Martin Parr or the "Cancel Culture" at work

[grain elevator]

Probably the same place you got my attempt at censorship from.

 

[Colin Corneau]

VERY applicable to visual arts and photography especially:

https://www.theredhandfiles.com/thoughts-on-modern-rock-music/

"However, in the world of ideas the sanctimonious have little or no place. Art must be wrestled from the hands of the pious, in whatever form they may come – and they are always coming, knives out, intent on murdering creativity."

 

[Colin Corneau]

Ironically, one of the best places to get commentary and thoughts on the shrieking harpies of censorship and ersatz outrage is on Twitter (which seems to be home to the vast majority of it). Look up:
https://twitter.com/amolitor99/status/1292490632850583552

https://twitter.com/amolitor99/status/1288897262471454720

 

[Helge]

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?

How do you like this one by Winogrand then

?

These are also from the book:

One of the members of Gian Butturini’s family says it very eloquently, Michele Smargiassi:

‘The complexity of the book and its author would have deserved at least an open discussion that would not simplify what is not simple. But this would have required an effort to read the images that was lacking in this controversy: the willingness to ask oneself if the photographs, which are polysemic images, can have univocal, unwanted, overlapping meanings; to recognize that a disturbing juxtaposition of images is not always a plain affirmation but can include paradox, hyperbole, irony; that the rhetoric of images is not easy to govern, and its deciphering depends on the reader as well as on the author‘.
​

Would you say that literary descriptions of a similar nature, that is satire, poetry or artistic provocation, that taken out of context could be construed as just about anything, including racism, should be banned from now on?
And on top be retroactively banned and scorned forever, for having the gall to exist?

I could think of several pieces of art that would elicit a similar lure to the people determined to get offended.

This whole thing reminds me of certain Islamic fundamentalists who demand special kid glove treatment just because something (drawings, or words) “could hurt theirs, or other feelings”.
“Or else!”
Or the Newspeak of USSR where anything and everything could be twisted for and against anything at the whim of the state.
Scary stuff!

I for one am very offended, perplexed and horrified that extremely important and pertinent issues and causes (like systemic racism and misogyny) are turned into circus sideshows, by people eager to display their mastubatory “goodness” to score easy social capital points.

These things are too important to dilute and wear down in the public consciousness like that. Because of course there is going to be a gigantic backlash at some point in the near future.
Most probably in the form of decided indifference and tiredness.

 

[grain elevator]

Do you mean me specifically? Did you read my first post in this thread, where I clearly positioned myself against censorship?
I believe Butterini as well as Parr were well meaning, not racists, but they made an insensitive mistake. Everything else is your imagination. Does that statement really warrant the fuss you're making?

 

[Helge]

Do you mean me specifically? Did you read my first post in this thread, where I clearly positioned myself against censorship?
I believe Butterini as well as Parr were well meaning, not racists, but they made an insensitive mistake. Everything else is your imagination. Does that statement really warrant the fuss you're making?

Yes it does, because what was attempted was clearly art and not simple documentarism. Art of the deeper kind. Even “higher” art.

Whether he was particularly successful or not matters little.

There was no insensitivity. I’d say on the contrary.
He even singles out the spread discussed as the only one he specifically mentions in his introduction.

What you are advocating is still unwarranted (self) censorship.
There are spreads and pages in the book that are just as provocative, that didn’t get the attention, because it isn’t the flavor of the day to be offended with regards to that.

Parr might have been wise in including a note on the spread because of the current PC climate, but he was in no way obliged to.
Sometimes you should assume a modicum of intelligence in your audience, so as to not offend them by stating the insultingly obvious.

 

[grain elevator]

I don't think the definition of self-censorship underlying here is reasonable. Do you publish everything in the very first way that springs to your mind? I'm sure you don't. All kinds of considerations can be made, and whether something is unnecessarily insulting is one of them. I mean would you publish a juxtaposition of a turd and a picture of the queen of your country? Maybe you'd think first if it isn't too vulgar and yes, insulting. Now add a centuries long history of discrimination into the equation, and there are some arguments with more weight to be made. So if that's self-censorship, then yes, I advocate it. Nonetheless I'm happy we live in a society where we can be so offensive if we choose to (ok I'm not sure about the laws regarding insulting the queen in your country actually). I try not to, and reserve the right to call people out if they do, nothing more.

