Martin Parr or the "Cancel Culture" at work

[Colin Corneau]

It’s something that was noticed with the very first social computer network based social media in the seventies and eighties.
Just ask Steward Brand.
A certain kind of people will turn into monsters. People who have weak ability to look into the future and actually imagining bumping into these token objects of hate or generalizations of groups and actually discovering real persons.
People with weak imaginations to see how the future ( including future selves) will react to reading the stuff they wrote.

This is a very good point. I often want to ask the fanatics what their end game is -- what do they envision as their ideal outcome? I suspect there ISN'T one, and you'd get mumbled platitudes at best. It's all about the shouting and self-aggrandizement. You see this in the self-appointed crusaders who, as one poster here put it so well, uses photographers like Parr as disposable booster rockets to their own egos.

The unmistakable comparison I keep seeing in the actions of the Virtue Brigade is the Red Guards of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. And I don't know what one does about fanatics -- they are dangerous precisely because they don't believe rules apply to them because in their minds they have "Good" on their side...the destruction will not stop anytime soon.

 

[Vaughn]

If you believe he hadn’t seen the ramifications and implications of the spread, after having found the book himself, an avid collector and curator of photo books, suggested it for reprinting and being more well versed in thIs genre of photography than just about anyone else...
...Then I have an old tower I want to sell you in Paris.

Actually, I believe that human beings are quite capable of not reconizing the racism in themselves and not realizing how it shapes how they see the world (I include myself). Sometimes it takes a non-literal whack in the head for one to see it. However, he is only 68...time enough to tell how sincere he is. So far my research has not indicated Parr did more than write the essay...thanks for the extra info, but I can still see how he might have had a rather large blind spot concerning the pairing and its the significance to people of color. Reading what the photographer wrote in the book about those two images does not make the water any clearer -- from a white British perspective of the late 60s, he might have even thought he was only equating the lack of freedom of each of the two subjects.

As I mentioned, I like Parr's apology for its straightforward acceptance of his own ignorance and responsibility of its result. I hope that he is sincere. And I hope it is a good lesson for all white artists, editors, etc...that there is no excuse for ignoring, either with intent or through ignorance, the impact of one's work, or one's association with others' work, on people of color. I am sure this ignorance is nothing new and has been with us for centuries, but people of color are finally finding their voices in the white-dominated societies of America and Great Britain and saying no to the ignorance...willful or otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Actually, I believe that human beings are quite capable of not reconizing the racism in themselves and not realizing how it shapes how they see the world (I include myself). Sometimes it takes a non-literal whack in the head for one to see it. However, he is only 68...time enough to tell how sincere he is. So far my research has not indicated Parr did more than write the essay...thanks for the extra info, but I can still see how he might have had a rather large blind spot concerning the pairing and its the significance to people of color. Reading what the photographer wrote in the book about those two images does not make the water any clearer -- from a white British perspective of the late 60s, he might have even thought he was only equating the lack of freedom of each of the two subjects.

As I mentioned, I like Parr's apology for its straightforward acceptance of his own ignorance and responsibility of its result. I hope that he is sincere. And I hope it is a good lesson for all white artists, editors, etc...that there is no excuse for ignoring, either with intent or through ignorance, the impact of one's work, or one's association with others' work, on people of color. I am sure this ignorance is nothing new and has been with us for centuries, but people of color are finally finding their voices in the white-dominated societies of America and Great Britain and saying no to the ignorance...willful or otherwise.

This is how we have a problem. I suppose Trump's head chpped off and bleeding is art and requires no apollogy or public cancellation.

Justice or injustice, tolerance or intolerance is not a one way street. Anyone who refuses to accept this concept is part of the problem. When one wants to be heard, he must listen as well.

Your post is full of hate towards white people and it is just driving the narrative in a wrong direction.

Parr is just a member of the deeply confused house of free riders. When I said earlier Parr does not know which way the wind is blowing, I cut that line short, should have added: but he sure wants to swing in whichever way it is.

Portland - justice or chaos. Or how a black man found a voice, at least according to your post.

