Jones in the Guardian yet again

[Byker28i]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/19/prince-harry-herdsman-photograph
Reporting On Prince Harry's photography published this week.

Some will say his snaps are touching and insightful, because we no longer look for the real truth in images of Africa. We look instead for the image of the westerner with a camera, who in this case is also royal. To visit Africa, to take pictures of its people – it’s another adventure for Harry. He may as well have a gun in his hand, a dead lion at his feet and “natives” kneeling around him. That would be a more honest portrayal of the attitudes to race and power that insidiously survive in this photograph.

I thought it a good image. Its a shame this journalist? is allowed column inches. I'd rather hear more from Sean oHagan

http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2014/dec/19/prince-harry-visits-lesotho-in-pictures

 

[woof woof]

That would be a more honest portrayal of the attitudes to race and power that insidiously survive in this photograph.

He can read minds can he? Or the racist is the writer. I suspect the latter, certainly seem to have a bug up his ar@e about something.

 

[BillN_33]

agreed - just leave the guy alone and let him get on with it and enjoy life, don't judge Harry , (or his photography), by the past ……. that's just silly

 

[woof woof]

I wonder what Mr Jones would think of me, I take a lot of pictures of a rather attractive asian lady, my GF. Do my pictures reflect my inherent imperialist oppression of ancient eastern peoples and their culture? Hand wringing western Champaign liberal clat trap. IMVHO. May he choke on his smoked salmon.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

Any writer who uses the phrase "a specious salmagundi" is way too far up his own ass for me to read any further ...

 

[Lindsay D]

Any writer who uses the phrase "a specious salmagundi" is way too far up his own ass for me to read any further ...

I've eaten one of those - never again.

 

[Earley Man]

Yet more proof that the Guardian, once a credible newspaper, has become the left wing equivalent to the right wing Daily Mail.

 

[Byker28i]

Nah, Sean ohagan wrote a piece condemning jones interpretation of art without photographs.

 

[Pookeyhead]

As much as I hate Jones.... I'm with him on this one.

 

[DT01]

English bloke in Africa takes picture. Who wouldn't?
Any other ginger bloke and there would be no story.

 

[Pookeyhead]

English bloke in Africa takes picture. Who wouldn't?
Any other ginger bloke and there would be no story.

I think the issue is WHO he is, WHAT he represents, and the fact that he's taking ethnographic typologies in the good old 'pornography of the poor' tradition one finds in national geographic coffee table books. It does have more than a whiff of imperialism about it.

 

[Simon Jenkinson]

Can't see the issue with this. Regardless of who he is, he took some good photos. If I'd done it nobody wouldn't thought to whinge. Which photo enthusiast doesn't document the places they go to? It's a terrible article by someone who appears to court nothing but controversy. I find it refreshing to see a figurehead taking decent images that many of us would be very happy with.

 

[Byker28i]

I think the issue is WHO he is, WHAT he represents, and the fact that he's taking ethnographic typologies in the good old 'pornography of the poor' tradition one finds in national geographic coffee table books. It does have more than a whiff of imperialism about it.

Does that still have relevance today? If so at what point does it not and does that count for any armed forces personnel as well? Technically I thought it a good use of natural light
In this day and age, I'm more surprised someone hasn't complained about publishing images of children on the net/papers.

 

[DT01]

I think the issue is WHO he is, WHAT he represents, and the fact that he's taking ethnographic typologies in the good old 'pornography of the poor' tradition one finds in national geographic coffee table books. It does have more than a whiff of imperialism about it.

To me, he's just a ginger bloke with a camera. I have no reason to invest any more thought or imagination in it than that. Jones obviously does because he wants to get paid for spewing his bile.

That kind of emotive drivel is easy enough to write if your glass is always half empty rather than half full.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Does that still have relevance today? If so at what point does it not and does that count for any armed forces personnel as well? Technically I thought it a good use of natural light
In this day and age, I'm more surprised someone hasn't complained about publishing images of children on the net/papers.

Good use of natural light is a objective, prescriptive judgement on technique, and not really relevant to whether the image is "good" in the real sense... the sense by which a great photograph is judged. I'd think the same about the image no matter who took it.. my point is, would this image gain any recognition if anyone else took it? Probably not.

 

[Yv]

Surely it only has a whiff of imperialism if you want it to, if that is your own interpretation of it. Others would point out the fact that Harry is lower than the subject, and the resulting photo has the subject 'looking down his nose' at the photographer, which would hint at submission on the part of the photographer, of using the 'hero' viewpoint to put the herdsman on pedestal not normally seen but fitting in todays modern, tolerant and yet perversely pc society [yep, I can talk twaddle with the best of them].