 

[grain elevator]

Here's another bizarre comparison: In a large number of countries, it's still perfectly legal for a husband to beat his wife, or for parents to beat their children. If a conceptual artist in such a coutry decided to make art that involves actually and non-consensually beating his wife or children, would criticism of that also be advocating self-censorship?

 

[MattKing]

The allegory in the original images make sense. The choice of a gorilla is offensive, and the root of the offense does not assist in the symbolism.
Any other imprisoned entity would have been better.

 

[reddesert]

Racism includes a variety of beliefs and actions based on the idea that people of some ethnicity are inferior.
Criticizing a white person for having done something you don't like is not anti-white racism. Because the issue is what the person did, not the innate characteristics of the person.
One can say the criticism is unfounded or unfair, but calling it "racism" is inappropriate and shows a lack of understanding of what racism is and its effects. In fact, calling it anti-white "racism" is an attempt to shut down discussion, which is a little ironic.

 

[grain elevator]

Oh! I was beginning to like it, being the sole defender of reason (unwashed do-gooder, iconoclast and censor)... very articulate, points well made.

 

[Cholentpot]

Can I finish burning my Tintin books and WB cartoons?

Ideals change. I'm now considered white, my father wasn't when he was born and my grandfather most definitely was not when he stepped off the boat.

If we're going to go back and erase everything let's start with the Democratic Party. Their history is not very nice...

 

[Helge]

I don't think the definition of self-censorship underlying here is reasonable. Do you publish everything in the very first way that springs to your mind? I'm sure you don't. All kinds of considerations can be made, and whether something is unnecessarily insulting is one of them. I mean would you publish a juxtaposition of a turd and a picture of the queen of your country? Maybe you'd think first if it isn't too vulgar and yes, insulting. Now add a centuries long history of discrimination into the equation, and there are some arguments with more weight to be made. So if that's self-censorship, then yes, I advocate it. Nonetheless I'm happy we live in a society where we can be so offensive if we choose to (ok I'm not sure about the laws regarding insulting the queen in your country actually). I try not to, and reserve the right to call people out if they do, nothing more.

I’m reminded of The Beatles and The Sex Pistols “anthems” to the Queen.
Sure there was some outrage, but no one got fired or publicly shamed and character murdered like Parr and others.
This is just a small step from passing a law and sending them to jail.

And yes I do indeed try to keep the essence of my first thoughts when writing something, while naturally honing it and making it more understandable and precise.
As the cliche goes, the first thought is often the right thought.

Being an artist in any medium is something quite different than writing forum posts, articles or essays though.
You are attempting to say “something” (perhaps not one thing but a cluster of more or less vague feelings, emotions and ideas in various ratios) that can not adequately be expressed with words or diagrams.

To address something in a truly new way you often have to surprise attack it from an unexpected angle, and give the spectator a jolt that makes them reconsider fondly held notions and ideas.
That kind of goes implicitly without having to tell it to any reasonably experienced art critic or lover.

There is a huge casm from art of any kind, to being crass and sadistic for its own sake.

That goes double for hurting other living things than yourself physically.
That is a kind of no no in art that has very seldom been successfully crossed.
That goes way back.
Slaughter of animals and murder of humans have often had rituals connected, before and after. But very rarely during.
And almost never has these rituals taken a form of what anyone would call high art, in the modern sense.

Personally inflicted emotional pain can be as bad or worse. But then this isn’t personal and it isn’t meant specifically to insult.

Anyone can claim to have any emotion, and at some point outside of obvious neglect of the needing and pathological “games” we have to say that most of these conflicts are between adults individuals and should stay there.
Conflict is an unavoidable and necessary part of life.

