs unique scrutiny.
MattKing
Moderator
I don't know that I agree with the response, but the pair of photographs that are the subject of the complaint seem to be a particularly awkward attempt to say something valid, with symbols that are inappropriate and imbued with extra meaning that can only be considered callous and, at best, naive.
Martin Parr ought to have instead decried the juxtaposition of the two images and apologized for entirely missing how inappropriate the pairing was.
Martin Parr ought to have instead decried the juxtaposition of the two images and apologized for entirely missing how inappropriate the pairing was.
I can't access that page. Can someone tell in a sentence or two why that book is incriminated?
OP
OP
CMoore,
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tor-of-bristol-photo-festival-over-racism-row
Look closely at what is written:" On Tuesday Baptiste Halliday welcomed the fact Parr would no longer head the festival. “It shows campaigning and criticising can actually dismantle the system,” she said."
Dismantle the system... So the final motive is not to ban an "offensive" association of pictures but is way beyond (the "system"). Yes, I stand by my words: It is anti-White racism.
And to convince you that it is more than Butturini's book: "It also emerged on Tuesday that photography students from the University of the West of England, Bristol, cancelled an end-of-year exhibition at Parr’s foundation.". At this level of cowardice, things speak unfortunately for themselves...
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tor-of-bristol-photo-festival-over-racism-row
Look closely at what is written:" On Tuesday Baptiste Halliday welcomed the fact Parr would no longer head the festival. “It shows campaigning and criticising can actually dismantle the system,” she said."
Dismantle the system... So the final motive is not to ban an "offensive" association of pictures but is way beyond (the "system"). Yes, I stand by my words: It is anti-White racism.
And to convince you that it is more than Butturini's book: "It also emerged on Tuesday that photography students from the University of the West of England, Bristol, cancelled an end-of-year exhibition at Parr’s foundation.". At this level of cowardice, things speak unfortunately for themselves...
Never been a Parr fan, but this is so very obviously a blatant (successful) attempt at scoring cheap social callout points.
And that is on account of both parts.
Martins in forced fake deference and repenance, making the best of something bad.
And that original callouter and the mechaniod gobbling turkey farm choir, in forced fake righteous outrage.
If you read Butturini’s original introduction, how you can end up with the interpretation that he was racist is beyond me.
But that is the problem with people like this, they don’t really read, or want to delve deeper, or use critical thinking.
They are only there for the cheap points.
From the photo alone I can’t see nothing but sympathy and empathy with both beings.
They in some strange way share a fate and momentary position, and in others they couldn’t be more different.
Sure, there is some slight provocation in the pairing, but isn’t that what artists are here for?
I guarantee you that the provocation wasn’t much less, and perhaps a good deal more heartfelt and real back then, than today.
Think about what happened in the twenty years up to 69!
This is not “a book about London” as the original tweet stated.
This is a book about a particular persons view and journey through London.
I’m continually dumbfounded and disappointed in my fellow humans who in recent times fall for, and let themselves be pray to this kind of obvious flimflam.
From Butturini’s intro in his book “London”:
“Of course, I have not photographed the Queen’s Guardsmen, stiff and starchy as plaster statues. I did photograph a black woman, locked in a transparent cage; she was selling tickets for the underground: just a listless prisoner, an immobile island outside of time in the midst of the waves of humanity flowing by and mixing and then spilling aside around her prison of ice and solitude.
I did not photograph the keepers of the Tower or the City bankers with umbrella and bowler hat. I did photograph the Regent’s Park gorilla, which with imperial dignity receives the witticisms and peel thrown at it by its nephews in ties.”
… “London is the capital of an undone empire that’s been put up for sale. The blacks are sad. The blacks are good. The blacks are dignified. I was photographing them in Portobello Road, but they forced me to flee. At Speaker’s Corner, however, I was able to photograph them. On Sundays, they crowd around a box to listen to one of them give them a sweet fairy tale about freedom of equality of racial integration.”
I’d say that if anything it is the “outrage” people who are if anyone implicitly racist, since they make the connections and assume things on behalf of others, without using a modicum of intelligence or research time.
Whether it’s a good book or not, is really besides the point.
The book tells a story of a typical leftist, quite derivative photographer.
A man who tried to call attention to and signal sympathy for “minority groups” as they where viewed by “good” people in the sixties.
If that is “bad”, you would have to erase a huge amount of cultural history like Guess Who's Coming for Dinner, In the Heat of the Night, The Defiant Ones, Uhura in StarTrek etc.
And that is on account of both parts.
Martins in forced fake deference and repenance, making the best of something bad.
And that original callouter and the mechaniod gobbling turkey farm choir, in forced fake righteous outrage.
If you read Butturini’s original introduction, how you can end up with the interpretation that he was racist is beyond me.
But that is the problem with people like this, they don’t really read, or want to delve deeper, or use critical thinking.
They are only there for the cheap points.
