Bill Henson, from Luminous series 

Bill Henson is the latest photographer to be forcibly censored by state authorities (although he appears to have been exonerated). Police in Sydney raided the gallery where the Australian artist had just opened his latest exhibition of photographs and literally took the photos off the wall, also confiscating copies of some magazines that had reproduced his offending images (only 1000’s of more of those to round-up…). I’m a big fan of Henson’s work, the impossibly dark, sweltering atmospheres are intensely psychological, and seem to have something unsettling, ancient, and universal about them.

Censorship in photography is certainly nothing new, and accusations of pornography (or worse, as in the Henson case, child pornography) tend to play a leading role in that history. Nan Goldin is another recent target that comes to mind, and I just stumbled on the press release for an interesting-looking exhibition titled Controversies that just ended at the Musée de l’Elysée in Lausanne, Switzerland which focused on the legal and ethical history of photography.

What gets me is these cases is the latent psychology at work in the accusers and authorities that censor the artwork. What seems to offend them is not that the work was made (after all, the mother of one of the models in the Henson case came out in his defense), but their own reaction to the work. Their outrage betrays their having felt a taboo desire they’d thus far repressed to the point of thinking no longer existed, hence the overly vehement histrionics that ensue as they launch their witch-hunt. The Omnipresent Sociopath is invoked to project these forbidden feelings onto and create an ostensible justification for confiscating and destroying the work (casting out the demons), the sight of which would presumably send the O.S. into an immediate and uncontrollable rampage of sociopath-ing. I don’t mean to make light of truly heinous behavior such as child molestation, it’s just that the wrong-headed self-righteous crusades against art that censors repeatedly go on always seem completely misinformed and come off as botched attempts to play the moral hero.

On a related note, there seems to be a (dare I say the word) trend in photography recently (or maybe since the invention of the camera?) for what I call cute-young-naked-things. The leading figure at the moment in this hip-young-naked-ism seems to be Ryan McGinley, aka Ryan-the-youngest-photographer-to-ever-have-a-solo-show-at-the-Whitney McGinley. Here is his most recent photo project, which it looks like he adapted for use in a new music video for Icelandic band Sigur Ros (hint: just click one of the play buttons on the bottom left, you don’t have to sign up on the right. hint #2: possibly NSFW). The latest project looks heavily influence by Bill Henson, albeit it in broad daylight and minus the more grand connotations and subtleties. Other obvious influences on McGinley, and recent predecessors in the history of young-naked-ism, would be Larry Clark, Richard Kern, and Terry Richardson.

I like the work of Marlene Marino, who seems to fit in with this as well, see some of her pictures here.

In 2006 Getty Images signed a contract with the Compassionate Eye Foundation, founded by photographer Robert Kent in 2005, with the agreement that a majority of the revenue from the sale of images submitted via that contract would go to support the activities of the Foundation.

Their mission is “to support, honor, and empower those in developing nations in order to expand educational opportunities, basic health services, and tools for economic development.” So far their focus has mainly been in Guatemala, where 75% of the population lives below the poverty line, and in rural areas medical and educational programs are scant to nil. Recently they’ve partnered with Education Without Borders and will expand their work into Africa as well.

© Compassionate Eye Foundation

Here is a lightbox of highlights from the CEF photos on Getty Images, and here is the Getty Images page about CEF.

Here is a recent progress report sent out by founder Robert Kent:

facts:
1. Compassionate Eye Foundation royalties earned to date are just over $100,000.
2. Our January 2007 royalties were just under $200. In March 2008 the images earned just over $24,000.
3. The power of imagery to create positive change in the world summarizes our partnership with Getty Images.

TOGETHER, we will educate hundreds of children in developing nations.
Photographers UNITE!
Thank you.
Robert Kent

Current C.E.F. accomplishments as of March 2008:

 

• bought land + built one school, grades 1 to 6 in Guatemala with 2 teachers + 60 children
• established a scholarship program allowing graduates to attend grades 7 to 9 for the first time ever
• for two years have funded a Guatemalan women’s group teaching women’s health + safety, pre + post natal care + artisan skills to over 100 at risk women
• established a parent participation preschool project for 10 children for the first time ever
• providing funds for a young persons accepting personal responsibility educational program, educating over 500 rural teenagers
• providing funds for an agro-forestry project that is teaching about + introducing new crops
• completed the construction of a playground with basketball + soccer nets
• providing funds to a disadvantaged high school in cape town South Africa for a fine art + photography program
• on June 21 2006 spearheaded the first annual Getty Images solstice shoot, 11 photographers and their crews donated time, talent + resulting images to C.E.F.
• on June 21 2007 over 50 Getty Images photographers and their crews from around the world rallied for the second annual solstice shoot
• Getty Images stock contract in place with 900 images online

Our vision is to be a global foundation, C.E.F. is currently scouting projects in South Africa, Tanzania + India for future funding.

Photo: Erik Dreyer

As an interesting follow-up to the last post about the copyright issues surrounding the Pop Art show in London, is an article in the NY Times a couple of days ago about appropriated photography in fine art. Included are quotes from photographer Jim Krantz, whose work has been appropriated (with much success - the piece in question sold at auction a few years ago for upwards of $300,000) by the most famous ‘appropriationist’ of them all - Richard Prince. Mr. Krantz’s photography is currently on display at the Guggenheim Museum by way of Mr. Prince’s well-received 30-year retrospective exhibition there currently.

Mr. Prince’s canny insouciance is captured nicely in a quote from 1993, where he off-handedly compares his series of appropriated Marlboro Man imagery to bank robbery: “No one was looking. This was a famous campaign. If you’re going to steal something, you know, you go to the bank.”