At one and the same time we take emotions and feelings too seriously and not seriously enough.

 

[Helge]

Racists complaining about anti-white racism is peak 2020.

Nah, that’s seems to have been pretty steady for the last many years.
It’s a simple reversal strategy like “all lives matter”.
Missing the point completely on purpose.

 

[pentaxuser]

The allegory in the original images make sense. The choice of a gorilla is offensive, and the root of the offense does not assist in the symbolism.
Any other imprisoned entity would have been better.

Might it be that the photographer was comparing the fate of some members of the human race, usually those in low paid menial work, with the fate of our second nearest relative, the gorilla and saying that for some of our species our freedom has only progressed a little by comparison. She happened to have what looks to be African or Afro-Caribbean ancestry.Had it been any other section of the species known as Homo Sapiens other this in the "cage" she found herself would this have caused the same reaction? I doubt it

We need to know such matters as: Did he deliberately seek out a person of African/ Afro-Caribbean ancestry or was she simply the person he found in what he might term a "cage" and she completed the analogy of the some members of the human race being trapped? I just don't know as do none of us and we cannot ask the question of the person since he is now dead so forming anything like a definite conclusion that this was a deliberately racist picture is impossible.

I get a little worried that what this leads to is that the next time I see two kids in an amusing situation at a neighbour's barbecque and the black British kid is the one eating a banana I need to consider whether I do not take what might otherwise be a good picture and one that the parents might like, simply because he is the one eating the banana and what otherwise would be a superb shot is avoided simply because mindless racist morons at football( soccer) matches used to throw bananas onto the field as the black player was taking a throw-in and making what they thought were gorilla noises.

Either Parr was aware that the photographer was deliberately racist in which case he should never have endorsed the content and should say so and apologise or apologise at the very least for not checking the circumstances of the picture or he believed then that no racist connotation was intended in which case he should say so. What the reporting in the article suggests is that he made a knee-jerk reaction because this is what society expects of him and he will do in the future whatever he thinks will look like due penitence for what he failed to see was wrong. He comes out of this badly whichever way this is examined in my opinion

It is difficult not to make a connection between this and the recent wholly unjustified killing of George Floyd which has resulted in the Black Lives Matter campaign from which some kind of justified sea-change in our examination of racism will hopefully result but in the days of social media we still need to be aware of some people's need to control agendas in ways that may not be justified by the facts.

I fear for the future if we become slaves to any agenda set by others for whom facts, truth and analysis of reasons are a hindrance to their hidden agenda. Such people certainly exist and always have but their influence was limited and is no longer unless we always ask to see the evidence that supports their agenda.

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

The allegory in the original images make sense. The choice of a gorilla is offensive, and the root of the offense does not assist in the symbolism.
Any other imprisoned entity would have been better.

It is not offensive unless you somewhat buy into the racist trope yourself (reacting against something is also acknowledging that there is something to push against).
You are implicitly the cocreator of the racism here.
And that is the “joke”.
At least the part of the image pairs facets contested here.

There is a number of commonalities you could point out.
And some things where they are absolute opposites.

They are both of direct African descent (I know “African” as a concept is naive and broad, but it’s not untrue).

They’ve both been brought here, probably against their will, maybe some generations back, and/or are where they are, out of necessity rather than attraction to the location.

One is there imprisoned by resignation and tiredness (we guess), the other is held by bars.

Those are just a few of the things your mind could dwell upon.

 

[Ariston]

LOTS of censorship in the last few years.
Each case needs unique scrutiny.

For most cases I disagree with this. Censorship is the tool of weak minds, in my opinion. The whole premise of free speech is that objectionable speech must be allowed. Otherwise, what's the point? Tomorrow, cancel culture may decide something you have to say is "objectionable."

There is plenty of art and speech I don't like that is floating around. It has never occurred to me that I should try to get it censored. It is easy enough for me to simply not look at it myself if I don't like it. Why can't others do the same?

