top of page
Search

FMP Cesuur

  • HildeMaassen
  • Sep 17, 2020
  • 3 min read

Updated: Sep 18, 2020

Yesterday evening we were discussing the news on Martin Parr and Erik Kessels.


Starting with Martin Parr who wrote an introduction in a republished book from 1969 called "London" by the Italian photographer Gian Butturini. The publicity is on a portrait of a black woman who worked as a ticket inspector on the London Underground, published next to a picture of an imprisoned gorilla at London Zoo. It is said to be racism. I get the reaction but what was the intent of the photographer. When I read that is was a statement by the photographer that the lady was was treated worse than the monkey in the zoo and was therefore also imprisoned just in a different way, I understand the symbolism and it was the intent of the photographer to show that black matters and how the lady was seen by the white people.


I don't think that in a book that is republished the order has to be changed or a page has to disappear. To make such a page disappear would be falsification of history and the concealment of an event, or selection choice that in itself would also evoke comment.


Of course it is not smart that is was completely overlooked and not mentioned is the introduction.

Gian Butturini. 1969. London, spread from the book


"Destroy my Face" by Erik Kessels.

The work consists of sixty digitally composed, each printed 4x4 meter, photos of fictional people who have undergone cosmetic surgery. Placed on a skater amp so that they can drive over those photos leaving them full of scratches and dents and slowly decaying. “As easily as the faces were once made beautiful, they are so easily destroyed,” says a description of the work. The intent is to show what cosmetic surgery can do and start a dialogue on self acceptance.


The criticism came from two sides: an anonymous collective that called itself "We are not a playground" appeared online. Festival and artist were accused of provoking violence against women. The other one where the sponsers. The petition against the work has been co-signed by Dutch artists, students and teachers.


Seeing the work, I think and hope nobody thinks this are real portraits of existing women. At most in games you see these kinds of faces, although I sometimes have students who have their lips filled with silicone in a way that it is painful to look at. Apparently there is a line that artists are not allowed to cross. Should art not hurt or raise questions and criticize? This is basically the same as what happened in the case of Martin Parr. This may mean that artists have to practice (self) censorship.


According to Kessels, the work was intended as a mirror for society, which is only about appearance. According to him, it is about showing the transience of beauty and accepting natural decay. Erik Kessels “We live in a very strange era of cancel culture. People no longer keep a critical distance to see what a work is really about, but immediately have an opinion.”


That is what I recognize with the radicalization of society, it is increasingly important to pay attention to what you say and do. By making a mistake you can be forever ruined. Corona seems to make that worse. People see one side and don't try to see the other.


I am so happy that we have a mayor in Rotterdam with a Moroccan background because he can say things that someone with a native background cannot say. That in itself however, is a sign.


During a talk this week Eddy Wessels, a documentary photographer said something the same. He takes the time at least a couple of days before judging the images before bringing them out in the world. In these times people publish images all the time immediately without a context without thinking and everything is judged in the same way by the viewers.

References

Comments

Hilde3_148.jpg

© 2019 by Hilde Maassen 

  • Facebook Clean Grey
  • Twitter Clean Grey
  • LinkedIn Clean Grey
bottom of page