Despite what one thinks of the means used, Prince’s selection of the Marlboro Man imagery is appropriate in more ways than one - for years the now legendary Prince has been carefully cultivating his own image as one of a cowboy or outlaw of the art world. What could be ‘cooler’ than a successful bank robber? Images of cowboys (from advertising no less), biker chicks, inane one-liner jokes painted on canvas, seedy pulp fiction book covers reproduced as large paintings, actual hot rod hoods as sculpture - it all glows with the “aren’t I a bad-ass”, James Dean-meets-King Midas aura that surely is the unspoken base appeal at work behind Prince’s success. It operates like a cultural pheromone, luring everyone from the bookish critics, curators and academics who have steeped themselves soggy with arcane theory and hope some of the cool will rub off, to the uber-rich and listless collectors of uber-priced art, for whom the promise of an injection of life-blood from the netherworldly cultures of the American hoi polloi is irresistible, to young art students (who in a former era may have gone to Hollywood), who find reassurance in the Prince story (for themselves and their parents as well, who initially balked at the art school price-tags) , sensing that it augurs well for their own future success - after all, looking cool is what they’ve done so well their whole life.

But these more sordid motives are rarely if ever mentioned, indeed perhaps taboo, though easily discernable beneath the kind of intricately coded veil of mystifying sophistry that seems to have become the sole function of art writing (or perhaps always has been?). To wit (from the Guggenheim’s introduction to the current show): “[Prince’s] deceptively simple act in 1977 of rephotographing advertising images and presenting them as his own ushered in an entirely new, critical approach to art-making—one that questioned notions of originality and the privileged status of the unique aesthetic object”.

But I admit to being a bit incendiary here, perhaps betraying the influence of Prince, provocateur par excellence, on myself as well. I do feel Prince to be an important and influential American artist, but also wonder if that importance might not rest at least partially on what he has revealed about the inner workings of the art world in contemporary society (intentionally or unintentionally? yet more fodder for the art sophists) . Whether it’s his influence or not is arguable (certainly not his alone), but when perfect recreations of grunge and gutter-punk get-ups from barely a decade ago sell for thousands of dollars in high-end fashion boutiques, I wonder if we’re any the wiser for it.

Pangea Day is a global event on May 10, 2008, conceived by documentary filmmaker Jehane Nouhaim (”Control Room”), that aims to tap “the power of film to strengthen tolerance and compassion while uniting millions of people”. Various cities around the world will be “videoconferenced live to produce a 4-hour program of powerful films, visionary speakers, and uplifting music”. Not exactly clear what’s gonna happen, but here’s the trailer, all the footage in which is courtesy Getty Images:

Interesting discussion yesterday on KQED San Francisco’s Forum with Michael Krasny on “Photography and Its Future”.

Photo: FPG via Getty Images

Really cool video of a presentation by Dr. Ariel Shamir at this year’s SIGGRAPH conference where he demonstrates a new image resizing software application

Seems like this will give heightened meaning to “photoshopping” an image, or at least make it that much easier to perform certain potentially shady operations. Are photos even allowed as evidence in courtrooms anymore? If so, probably not for long.

Louie Psihoyos, who is a prominent contributor to Getty Images’ image partner Science Faction, is suing Apple for ripping off his photo below for their Apple TV ad campaign.  That Louie’s original photo below probably brings to mind the Apple TV campaign without me even showing any actual campaign photos or clips means that he probably has a good case, but for a better illustration go here.  That Apple had previously been in negotiations for use of the photo but backed out is even more incriminating.

Maybe this shouldn’t be too surprising though, considering Apple has been quite busy building a long sordid history of this type of thing, compiled nicely here by engadget.

Here’s a funny follow-up to this story comparing the packaging from the Atari 2600 Packaging circa 1982 to the Apple TV site.  Oops - curiously the pics are gone from flickr, but you can see them here.

Photojournalist James Nachtwey won one of the 3 TED prizes this year.  The winners get $100K to continue their work and also get to make a wish, that the  influential TED community is then tasked to help bring to fruition.  Watch his acceptance speech here.  The other 2 winners were Bill Clinton and E.O. Wilson.

Subscribers to Creative Review received their February wrapped in a brown paper bag with the coverline “Your Mother is a Whore”. A radical new direction in customer relations, Creative Review aims to gain readers through foul-mouthed abuse of them, it’s so insane it just might work…

Actually, the bag is part of Mother agency in London’s guest editorship of the issue, the cover of the magazine itself runs “Mother paid £15,000 to edit this edition” and the theme of the issue, writes editor Patrick Burgoyne, “is about the dilemmas we face everyday. The ethics or lack of them, that we set our moral compasses by. The personal choices. The trade offs we make in order both to carry on doing work that we love and to put a roof over our head.”

If you can get a copy it’s worth looking through, there’s some interesting ideas in there, plus you get a sticker by Peter Saville to stick on your office door.

It’s generated lots of comment and as the idea was perhaps partly inspired by Adrian Shaughnessy’s extraordinarily successful How to be a Graphic Designer and without losing your Soul, Shaughnessy himself writes a piece for the Design Observer which also generates some intense comment.

Oliviero Toscani used to say “there’s always a Pope somewhere”, by which he meant is that someone always pays the bills, whether you are Michelangelo or Michael Murphy workng in a design agency.

The ethics debate aside “Your Mother is a Whore” must win first prize for the unlikeliest coverline of 2007. Any other suggestions? And what would you sell your soul for? I already sold mine in second grade for a Batman Pez Dispenser.