 

[Dali]

One can say the criticism is unfounded or unfair, but calling it "racism" is inappropriate and shows a lack of understanding of what racism is and its effects. In fact, calling it anti-white "racism" is an attempt to shut down discussion, which is a little ironic.

So you're blind if you don't see that it's part of a general movement. Again, I quoted what Tuesday Baptiste Halliday said. She is talking about a "system", not a person in particular. What "system" according to you? The "Parr system " or something deeper?

Ariston, I fully agree with your comment.

 

[MattKing]

It is not offensive unless you somewhat buy into the racist trope yourself (reacting against something is also acknowledging that there is something to push against).
You are implicitly the cocreator of the racism here.
And that is the “joke”.
At least the part of the image pairs facets contested here.

There is a number of commonalities you could point out.
And some things where they are absolute opposites.

They are both of direct African descent (I know “African” as a concept is naive and broad, but it’s not untrue).

They’ve both been brought here, probably against their will, maybe some generations back, and/or are where they are, out of necessity rather than attraction to the location.

One is there imprisoned by resignation and tiredness (we guess), the other is held by bars.

Those are just a few of the things your mind could dwell upon.

The problem with the choice made by the photographer is that he chose the symbol that would most likely offend the person whose interests he purports to be sympathetic to.
It is like the furor over blackface.
The use of weird makeup and costumes aren't the problem. It is the historical associations attached to that weird makeup that are the problem.
If you are going to use allegory, don't screw it up by using something that has a whole bunch of other offensive symbolism attached to it.
It was sloppy, insensitive and worth calling out.
And I wouldn't censor it - I would call the photographer out for the symbolism he most likely didn't intend to invoke.

 

[CMoore]

For most cases I disagree with this. Censorship is the tool of weak minds, in my opinion. The whole premise of free speech is that objectionable speech must be allowed. Otherwise, what's the point? Tomorrow, cancel culture may decide something you have to say is "objectionable."

There is plenty of art and speech I don't like that is floating around. It has never occurred to me that I should try to get it censored. It is easy enough for me to simply not look at it myself if I don't like it. Why can't others do the same?

Either you misunderstand my point..... or i yours.
Look at The Trump Haters Thread in the soap box.
My views on their BS has been objected to since day one.
I know all about shaming and being shamed by a group who all share the same closed door views.

I would add that,
BEFORE something is censored, it REALLY Needs to meet some hard and honest criteria.
If people object to the picture in that book so much, then do not buy it or support it.
The book is 50 years old. Retroactive censorship is a BAD Idea in my opinion.
That ONE (two) photo would not stop me from buying the book if i liked most of the pictures.

 

[Helge]

The problem with the choice made by the photographer is that he chose the symbol that would most likely offend the person whose interests he purports to be sympathetic to.
It is like the furor over blackface.
The use of weird makeup and costumes aren't the problem. It is the historical associations attached to that weird makeup that are the problem.
If you are going to use allegory, don't screw it up by using something that has a whole bunch of other offensive symbolism attached to it.
It was sloppy, insensitive and worth calling out.
And I wouldn't censor it - I would call the photographer out for the symbolism he most likely didn't intend to invoke.

Did you even read what I wrote? You are not countering the points or comprehending them.
There was no allegory.
He hit the infested, swollen abscess right on the head, as is the privilege and duty of artists, to make it explode in the spectators head.

 

[grain elevator]

I’m reminded of The Beatles and The Sex Pistols “anthems” to the Queen.
Sure there was some outrage, but no one got fired or publicly shamed and character murdered like Parr and others.

I wrote "unnecessarily insulting", and that, IMHO, was not unnecessary - the taboo needed to be broken. Doing it again today would be mostly pointless. And it's very different from what we're talking about here in that the insulted party was highly privileged, rather than belonging to a discriminated group.
You're wrong claiming the perpetrators of such heinous acts (also thinking of Hendrix and Stars and Stripes here) weren't publicly shamed and character murdered. They were however mostly outside of the bourgeois society already, so it didn't affect them as much as in Parr's case.

This is just a small step from passing a law and sending them to jail.