 

[Helge]

Actually, I believe that human beings are quite capable of not reconizing the racism in themselves and not realizing how it shapes how they see the world (I include myself). Sometimes it takes a non-literal whack in the head for one to see it. However, he is only 68...time enough to tell how sincere he is. So far my research has not indicated Parr did more than write the essay...thanks for the extra info, but I can still see how he might have had a rather large blind spot concerning the pairing and its the significance to people of color. Reading what the photographer wrote in the book about those two images does not make the water any clearer -- from a white British perspective of the late 60s, he might have even thought he was only equating the lack of freedom of each of the two subjects.

As I mentioned, I like Parr's apology for its straightforward acceptance of his own ignorance and responsibility of its result. I hope that he is sincere. And I hope it is a good lesson for all white artists, editors, etc...that there is no excuse for ignoring, either with intent or through ignorance, the impact of one's work, or one's association with others' work, on people of color. I am sure this ignorance is nothing new and has been with us for centuries, but people of color are finally finding their voices in the white-dominated societies of America and Great Britain and saying no to the ignorance...willful or otherwise.

The images are obviously intended as the whack over the head you speak of.
There is no blind spot. Parr is adept at reading images and photo books.
He even has photos in his own work that are somewhat like this with similar allusions.
There is basically no chance he missed the various connotations and possible interpretations of this pairing.
He basically just chickened out AFAICS (we don’t know if he possibly had other reasons, weak health, work or other stuff that made him say “fuck it! Life’s to short to deal with idiots” etc.).
Under any circumstance he did Butturini and himself a massive disservice, as seemingly these sharks have smelled blood and are hungry for more.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How does this differ when we take street pictures of the homeless, addicts, and the down-and-out?

Snacktime by Alan Klein, on Flickr

 

[Helge]

Let me just try once again:

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.”
​

The spread in question is the only photos he describes and mentiones in the introduction.
That means that it’s probably key to the whole book, and in some perverse way actually warrants the attention, if you where to ask him.

He obviously has nothing but sympathy and generally altruistic feelings toward the woman in the box. He also has nothing but good and sympathetic things to say about the plight of black people in London.
That is obvious by looking at the other photos in the book. But crystal clear by reading the introduction.

 

[pentaxuser]

Helge, post 106 works for me but in my case the door being pushed is already partially open. I wish you luck with those whose doors are not only shut but heavily bolted and I do so with the same level of optimism about it causing them to at least consider if there is room for review as I would have if I was wishing you luck as you began to climb Everest in a wedding suit

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

... But crystal clear by reading the introduction.

I generally agree that the original photographer's intent was most likely benign. But it is only 'crystal clear' to when looked at from a classic white perspective. Read from the perspective of a person of color, it is clear that it carries the taint of historic white privilege and condensation.

 

[Helge]

I generally agree that the original photographer's intent was most likely benign. But it is only 'crystal clear' to when looked at from a classic white perspective. Read from the perspective of a person of color, it is clear that it carries the taint of historic white privilege and condensation.

Let me get this straight:

• If he didn't have any racist allusions in mind with the spread, then he is implicitly racist?
• If he did it specifically to provoke, and infuse and instigate internal mental and public debate, he's straight out racist?
• If he hadn't shown any blacks in a book about the everyday interesting "backside" of London, he would also probably have been deemed non-inclusive and semi racist (though it's always hard to drum up outrage over something that isn't there)?

It's really hard to win this game, isn't it?
The slit of "acceptability" is getting very thin. Unacceptable so, I'd say.
Just the thing an artist wants to play around with.

There will always be a history to anything. You can't avoid it, because to a very large extent we are history.
Trying to put yourself outside history or be "timeless", is impossible and often ends up in you being more "bound" by history than ever before.
Look at the Winogrand photo I posted earlier in the thread, isn't that outrageous too? Wouldn't that warrant at shitstorm of the same magnitude? Or does it really matter that the photo was one shot and not a composition?

I'm also ersatz outraged at you, for suggesting that "people of colour" is one "thing" and that they all share the same sensibility.
The vast majority of "people of colour" that I know and have listened to, are very reflective, nuanced and articulate in their thoughts and words on matters like this.
After all for many of them it is are large part of their lives.

 

[grain elevator]

Appealing to autonomous “better understanding” and deep reading of your opponent in a discussion is cute, but self-defeating.
"Just understand me the right way".
How can you take that seriously?
If you want to say something, say it as clearly as you can, trying (within reason) to anticipate your readers thoughts.