Jones article just stinks of clickbait for the anti-royalists, it is full of long winded drivel that could have been expressed far more simply had he any desire to make his point genuinely but still with a degree of intelligence. He didn't. He chose to waffle in a way that would turn off most fence sitters or those that are quite happy with the role the Royal Family play.

The photo is a nice enough image, technically not bad at all, would probably have got some reasonably good critique here mixed with some flaws, and wouldn't have made the local rag had anyone else taken it.

 

[woof woof]

I think the issue is WHO he is, WHAT he represents, and the fact that he's taking ethnographic typologies in the good old 'pornography of the poor' tradition one finds in national geographic coffee table books. It does have more than a whiff of imperialism about it.

Oh dear, that little lot is as wrong and offensive as any overt racism and I do wish that people would get over this right on message western liberal clap. I wonder if the people he met over there share your view? Maybe you'd argue that if they don't it's because they don't know any better?

If you're a white man are you banned from going to anywhere remotely "ethnic"? If you go there are you automatically a representative of the evil and oppressive British Empire out to lord it over the natives and collect trophies to mount in your drawing room in the home counties?

This view is as off kilter as thinking every man with a camera is a paedophile.

I'm sure that many here have been to more far flung places than me but in my travels in Asia and the far east I've never met anyone who viewed me and my camera as a representative of the evil and oppressive British Empire out to enslave them and trample their culture. Those views are reserved for the Taliban, ISIS and right on message western liberals.

 

[BillN_33]

It is difficult for some to think past their pre conceived clichéd thoughts that they find appealing and have instilled themselves with to satisfy their inner prejudices, ……..

 

[DT01]

If you're a white man are you banned from going to anywhere remotely "ethnic"? If you go there are you automatically a representative of the evil and oppressive British Empire out to lord it over the natives and collect trophies to mount in your drawing room in the home counties?
.

Yes, cunningly disguised as a charitable endeavour no less!

 

[Laudrup]

If he took a selfie with the guy it would have made them look equal and more on trend. I can see why it might look like it has a hint of imperialism about it considering who Harry is and the family he is from.

 

[northernbiff]

Its the Gruniad.
Why on earth anyone takes that rag seriously amazes me.

 

[Byker28i]

It's interesting that it's reported the camera was borrowed from the Getty photographer on the trip, Chris Jackson, whose photos were shown in the article as well.

Is it the one image that causes offence?


There's a proud , not subservient look on the face.

So at which point are we not allowed to take such images? Is this purely anti royal, as surely the imperialistic advances of the time were driven by the government of the day. Does this apply to the armed forces as well, who after all were the strong arm of the policy?

We are talking about the period between 1884 (Berlin conference and the scramble for Africa's resources) and 1914. Was there much royal influence then in the demand, or the industrialists like Cecil Rhodes effectively setting policy, ecomonomic imperialism? How about the other non royal countries involved, Germany, France, Belgium, Portugal, most of Europe had dibs in Africa.

If we actually look at the history, then Jones stance doesn't make much sense.

How about cultural imperialism then, controlling the cultures, watering them down until they are no longer relevant. The ceremonies that are put on daily for the tourists to photograph, no longer at the special times. We're all to a certain extent guilty of that without thinking. In the hills of northern thailand this year we were approached by an old lady in full traditional dress who insisted we took her photo after we'd bought some tea. Usually it was no purchase, no photo, but somehow it was all mixed up. Because we'd bought something and not taken a photo, the unwritten contract was broken and had to be resolved.


Pokeyhead, care to comment, expand?

 

[Byker28i]

Its the Gruniad.
Why on earth anyone takes that rag seriously amazes me.

They generally have good arts coverage and I believe one of the better critic in Sean O'Hagan who writes interesting and thoughtful articles on photography.

 

[Phil V]

Oh dear, that little lot is as wrong and offensive as any overt racism and I do wish that people would get over this right on message western liberal clap. I wonder if the people he met over there share your view? Maybe you'd argue that if they don't it's because they don't know any better?

If you're a white man are you banned from going to anywhere remotely "ethnic"? If you go there are you automatically a representative of the evil and oppressive British Empire out to lord it over the natives and collect trophies to mount in your drawing room in the home counties?

This view is as off kilter as thinking every man with a camera is a paedophile.

I'm sure that many here have been to more far flung places than me but in my travels in Asia and the far east I've never met anyone who viewed me and my camera as a representative of the evil and oppressive British Empire out to enslave them and trample their culture. Those views are reserved for the Taliban, ISIS and right on message western liberals.

