What Makes a Photograph Controversial?
Canon PowerShot SX500 IS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ40
Fujifilm X20
Samsung NX1000
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
Sony A58 Review
Nikon Coolpix S6400 Review
Samsung NX300 Review
Panasonic Lumix G6 Review
Olympus XZ-10 Review
By Greer McNally
This week has seen the international press go a little wild about Wayne Rooney. Contrary to expectation, it has little to do with his behaviour or play on the pitch and more to do with his posing power. So what is the source of the furore?
Surprisingly it’s just one photograph in which the England striker, painted with the cross of St George, yells skyward. Nike’s tagline “Just Do It” runs as the only wording on the poster. In advertising terms the one image campaign has been a massive success. Since the photograph was revealed on Tuesday the story has been run as far a field as the Chicago Sun-Times in the US and in nearly every national newspaper on the English news-stands.
The Daily Mail has led the attack on the picture. Interviewing Ealing North MP Stephen Pounder, in whose constituency the ad runs on a giant billboard, Pounder labelled it “crass” and “offensive”, and Rev Rod Thomas of the Church of England evangelical group Reform dismissed it as a “publicity stunt”.
But the public too has spoken. The papers have been bombarded with letters and the Advertising Standards Authority watchdog had five complaints reacting to its religious iconography within hours of its unveiling. One can only wonder whether Nike and ad agency Wieden and Kennedy could have anticipated this level of exposure when they contacted photographer Nick Georghiou and his agent Wyatt Clarke for the shoot. What is sure is that it has polarised public opinion.
So 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.
Finally there are those images which are shot simply to shock. Not to sell a car, packet of cigarettes or pair of football boots, but simply to provoke a human reaction from a jaded society. When photographer Lee Miller convinced fashion bible Vogue to let her cover WWII, she became their first war correspondent. The access she got and the scenes that she snapped are some of the most thought provoking of the 21st Century. Other war photographers that caught conflict on film include Robert Capa and Philip Griffiths Jones. The latter’s collection Vietnam Inc takes the viewer to the country rather than the war that was raging around it. So when the violence erupts it is all the more thought-provoking. Today you need only look at Paul Lowe at Panos’ images of the nuclear killing fields to see how confrontational one photograph can be. But after this week, we know that already.
So what do you think? Is it a patriotic, emotive image worthy of our footballing heroes or likely to incite violence in the stands and offence to the religious? And what is it about an image that makes your blood boil?
Next week PhotographyBLOG will be interviewing Rooney-snapping photographer Nick Georghiou on his reaction to the recent controversy.
Useful Links
http://www.nickgeorghiou.com
http://www.wyattclarke.co.uk
http://www.wklondon.com
http://www.jasonbellphoto.com
http://www.erwinolaf.com – contains material with sexual content
http://www.panospictures.com
http://www.leemiller.co.uk
http://www.magnumphotos.com
Image reproduced courtesy of Nike.
#1 nick in japan
I think that there are two areas of consideration, one of protecting our children from images that may be emotionally damageing to them, and images that are portrayed as to disrespect a person's religion, lifestyle, status or being. Freedom of expression has it's common-sense rules of basics, such as not yelling "Fire" in a crowed theater.
Rules to live by is the glue that keeps us civil.
12:08 pm - Saturday, June 24, 2006
#2 Barb
Nick, I have never heard of anything so damaging as your concept of 'protection'. If you want to protect your children from images, turn off the television, cancel the magazines, unsubscribe to all newspapers. And please hurry. I would just as soon have you and yours safely packed in cotton and out of hearing if its too much for you. However, the rest of us very much need to be in the midst of debate and open evaluation of religion, lifestyle and status - regardless of what others may say. I would much prefer to have the dramatic image challenging or espousing any belief than to be silenced by the overly sensitive. I refuse to be limited by the risk of hurt feeling - even if the hurt feelings are mine. I refuse to be a slave to another's 'feelings'. Three cheers for Nike's WOW image.