Trying to score points by arguing against straw men (which I was trying to criticize politely) is not conducive to a productive discussion. Sorry, replying to all the points you open up in almost every one of your posts is just too much work and would de-focus the discussion even more (and I don't understand many of the points you were trying to make anyway, even when I do read you post charitably). In your last post, most of what you argue against is conjecture, again.
Quite ironic that you are against the concept of charitable reading (which is considered elementary in academic discourse, even if not always strictly adhered to), when apparently your main gripe is that the artist should be read charitably (even when he was trying to provoke, as you say), taking his good intentions into consideration.
If you can't see the relevant difference between the Winogrand picture and the spread discussed here, you're not trying, as you're obviously not stupid. The criticism of that spread are on the table and obviously doesn't apply to the Winogrand picture. You'll probably repeat your point that it's not your duty to try to understand if you're not spoon-fed the argument, but again, that's simply not how a discussion can be made productive.
I do understand the bad feeling of vulnerability to slander etc., when one had nothing but good intentions, that seems to be a motivation of your argument. Again, you say he was probably trying to provoke, with good intentions. But if it was a provocation, the shitstorm shouldn't have hit unprepared. How can a provocation be real if it doesn't carry the risk to actually offend? If we read it as a provocation, this one just landed on its nose, a risk inherent to provocations. I however think it wasn't well thought through as an artistic provocation.

 

[Dali]

Helge, 100% OK with your last comment (#109). I would write exactly the same post.

 

[Helge]

Trying to score points by arguing against straw men (which I was trying to criticize politely) is not conducive to a productive discussion. Sorry, replying to all the points you open up in almost every one of your posts is just too much work and would de-focus the discussion even more (and I don't understand many of the points you were trying to make anyway, even when I do read you post charitably). In your last post, most of what you argue against is conjecture, again.
Quite ironic that you are against the concept of charitable reading (which is considered elementary in academic discourse, even if not always strictly adhered to), when apparently your main gripe is that the artist should be read charitably (even when he was trying to provoke, as you say), taking his good intentions into consideration.
If you can't see the relevant difference between the Winogrand picture and the spread discussed here, you're not trying, as you're obviously not stupid. The criticism of that spread are on the table and obviously doesn't apply to the Winogrand picture. You'll probably repeat your point that it's not your duty to try to understand if you're not spoon-fed the argument, but again, that's simply not how a discussion can be made productive.
I do understand the bad feeling of vulnerability to slander etc., when one had nothing but good intentions, that seems to be a motivation of your argument. Again, you say he was probably trying to provoke, with good intentions. But if it was a provocation, the shitstorm shouldn't have hit unprepared. How can a provocation be real if it doesn't carry the risk to actually offend? If we read it as a provocation, this one just landed on its nose, a risk inherent to provocations. I however think it wasn't well thought through as an artistic provocation.

Well, look who's criticising the same approach that he started himself in this thread.
Painstakingly going through every point to exhaustion and in minute detail, is usually not my style, or something I let myself get sucke(re)d.
It's a waste of everybody's time and doesn't further anything really.
But I was curious enough to see how far you wanted to go for now.
Where are we on the Schopenhauers strategies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
#8 and #16?
Rediculing me for not making sense, or putting too much time into the discussion, taking it too seriously, while still yourself claiming to be right?
We are definitely nearing the bottom of the pyramid of discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

As I wrote earlier there are multiple ways of understanding and perceiving something, and different aspects and situations in and of life that call for different mentalities and modes of cognition.
It's all about context.
In the middel of crossing the road, is not the time to get philosophical or starting to read a sign.
Same thing with "reading" an artistic image and reading a post on a forum. That calls for different mentalities/mindsets.
Reading a photo or painting is holistic, many meanings and ideas at once. Some clear and others obfuscated or coded.
While reading a didactic/argumentative/reasoning text, calls more for serial logic and symbolic thinking.
But of course you know that.

I think Butturini achieved more or less exactly what he set out to. Look at us...


Edit: The biggest straw men builders are the ones one the "it's racist no matter what" side.
Assuming things and generalising about people, who aren't really being given a fair chance (due to being scared shitless), or can't get the chance (due to being dead) to give a reasoned and full rebuttal, is the definition of building a straw man.