I'd have no problem with the average tourist doing all of the above, but the article isn't about an 'average bloke' it's about someone who's family have been granted power over us by God. No matter how easy going I try to be, the fact that some people are born to be 'better' than others niggles. And the fact that a God sanctions those powers niggles even more.

Not that I'm agreeing with the article, I'm not even a proper republican because I believe they're generally harmless and there are more apt enemies of 'the people', but that's for a different thread.

 

[DT01]

I'd have no problem with the average tourist doing all of the above, but the article isn't about an 'average bloke' it's about someone who's family have been granted power over us by God. No matter how easy going I try to be, the fact that some people are born to be 'better' than others niggles. And the fact that a God sanctions those powers niggles even more.

Surely that's only a problem if you accept the premise and believe it's a problem? I don't believe that anyone was 'born' to be better than me and I have seen no evidence of 'God' so it doesn't bother me a jot.

 

[BillN_33]

lenses are the most important factor, if you can get a camera body that accepts all successfully you will have a winner - M43 etc., etc., started the adapter lens possibilities …. Sony have taken it to the next level of FX innovation and Nikon and Canon are well behind …. Sony produce the high end sensors for Nikon and their mirror-less bodies are as good if not better than the "mirror-bounce" DSLR's of Nikon and Canon, the only thing that is holding Sony back is "the" and "their" lens range.

Sony seem to me to be the most innovative company around for the pro and semi pro market …… and their compact cameras are serious

Good luck to them

 

[Yv]

lenses are the most important factor, if you can get a camera body that accepts all successfully you will have a winner - M43 etc., etc., started the adapter lens possibilities …. Sony have taken it to the next level of FX innovation and Nikon and Canon are well behind …. Sony produce the high end sensors for Nikon and their mirror-less bodies are as good if not better than the "mirror-bounce" DSLR's of Nikon and Canon, the only thing that is holding Sony back is "the" and "their" lens range.

Sony seem to me to be the most innovative company around for the pro and semi pro market …… and their compact cameras are serious

Good luck to them

wrong thread by any chance Bill?

 

[Phil V]

Surely that's only a problem if you accept the premise and believe it's a problem? I don't believe that anyone was 'born' to be better than me and I have seen no evidence of 'God' so it doesn't bother me a jot.

As I said, it's not generally a problem for me, but I fully understand how it can really rankle some people.

 

[Byker28i]

I'd have no problem with the average tourist doing all of the above, but the article isn't about an 'average bloke' it's about someone who's family have been granted power over us by God. No matter how easy going I try to be, the fact that some people are born to be 'better' than others niggles. And the fact that a God sanctions those powers niggles even more.

Not that I'm agreeing with the article, I'm not even a proper republican because I believe they're generally harmless and there are more apt enemies of 'the people', but that's for a different thread.

Not sure the royal family even believe that. I've always found Charles and Anne very grounded people and fully aware not only of their own situation but those of others too. Do the royals have power over us? Not sure where that comes from as the royal family have been not much more than ceremonial for a significant time now.

Jones supposed that the photos had imperialist overtones, which must surely extend to not only the British overall, but all other European countries heavily involved in Africa during the late 19th century? I'm not sure how the argument can be limited to just the royal family. The last king to lead an army into battle was George II in 1740's

 

[Phil V]

Not sure the royal family even believe that. I've always found Charles and Anne very grounded people and fully aware not only of their own situation but those of others too. Do the royals have power over us? Not sure where that comes from as the royal family have been not much more than ceremonial for a significant time now.

Jones supposed that the photos had imperialist overtones, which must surely extend to not only the British overall, but all other European countries heavily involved in Africa during the late 19th century? I'm not sure how the argument can be limited to just the royal family. The last king to lead an army into battle was George II in 1740's

It's slightly OT, but I'd hardly describe Charles' political manoeuvrings as 'ceremonial', nor in the light of them would I describe him as 'grounded', he's definitely privileged and makes no bones about taking advantage of the fact.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Oh dear, that little lot is as wrong and offensive as any overt racism and I do wish that people would get over this right on message western liberal clap.

If you say so.

If you're a white man are you banned from going to anywhere remotely "ethnic"?

Don't be ridiculous.

It's interesting that it's reported the camera was borrowed from the Getty photographer on the trip, Chris Jackson, whose photos were shown in the article as well.

Is it the one image that causes offence?

I think it's who's taking it that adds a uneasy feeling to it. That and the fact that his images will gain more recognition than the photographer's from whom he borrowed the camera from.

 

[Lindsay D]

.... the article isn't about an 'average bloke' it's about someone who's family have been granted power over us by God. No matter how easy going I try to be, the fact that some people are born to be 'better' than others niggles. And the fact that a God sanctions those powers niggles even more.

.