No.

And yes I do indeed try to keep the essence of my first thoughts when writing something, while naturally honing it and making it more understandable and precise.
As the cliche goes, the first thought is often the right thought.

That's magical thinking and a very lazy way to try to find the best argument... questioning one's own impulses is a good thing!

Being an artist in any medium is something quite different than writing forum posts, articles or essays though.
You are attempting to say “something” (perhaps not one thing but a cluster of more or less vague feelings, emotions and ideas in various ratios) that can not adequately be expressed with words or diagrams.

To address something in a truly new way you often have to surprise attack it from an unexpected angle, and give the spectator a jolt that makes them reconsider fondly held notions and ideas.
That kind of goes implicitly without having to tell it to any reasonably experienced art critic or lover.

Once again you're selling your audience here short. That's all true, but obvious.

There is a huge casm from art of any kind, to being crass and sadistic for its own sake.

That goes double for hurting other living things than yourself physically.
That is a kind of no no in art that has very seldom been successfully crossed.
That goes way back.
Slaughter of animals and murder of humans have often had rituals connected, before and after. But very rarely during.
And almost never has these rituals taken a form of what anyone would call high art, in the modern sense.

You're taking my example too literally. Our argument could be more fruitful if we tried to understand the point the other is trying to make rather than dissecting the irrelevant ways it doesn't work - any analogy is incomplete.

Personally inflicted emotional pain can be as bad or worse. But then this isn’t personal and it isn’t meant specifically to insult.

Anyone can claim to have any emotion, and at some point outside of obvious neglect of the needing and pathological “games” we have to say that most of these conflicts are between adults individuals and should stay there.
Conflict is an unavoidable and necessary part of life.

At one and the same time we take emotions and feelings too seriously and not seriously enough.

I personally think that how something is meant (opens the way to biographical readings and so on, which is boring) usually doesn't matter in art, but that's of course controversial. However here we've started out on this level... oh well.
Contrary to your claims, this is not about individual, particular emotions. This is insulting to a whole group of people, qua history.
MattKing has already expressed it better than I can, but here's another attempt:
The artist is speaking a language of symbols in a way, yes? As everyone of us has experienced especially when speaking a foreign language, one can make mistakes and say something one doesn't mean to say. Something funny, something insulting - if it's grave enough, no-one will care any more what one was trying to say. You think it was intentional, to "give the spectator a jolt that makes them reconsider fondly held notions and ideas". What exactly would these be then? Do you think it's successful? I don't think it as intentional, because it should have been clear to the artist that it doesn't work that way - the hurtful thing comes to the foreground and drowns out all the other layers of the oh so polysemic imagery with all its glorious irony and hyperbole. (And here we can move it away from the teleological level - what matters is how art affects the viewer, in the end how it was meant is irrelevant.) Isn't that the core of our disagreement? Maybe you simply consider the racist trope here much less powerful and hurtful than I do...

 

[MattKing]

Did you even read what I wrote? You are not countering the points or comprehending them.
There was no allegory.
He hit the infested, swollen abscess right on the head, as is the privilege and duty of artists, to make it explode in the spectators head.

I did read it.
The allegory came from the sentient entity behind actual, as compared to figurative, bars.
The choice of a gorilla, instead of a human, or a parrot, or a cat, or any other of a number of equally unoffensive but equally meaningful alternatives is where the offense comes in.
As I said, sloppy.

 

[jtk]

This thread doesn't seem to address any idea that's more significant than the apparent fact that Parr endorsed something he didn't see.

Parr is apparently a fine photographer (I've not seen his work in American galleries). On this thread he's treated as a wounded celebrity.

 

[awty]

I did read it.
The allegory came from the sentient entity behind actual, as compared to figurative, bars.
The choice of a gorilla, instead of a human, or a parrot, or a cat, or any other of a number of equally unoffensive but equally meaningful alternatives is where the offense comes in.
As I said, sloppy.

Thanks for all your rational posts Matt, there are so few in this thread its disturbing.