 

[Vaughn]

Let me get this straight:

• If he didn't have any racist allusions in mind with the spread, then he is implicitly racist?
• If he did it specifically to provoke, and infuse and instigate internal mental and public debate, he's straight out racist?
• If he hadn't shown any blacks in a book about the everyday interesting "backside" of London, he would also probably have been deemed non-inclusive and semi racist (though it's always hard to drum up outrage over something that isn't there)?

We are all racist to some degree. We were brought up in racist societies and are part of those societies. It can not be helped. There might be a few individuals that can rise above their upbringing and break totally free of their racism. The rest of us need to constantly work at not letting our racism negativily affect others and not feeding into the racism of our society.

So yes, the photographer is racist...or perhaps more nicely put, has racist tendencies. The pairing in question from a white perspective is questionable...from a black perspective, beyond questionable.

I hear a lot of white people telling people of color what is racist and what is not. I find that quite racist.

 

[AndyH]

We are all racist to some degree. We were brought up in racist societies and are part of those societies. It can not be helped. There might be a few individuals that can rise above their upbringing and break totally free of their racism. The rest of us need to constantly work at not letting our racism negativily affect others and not feeding into the racism of our society.

So yes, the photographer is racist...or perhaps more nicely put, has racist tendencies. The pairing in question from a white perspective is questionable...from a black perspective, beyond questionable.

I hear a lot of white people telling people of color what is racist and what is not. I find that quite racist.

+1

Personally, I value anything that helps me see things from another viewpoint, especially one that's not from the view of the dominant culture that I'm a part of.

Andy

 

[Dali]

Vaughn, if, according to you, everyone is racist (except a few saints), so, yes, the photographer is racist (tautology). So what? What are these defenders of their "law" the name of? Don't they see themselves above others for doing so? Do they have any legitimacy to do so? How are they representative of the whole of a minority, so to speak in its name?

You could also say that to reduce the essence of man to his race is in itself racist ... but odd thing, it seems to apply in one direction but not in the other ... find the error!

 

[Vaughn]

I made no implication that anything was one direction. We are all racists. 'We' as in everyone. However, what differs is the power to enforce one's racism over others...that has been the the US since day one with the establisment of slavery in the colonies and beyond.

I do not critizise others for using legitimate means to fight back against past and ongoing injustices. And as a white man, I do not tell people of color what racism is or what is not. As part of the oppressing class, I do not tell the oppressed if it hurts or not...I'll take their word for it.

 

[Dali]

Unlike you, I do not believe their word as more legitimate than mine. Oppressive class ... It sounds low-level Marxism to my ears. This speech has been heard since decolonization with the results we all know. But I forgot, it's the white man's fault no matter what.

 

[Vaughn]

But you do not seem to be taking it as legit at all.

Racism applied is oppression. It is pretty low-level simplicity...as most truths are.

 

[Helge]

I made no implication that anything was one direction. We are all racists. 'We' as in everyone. However, what differs is the power to enforce one's racism over others...that has been the the US since day one with the establisment of slavery in the colonies and beyond.

I do not critizise others for using legitimate means to fight back against past and ongoing injustices. And as a white man, I do not tell people of color what racism is or what is not. As part of the oppressing class, I do not tell the oppressed if it hurts or not...I'll take their word for it.

What you are talking is not racism. It’s just for lack of better word xenophobia, combined with attraction and curiosity towards the exotic.

It’s a big part of what makes us human. What makes toddlers love old people, what makes us attracted to the opposite sex, what makes some strangers attractive and others repulsive, with possible reversal ensuing.

Racism is singling out people of a specific nationality or haplogroup, and making their lives suck by treating them worse.

As people we are made/evolved to treat people differently depending based on how they look, that can never, and never should be avoided.

You could say that humans to a large extent invented personality. It’s a huge part of what makes us successful as a species.

What matters is the kind and the amount of treating different.

We have an instant visceral reaction that can be measured, when we see a person with looks we are not used to, or a person with traits we want or fear.
That’s something very deep in humans and something that can be turned to good or bad.

If you are a reasonably intelligent person (which can sometime be hard to self-judge due to the Dunning Kruger effect) your ideas on racism and what to do about it has as much worth as anyone else’s in the mean if the population. Racism takes at least two parties.
Being at the wrong end of something bad doesn’t make you an expert.
Often the contrary. You often begin to lack perspective and become myopic.