They have very little power Phil, at least not the power you might think. They're bound by rules, convention, tradition - and the media. Whatever they do might be applauded and detested in equal measure, but either way, it will be scrutinized minutely and judged ruthlessly for better or worse. The latter being pertinent in how this photography jaunt is being reported.

The God bit is a relic of history, nothing more (thank goodness).

By the way, one of my cousins married into the family in question.

 

[Byker28i]

It's slightly OT, but I'd hardly describe Charles' political manoeuvrings as 'ceremonial', nor in the light of them would I describe him as 'grounded', he's definitely privileged and makes no bones about taking advantage of the fact.

Political manoeuvrings? He's got no ability or attempt to gain power but speaks his mind on issues he is concerned about. I don't have any issue with that.
Care to share an example of his political manoeuvring?

 

[Byker28i]

I think it's who's taking it that adds a uneasy feeling to it. That and the fact that his images will gain more recognition than the photographer's from whom he borrowed the camera from.

Why the uneasy feeling though? Come on, we've challenged others who express feelings only by saying "that's crap" so you can't be excused getting away with feelings

Did Harry's images gain more recognition? I saw it reported along the lines of 'blimey he can take a good Image".
Chris Jackson got huge coverage of his images, good documentary images.

Harry hook, for Getty, also took some stunning images of the Masai, bare breasted women etc, all for Getty stock. Exploitation or not?

 

[Phil V]

Political manoeuvrings? He's got no ability or attempt to gain power but speaks his mind on issues he is concerned about. I don't have any issue with that.
Care to share an example of his political manoeuvring?

I'm afraid it's naive to believe that senior figures have no real influence. Can you not remember the Chelsea Barracks deal? The lobbying for Grammar schools? I'm sure there's more but I've other things to do tonight.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Why the uneasy feeling though? Come on, we've challenged others who express feelings only by saying "that's crap" so you can't be excused getting away with feelings

Did Harry's images gain more recognition? I saw it reported along the lines of 'blimey he can take a good Image".
Chris Jackson got huge coverage of his images, good documentary images.

Harry hook, for Getty, also took some stunning images of the Masai, bare breasted women etc, all for Getty stock. Exploitation or not?

I do think it's exploitation once it goes beyond record and starts to become fodder for photographers. The whole idea of "travel" photography when it boils down to shooting the "natives" just leaves me a little cold, and I question the motives of those that do it: Raising awareness, or their own profile?

My biggest objection (which I believe I've said a couple of times now) is the fact that anything he takes will be published worldwide and fawned over when they're not particularly great images... just because he is who he is.

 

[simon ess]

It is difficult for some to think past their pre conceived clichéd thoughts that they find appealing and have instilled themselves with to satisfy their inner prejudices, ……..

My irony meter just exploded.

 

[Byker28i]

I do think it's exploitation once it goes beyond record and starts to become fodder for photographers. The whole idea of "travel" photography when it boils down to shooting the "natives" just leaves me a little cold, and I question the motives of those that do it: Raising awareness, or their own profile?

My biggest objection (which I believe I've said a couple of times now) is the fact that anything he takes will be published worldwide and fawned over when they're not particularly great images... just because he is who he is.

Cheers. Own profile, probably, there's a few socially aware photographers these days but most photographers, especially the deluge of amateur photographers like to produce images that get there peers approval. Then there's the influence of travel shows, national geographic showing travel images you should be taking?

Fawned over because of who he is, possibly, but isn't that the case with others, a knock back from today's celebrity culture?

So I can much rather see that argument, than the imperialistic one.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Cheers. Own profile, probably, there's a few socially aware photographers these days but most photographers, especially the deluge of amateur photographers like to produce images that get there peers approval. Then there's the influence of travel shows, national geographic showing travel images you should be taking?

Fawned over because of who he is, possibly, but isn't that the case with others, a knock back from today's celebrity culture?

So I can much rather see that argument, than the imperialistic one.

I still think national geographic type coffee table books of such pap is a hang over from our imperialistic days... and these days it's not to show the extent of our empire (as we have none) but it's just to further photographer's own careers and profiles... people like Jimmy Nelson spring to mind... dressing up "natives" and making beautiful "art" under the pretence of highlighting the plight of indigenous peoples, when it;s blatantly obvious he's just feathering his own nest.

It's exploitative. If you want to show the plight of such people because you feel their lot may be improved by your photographing them, then why be so obsessed with aesthetic? Why not actually tell a proper story?

 

[DT01]

I question the motives of those that do it: Raising awareness, or their own profile?

If it's their job, raising their own profile is a fundamental part of what they need to do to get paid and get future commissions. If they don't do it, no one else will. But, you already know this.