Natchwey, Webb, Magnum photos pulled from public exhibition

[lynnb]

Photos by Magnum and other well known photographers have been pulled from Sydney's Vivid festival because they were deemed too confronting - see article here.

The images, which were to be on public display, were pulled at the last minute. The article linked above contains a gallery of 34 images that have been pulled. While some of them may be confronting for young children, I cannot see why others were excluded. There is no mention in the article whether organisers considered an alternative venue for the images deemed too confronting for public consumption.

 

[L Collins]

God forbid anyone is offended.

 

[wilonstott]

What tripe.

 

[redisburning]

''We just don't want violence, dead people or anything that could distress people. In that public domain area it's about entertainment and engagement.''

nothing to see here folks 🙄

btw, the article says that it was the NSW government that censored the images...

 

[johannielscom]

Pretty pathetic.

If it were some of my images that were censored by the NSW government, I would have pulled them all.

The approach on the series depicting the aftermath of the bush fires is scarily narrow-minded. Those same images might help people come to terms with loss and regret.

I'd say a sign warning for distressing images at the entrance should be enough for a public area. Alternatively, these government folks should organize a Hello Kitty exhibition, nice and safe for anyone...

 

[Rodchenko]

Yes, they are images of disturbing scenes and events. That's one reason why Magnum photographers made these images. It's called reportage. If the citizens of NSW need protecting from real life, that's very sad. These images have the power to get people to do something to change the disturbing situations which produced them, and I'd rather that people came out unsettled and wanting to improve our world than cosied with a bunch of - thanks for the phrase - Hello Kitty images.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

If the citizens of NSW need protecting from real life, that's very sad.

I think we need to remember that freedom means the right to say "no". To berate the festival organisers for invoking that right begins to sound like the opposite of freedom.

 

[bojanfurst]

Because god forbid the citizens engage for once with the actual issues plaguing this world. What utter nonsense.

 

[paultreacy]

The mind boggles.
- Paul.
http://paultreacy.com
http://twitter.com/photohumourist

 

[redisburning]

I think we need to remember that freedom means the right to say "no". To berate the festival organisers for invoking that right begins to sound like the opposite of freedom.

the article said it was a NSW government decision...

and if they wanted to reject the photos, that's one thing. to accept them and then pull them right before they went on display is just major d-bag territory even if they had made the decision themselves.

 

[nikon_sam]

Sad..................................

 

[regularchickens]

The very definition of kitsch. Why even bother putting on a reportage show if all you want to do is promote tourism to your region with beautiful postcard images?

 

[johannielscom]

I think we need to remember that freedom means the right to say "no". To berate the festival organisers for invoking that right begins to sound like the opposite of freedom.

The right to say 'no' is indeed resting with the festival organizers, not with a government that decides on their behalf. In this case, the government deemed the photographs distressful and disallowed their exhibition. Or am I reading this incorrectly?


In any case, the people say 'no' by not attending the exhibition.

A governments course of action would be to put forward a law that bans similar exhibitions. In which case the people can endorse them by voting for them at elections, or vote otherwise and rid themselves of censorship, should they so desire.

 

[sanmich]

I would love there reaction to a Mapplethorpe retrospective

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Well, it seems to me that the trend of this thread is that the festival organisers, whether at the behest of the NSW government or not, should not be allowed to make a decision on what to show and what not to show.

I strongly disagree with that view but will, like Voltaire, defend to the death the right to express it.

 

[regularchickens]

They can show what they like, but we are free to question their motives in ever organizing a reportage festival in the first place, free to discuss the conflict of interest present between the festival organizers and the overseeing government organization, and free to consider their decisions to be in poor taste.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you hide reality maybe it'll go away.

 

[lynnb]

I would love there reaction to a Mapplethorpe retrospective

LOL 🙂. And another ten characters.

 

[zauhar]

Lynn, you Aussies are sensitive souls, I think this is all for your own good. ;-)

Seriously, in a separate thread an RFFer felt compelled to apologize for posting a photograph that included a swastika in it (an image of some historical exhibit I guess).

Remarkable to see people maintaining a pretense of fragile, flowerlike sensitivity, their souls like delicate little forest creatures, all the while we are descending into Mad Max World.

Randy

 

[Richard G]

As often happens, the newspaper article presents too little for me to judge. There is mention of a big screen in a public area for a festival which goes broader than reportage photography. It looks to me that deciding not to show crowds of people dead bodies on a big screen when those people brought children for ice-cream and a view of the harbour was a good decision. Why the photographs could not have been in an exhibition space reserved for those choosing to see them is not clear. NSW doesn't have the most admirable censorship record, bu I wouldn't be calling Australians too delicate just yet. The nanny state is strong here partly because it's possible, but there are worse places for that.