When I was in DC last November I got a unique insight (for me) into the “racial” (the very word “race” is scientifically wrong and rubs me all kinds of against the my hairs when I hear it) problems in the US.
DC is a city composed of almost equally black and white people. And being the capital, it should uphold the moral high-ground, that the rest of country should strive for.
But like the London of the sixties, eighty percent of menial low status jobs are held by blacks.
Something which gives an atmosphere that is tacit knowledge for most Americans, but is hard to convey through pop culture to other parts of the world.
Among most black people there, there is feeling of what I best can describe as a deep inner core of angriness, that was almost palpable in person, but strangely not something you can really describe adequately with words.

It made a lot of things click for me that I have wondered about all my life.
And also raised a number of new questions for me.

 

[Vaughn]

No, in the US it goes beyond xenophobia...there has been a constant racist pressure against black Americans. Nixon's War on Drugs has been reconized as an anti-black campaign....admitted by one of his aids at the time. Probably against us poor hippies, too. Hard to get a job in gov't, or a job at all with a felony drug charge for a couple joints. Pretty dang effective.

Hispanic kids -- toss them in cages. They are not white. The US is a racist country. We just taught a generation of kids that it is okay to treat other children like dogs if they are of a different race.

Racism has its roots in xenophobia. All racism is xenophobia, but not all xenophobia is racist...would be the way I look at it.

 

[MattKing]

Racism is singling out people of a specific nationality or haplogroup, and making their lives suck by treating them worse.

Not necessarily.
It is most likely racist to single out people of a specific nationality or "haplogroup" and, based on that differentiation, treat them differently.
The essence of the evil is that treatment needs to be deleterious or prejudicial for it to be wrong.
But there is a whole range of behaviors that aren't clearly prejudicial, or aren't obviously deleterious, and they make the issue really difficult.
If someone, relying on a stereotype, seeks out someone of a particular race for a particular reason, are they being racist, showing their ignorance, or making their choices based on statistical probabilities.
I am a Caucasian male in my 60s. I accept no blame for things I haven't personally done, but I'm prepared to share a societal responsibility to help correct and redress past wrongs and the current ramifications of them.
I still think that the two page spread is objectionable, and ought to have been done differently, but I am quite happy for the redress to be in the nature of very public criticism rather than censoring it - at least after it is published and distributed.

 

[Dali]

Racism applied is oppression. It is pretty low-level simplicity...as most truths are.

It's too simple to be true... like most things in life, unless your reasoning is limited to slogans that are the exact opposite of critical thinking.

 

[Vaughn]

It is true because it is a simple fact. It is not a slogan

 

[Colin Corneau]

The vexing issue isn't taking racial equality or the reality of what faces POC even today...far far too often it's the people who anoint themselves (loud) spokespersons on the issue that repels many who'd otherwise be receptive to the message.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Actually, I believe that human beings are quite capable of not reconizing the racism in themselves and not realizing how it shapes how they see the world (I include myself). Sometimes it takes a non-literal whack in the head for one to see it. However, he is only 68...time enough to tell how sincere he is. So far my research has not indicated Parr did more than write the essay...thanks for the extra info, but I can still see how he might have had a rather large blind spot concerning the pairing and its the significance to people of color. Reading what the photographer wrote in the book about those two images does not make the water any clearer -- from a white British perspective of the late 60s, he might have even thought he was only equating the lack of freedom of each of the two subjects.

As I mentioned, I like Parr's apology for its straightforward acceptance of his own ignorance and responsibility of its result. I hope that he is sincere. And I hope it is a good lesson for all white artists, editors, etc...that there is no excuse for ignoring, either with intent or through ignorance, the impact of one's work, or one's association with others' work, on people of color. I am sure this ignorance is nothing new and has been with us for centuries, but people of color are finally finding their voices in the white-dominated societies of America and Great Britain and saying no to the ignorance...willful or otherwise.

I think this is a reasonable reading of the situation. Parr is a person of longstanding reputation and integrity, and he’s able to recognize that, not thinking about it, he contributed to a racist discourse.

There’s intentional racism, for which individuals should be sanctioned, but there’s also structural racism, for which the guilty parties are no longer around, but of which some are beneficiaries and others are victims. Those of us who are beneficiaries have a responsibility to try to make the world more egalitarian through cultural, political, and legal change. Parr’s apology is a small step along that path.