8:01 pm - Saturday, June 24, 2006
#3 GARY POGODA
People have a right to offend others, even to the point that it may be
emotionally damaging; however, people also have the right to shelter
themselves and/or their families from that. The solution of turning off
a television or computer, or not buying a newspaper or magazine, is
less than ideal.
A better solution would be to provide a technological means to block
offensive material, while letting inoffensive material through. I do not
believe it is a violation of free speech to require users of mass media
to characterize their material for this purpose.
Since such technology has not yet been fully developed, I think there
can be reasonable rules put in place to protect people from offensive
material that violates community standards, at the risk of infringing on
individual freedoms. Such controls should only be used where it is not
technologically feasible for others to block the offensive material.
For example, if a sidewalk billboard image is considered offensive by
community standards, individuals should not have to refrain from use
of that sidewalk just to avoid the offensive material. Conversely, if the
sidewalk is adjacent to a movie theater, individuals should not have a
right to restrict the movie theater from displaying offensive, but legally
permissible material behind their closed doors.
I also believe that if material is being disseminated for the purposes of
financial gain (such as advertising), any rights to restrict commerce for
protection of the community should outweigh any rights of free speech
by a company and/or individual. However, if the company or individual
is willing to forgo that financial gain, then free speech should prevail.
10:41 pm - Saturday, June 24, 2006
#4 nick in japan
Dear Barb, I must apologize for not clearly expressing myself. I didn't intend to give the impression that images shouldn't be displayed, but to ensure somehow that our delicate children are somehow protected, either by restricting public display in readily available pictures or by warnings, as you stated in TV guides. If you want children exposed to adult things, I think you may be in the minority.
1:00 am - Sunday, June 25, 2006
#5 Barb
Nonsense. To use children as an excuse to stifle content has nothing to do with the risk of exposing children to 'adult' things. The discussion is about emotive images such as the Nike one. The discussion is not about porn or murder in front of children. Its about the freedom to create a dramatic image for the public arena and broach the open criticism (meaning analysis) of any area of life - including religion, lifestyle, and public policy. Limiting discussion because someone's feelings may be hurt is unacceptable. Such sensitivity ends up uncontrolled insensitivity towards those who would question. We are talking about basic freedom of thought and word. Where discussions, whether in image or word, is to be limited by 'sensitivity', who decides, who limits, and where does it all end. That is the discussion here. I found the Nike image to be powerful and indeed a great image. I also found the reasons for condemning it to be far more dangerous than any image could ever be. If you think such an image is damaging to a child, you are way out on a limb, my friend.
2:00 am - Sunday, June 25, 2006
#6 nick in japan
Dear Barb, first of all, I do not find the Nike image offensive at all,probably because it is so ambiguous, sorry if I left that impression. My comments are about images in general. One of the problems with our society is the influence by porn and, possibly, the exploitation of war and killing as being something that is desireable. There is a need to express ourselves, but we have a responsibility to the little minds that are forming.
We are sturated with perversion, just go to http://www.watchdog.us and type in any town or city name, then view the registered sex criminals that abound. They are the product of our permissive views, and lack of guidance.
I agree with Gary on all his comments except the last paragraph, what does profit have to do with values?
I have to take issue with mockery of relgion also, too sensitive a subject to play with, recent cartoons were published to create havoc, IMHO, a terrible decision. Play with fire and someone will get burned.
3:23 am - Sunday, June 25, 2006
#7 Tony Boughen
It's an "in your face image" that Nike have every right to use. However, to me it's a bad image because it shouts at me to attract my attention. That's what it felt like when I opened the page of my newspaper. I don't know about you, but I don't like being encouraged to buy a product because the seller shouts in my face. It certainly fits with Nike's inane (they would call it "street smart") slogan "Just do it". And for those reasons, on me, it has the opposite effect of that which Nike intended. But it'll probably sell trainers by the lorry load to the intended demographic!
9:38 am - Sunday, June 25, 2006
#8 Amit
People's right to offend others should be balanced with people's right to restrain themselves from offending others. "Just Because I Can" is not an exercise in freedom of speech, its an exercise in rudeness and incosideration.
9:13 am - Monday, June 26, 2006