Natchwey, Webb, Magnum photos pulled from public exhibition

My question isn't why the photos were removed. My question is why the photographers aren't removing what's left. It's not like they or Magnum need the work.
 
Richard G said:
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.
Click to expand...


My reflex might be to agree with them in that case - but then again, why must a public venue require the visual equivalent of hotel art?

I was of course kidding about Aussies being delicate. And I really don't think the censors are delicate either, this simply represents a new strategy for keeping other people in check.

Randy
 
I was struggling to see the problem with quite a few of the images, no more shocking than stuff you'd see on the front of a newspaper.

I'm not entirely surprised though, it's easier to ignore a difficult issue than to acknowledge it.

It's a real shame, as some of those photos are really fantastic.

Censorship is widespread in Aus., there are a lot of banned video games here, maybe I'm accustomed to video game violence, but some of the banned games would barely get a shoulder shrug from me. I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
 
who cares if people bring their kids. sometimes a shocking image can be a powerful force for good.

think about what happened when the US started showing photos of the dead bodies of young soliders in Vietnam. had we done that in Iraq we would have been out of there 5 years earlier. if you dont, to some degree, use your public venues to shock people into doing the right thing by forcing them too look, then people will just ignore it and things go on unchanged indefinitely.

I really want to know which agency or bureau or ministry or whatever made this decision and whether this was a suggestion or a threat.
 
Confronting? Entertainment? I guess images of Lindsay Lohan or J-Lo or some other celebs baring their chests would be fine.
 
mugent said:
I was struggling to see the problem with quite a few of the images, no more shocking than stuff you'd see on the front of a newspaper.
Click to expand...

Unless it is an Aussie newspaper that is...

I lived and worked as a freelance PJ in OZ for 5 months while traveling abroad for a year in 2001. Most of the work I did was either for AFP or magazines stateside. When I did apply for some freelance work at a large paper in Brisbane and showed my work, the editor loved it but said "Ah mate, great stuff, I wish we could shoot that here but truth be told, all these codgers want is ribbon cutting ceremonies, biz briefs and all warm and fuzzy"....

The Australian journalism industry is heaped with strange overtones, so I am not surprised that that NSW would pull this crap....
 
What they are saying is that some photos are not appropriate for this particular venue. It's a public space and a community festival. Obviously the decision is woefully late, but the hue and cry of censorship seems unfounded. I don't see the big deal.

John
 
johnwolf said:
What they are saying is that some photos are not appropriate for this particular venue. It's a public space and a community festival. Obviously the decision is woefully late, but the hue and cry of censorship seems unfounded. I don't see the big deal.

John
Click to expand...

because we decided quite a while ago that in civilized countries the government ought not be able to dictate what is and is not appropriate in regards to freedom of speech where it does not cross into threats or the maliciously untrue.

words and images, with some exceptions as covered above, can not cause immediate harm without context being provided by the audience. ergo, there is no justification for the control of them.
 
According to news reports, ALL of the photos are being exhibited in the indoor installations. The concern is large screen projection of some images in an outdoor public space. Look at the upbeat and celebratory tone and intention of the Vivid festival and the decision seems sensible. There's a time and place for everything. Any management of public space involves such decisions.

John
 
johnwolf said:
According to news reports, ALL of the photos are being exhibited in the indoor installations. The concern is large screen projection of some images in an outdoor public space. Look at the upbeat and celebratory tone and intention of the Vivid festival and the decision seems sensible. There's a time and place for everything. Any management of public space involves such decisions.

John
Click to expand...

PLease do not ruin a great reason to be angry with facts :D
 
Could it be the government pulled the photos because they could make people wonder why that same government hadn't been better prepared to combat the fires? It might be a matter of taste - at least that's what they'll tell the public - but no government likes to see text or photographs that make that government look inept.
 
Had they pulled these images saying photos of other people's dead bodies and misery, without the consent of their families and for the mass schadenfreude consumption of western audience is inappropriate, I might sympathies, but their current explanation seems strange.
 
Magnum photographers have lots of pictures that could be considered "art" photography as opposed to shock-value war reportage.

I would agree its completely within the venue's right to present work it deems appropriate to its intended audience.

This could have been avoided by the organizer requesting an edit in an earlier timeframe.

I think the litmus test might include, "If it's displayed to the general public, it should be acceptable to the general public." I love reportage, find war photography powerful, think nudity in art is acceptable...but I wouldn't expect any of it on display at a festival that I'd take my wife and daughters to.
 
The boss had no qualms withdrawing the photos...the curator was upset. Typical example of failing management. They should both be fired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom