What makes images controversial?
Think what you will about the World Cup (football, as played with the feet, as opposed to the type you, er, don’t), but it has spawned a couple of interesting discussion in the media world - most recently, about Wayne Rooney, posing Jesus-style, whilst painted in the St George’s cross.
I couldn’t give two pence about football, but the discussion extremely interesting to me - I started to think about why a photo can become controversial, even if its separate elements are relatively inoffensive.
Interestingly enough, I soon stumbled across an article on PhotographyBLOG, which deals exactly with the issue.
What makes an image controversial? Apparently daubing a famous footballer with red paint and having him shout at the camera will do it. But what else? In recent times different images have had a similar effect. Take Jason Bell’s cover shot of Kate Winslet for GQ. When it hit the newsstands the media whipped themselves up into a frenzy. The reason? Curvy Kate’s legs had suddenly slimmed down thanks to some fast Photoshop work courtesy of the magazine’s art team. On that occasion the photographer was as surprised as everyone else and it opened up the whole digital is the devil debate.
But what about if, like the Rooney picture, it is the content which is considered controversial? Dutch photographer Erwin Olaf is known for his inflammatory imagery. The award-wining image maker has in the past depicted children in black PVC bondage gear (using a child mannequin with the eyes later inserted in Photoshop) and for Royal Blood he had a Princess Diana look-alike splattered with blood and a BMW badge imbedded in her arm. The photograph is stunning, beautifully shot and thought-provoking, but also highly provocative and some think distasteful.
Interesting thoughts indeed - read the whole article by Greer McNally over at PhotographyBLOG!
Do you like this article? Tell the world using one of these:
[
Digg
|
Facebook
| 
del.icio.us
| 
Stumble Upon ]
reddit_url='http://photocritic.org/what-makes-a-photograph-controversial/'
Categories: ?
Tags:
This entry is © Haje Jan Kamps / Photocritic.org, and was posted on Friday, June 30th, 2006. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
here
#1 - June 30th, 2006 at 02:30
People see what they want to see, I guess. That Nike picture, to me, is some sports guy who has been painted with red paint (hello, English colours *sigh*) and is posing for the camera in such a way that he makes the image of the English cross. Big whoop. Insightful article though - thanks for pointing that out! :)
#2 - July 6th, 2006 at 04:47
Erwin Olaf’s paradise portrait of the screaming woman sends shivers up my spine - it’s so repulsive but I can never look away.
#3 - July 9th, 2006 at 20:00
When we see an image, what moves us? Why do we feel what we do?
Trying to analyze that is opening a whole Pandora’s box of issues.
Photographers are visual artists. We “see” things just a little bit differerntly. Why we see differently, and how we see, well, who knows….. We have our own “personal filters” as it were :)
I leave you with these thoughts from the intro on my website:
—–
I take photos because photos are nothing but a frozen moment, an impression, in time. And life itself is just an endless collection of moments and impressions.
Each of these moments leaves us with an impression. From impressions arise a myriad of thoughts. Some thoughts you like, some you may not like. Some you choose to remember, while other thoughts fall into the black hole of the mind, to be forgotten forever, dissolving into the void. Or do they?
Why do we remember the thoughts we do? What attracts us to that impression? What attracts us to that image? What of that image? Is it beautiful? Tasteful? Does it fill you with joy? Happiness? Or do you find it repulsive? What do you consider ugly? How do you define beauty? Can something so ugly and repulsive be beautiful?
There is a beauty in everything we see and interact with. But if something repulses you, then why? It only reflects something in you. Take a look, see for yourself. Or do you find the same image lovely and beautful? If so, then why? Something in you reflects that as well. But how often do we remember those impressions? Not as often as we should. If something is ugly, we should remember that, too.
Define beauty. Define ugly. Because really, in the end, everything just is. It is us who attaches an impression of that moment to our existence. The moment itself does not know anything about being beautiful or ugly. It just is. Therefore you can find a moment beautiful and ugly simultaneously.
We interact with that moment and leave our impression on it. Who else remembers that moment? Is their impression the same? The moment itself just was. It did not know what to be. But we leave our impression on that moment, that image, which carries on into the ethers of space and time.
I see order and I see chaos simultaneously. I see ugly and beauty simultaneously. I find those moments awesome - “full of awe”.
—–
Max Photography, Vancouver, Canada
http://www.coryjohnson.net
#4 - July 12th, 2006 at 23:47
we should always ask ourselves “what is the story behind the photo?” In this case it’s an imaginitive marketing ploy (if you want to call it that - the cross thing is a litlle dis-tasteful and tired if you ask me) Ganiyu http://www.contactphotographer.com currently looking for professional photographers to work with. Cheers.
#5 - July 18th, 2006 at 02:06
What Makes a Photo Image Controversial?
There are many issues around that topic. Actually, the question should be: “why does the photographer choose to make a photo which he/she knows will be controversial?” Why do they choose to make an image which will “push buttons”; an image which will evoke a reaction (whether “good” or “bad”); an image which pushes the envelope. Was the photo deliberate? Did the photographer want a reaction? Well, of course. Isn’t that what photographs are for?
However, the photo is just an image. The image is just a moment. How the photo, the moment, is interpreted is the real issue.
Photographs are art, and all art is subjective to the filters each of us have. Filters can be based on: environmental, social, religious, moral and personal beliefs or values.
A photo may be controversial in one culture; while on the other hand, the same image will have no effect whatsoever in another culture. (As we know from the daily news.)
This applies on a personal, individual level as well. Two people can look at the same photo and you will get two different reactions. (The reactions may be similar on some points, but not 100% the same.)
I can look at a photo and choose to think, “hey, it’s just a photo”. Someone else will look at the same photo and be outraged by what they see.
So why is that? Am I missing something? Or is the other person putting more into the image that it represents. Why do we get all up in arms over just a photo?
We all like photographs of beautiful flowers. They evoke pleasant images, right? Well, what if I was to photograph dead, decaying flowers. Then what, or how, would you feel?
Remember: the image is just an image. It doesn’t know what to be. The image doesn’t know to be “good” or “bad”.
It is us who reacts to the image. It is us who makes the image controversial. And it is controversy which sells.
Cory Johnson - Max Photography
Vancouver, Canada
#6 - October 8th, 2006 at 18:34
Autor, Respect!
#7 - October 10th, 2006 at 18:43
!!! It is class to itself
#8 - November 19th, 2007 at 22:02
Is it just me or does the red paint in the bottom of the cross seem to look slighty blood like…sacraficial (in the sense of giving all into playing the game)…the blood of England?
Put next to the body shape of Jesus on the crusifix when he sacrificed himself…
Probably all wrong but meh, just a thought