From the photo alone I can’t see nothing but sympathy and empathy with both beings.
They in some strange way share a fate and momentary position, and in others they couldn’t be more different.
Sure, there is some slight provocation in the pairing, but isn’t that what artists are here for?
I guarantee you that the provocation wasn’t much less, and perhaps a good deal more heartfelt and real back then, than today.
Think about what happened in the twenty years up to 69!
This is not “a book about London” as the original tweet stated.
This is a book about a particular persons view and journey through London.
I’m continually dumbfounded and disappointed in my fellow humans who in recent times fall for, and let themselves be pray to this kind of obvious flimflam.
From Butturini’s intro in his book “London”:
“Of course, I have not photographed the Queen’s Guardsmen, stiff and starchy as plaster statues. I did photograph a black woman, locked in a transparent cage; she was selling tickets for the underground: just a listless prisoner, an immobile island outside of time in the midst of the waves of humanity flowing by and mixing and then spilling aside around her prison of ice and solitude.
I did not photograph the keepers of the Tower or the City bankers with umbrella and bowler hat. I did photograph the Regent’s Park gorilla, which with imperial dignity receives the witticisms and peel thrown at it by its nephews in ties.”
… “London is the capital of an undone empire that’s been put up for sale. The blacks are sad. The blacks are good. The blacks are dignified. I was photographing them in Portobello Road, but they forced me to flee. At Speaker’s Corner, however, I was able to photograph them. On Sundays, they crowd around a box to listen to one of them give them a sweet fairy tale about freedom of equality of racial integration.”
Whether it’s a good book or not, is really besides the point.
The book tells a story of a typical leftist, quite derivative photographer.
A man who tried to call attention to and signal sympathy for “minority groups” as they where viewed by “good” people in the sixties.
If that is “bad”, you would have to erase a huge amount of cultural history like Guess Who's Coming for Dinner, In the Heat of the Night, The Defiant Ones, Uhura in StarTrek etc.
Last edited:
The Cancel Cultists latches on this kind of insignificant stuff like fleas on a stray dog. It's easier to call Kelloggs a racist company because of a monkey on a box of cereal than going outside manifesting for real social problems.
They feel empowered by these rediculous "crusades" and get to say that they are changing things on Tweeter.
They feel empowered by these rediculous "crusades" and get to say that they are changing things on Tweeter.
This campaign is absolutely ridiculous and unfair. On the other hand, claims of "anti white racism" are even more ridiculous.
The pairing of the two images was bad judgement and insulting. In the 60s, a socially conscious photographer and even more, another one much later, should have been aware of the old racist trope. Is that an argument against re-printing or owning this book? Not at all. I do understand the will to bring down statues of racist figures, which some here will also call "cancel culture". IMHO this is very different. Statues in public places are put there because the figures are considered deserving reverence. A photo book can be valued just for good pictures in it.
The pairing of the two images was bad judgement and insulting. In the 60s, a socially conscious photographer and even more, another one much later, should have been aware of the old racist trope. Is that an argument against re-printing or owning this book? Not at all. I do understand the will to bring down statues of racist figures, which some here will also call "cancel culture". IMHO this is very different. Statues in public places are put there because the figures are considered deserving reverence. A photo book can be valued just for good pictures in it.
Last edited:
You get no argument from me here.
Like i say, this has been e BIG Problem of late.
HUGE Overreaction.
Look at what (similar) students have done to a poor guy named Alex Morse.
Glass House.... Stones.... etc etc
OP
OP
This is not ridiculous at all because the indignation is one-sided and always points to the same culprits. It is not a coincidence.
So you believe a photo in a photo-book like this should be taken at face value?
Even if you are that naive, how can you keep the same stance after having read the preface?
These juxtaposed photos are so obviously trying to say something about society, the human condition and the strata of society.
Whether the message is too on the nose or too maudlin can be discussed. But you’d have to read it like the devil reads the Bible to see racism in this.
The real question is: Why anyone is taking what an eighteen year old says, so damn seriously, and as the unquestionable truth‽
Last edited:
Do I "believe a photo in a photo-book like this should be taken at face value?" It doesn't matter if I do (I don't), it's bad judgement and insulting because it evokes an old racist trope (even if unintentionally so), so is likely to be hurtful to black people. It's really not that hard a concept to understand. I have read the preface and I don't think the photographer is a racist. Nonetheless I consider it bad judgement and insulting. Weird, huh?
OP
OP
You can think whatever you want of the book. It does not give you the right to censor it nor to demand whatever to those involved in its reprint.
You're funny. I didn't censor the book (how could I?) nor demand anything. In fact I wrote earlier "Is that an argument against re-printing or owning this book? Not at all."
I just cast my inconsequential judgement in this thread, for the sake of discussion. Apparently you're one of those who complain they're being censored when in fact they're just facing disagreement. Intruiging.
OP
OP
I have never been censored. Where do you get it from?
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |