Why Magnum Took Its Archive Offline and Why Its Statement Falls Short: We Need Answers

Why Magnum Took Its Archive Offline and Why Its Statement Falls Short: We Need Answers

In the early hours of Friday morning U.K. time, Magnum took its entire archive offline. Later that day, it released a statement explaining that it was reviewing its practices following revelations about some of its photographs. Difficult questions still need to be answered and the sequence of events shows how, despite Magnum’s crisis management, they’re not going away.

On August 6, Fstoppers broke the story that Magnum had been selling sexually explicit images of what appear to be children, potentially for more than 30 years. A longer article followed up the discoveries, and the photographs by David Alan Harvey were quickly taken offline without any announcement, but a large number of images of sex workers remained available for purchase from the agency’s archive.

Putting aside the question of why photographer David Alan Harvey was being approached by what appears to be a naked child in a dimly lit room, shooting from a low position while another, older woman smiles from around the corner of the door, Magnum’s keywording was proving to be a problem. As discussed by Allen Murabayashi in the Vision Slightly Blurred podcast, it’s not unusual for agencies to outsource the processing of vast swathes of images in its archives as adding keywords is a laborious process. The unfortunate keywording of the images produced by Harvey during his time spent in a Bangkok brothel could in part be attributed to a process that is not particularly sophisticated.

Other images, however, suggest that the issue is more complex. In 1985, Magnum photographer Miguel Rio Branco published his photobook Dulce Sudor Amargo, a study of life in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil, a city widely known for its sex tourism. According to the Magnum website, “the photographer’s fascination for these places of strong contrast essentially resides in the power of the tropical colors and light, which he conveys by means of his pictorial sensibility.”

This pictorial sensibility included a photograph that features the caption “Prostitute lays on wooden floor.” Branco shot the image as he stood over the identifiable woman as she lay in front of him with her legs open. One of the keywords for the image in Magnum’s archive is “vulva.”

It’s not clear why would anyone wish to search the Magnum archive for images tagged “vulva.” Among the search results were two photographs of girls who appear to be younger than five years old, both naked from the waist down and with their genitals visible, seemingly family photographs by Harry Gruyaert and Patrick Zachmann. One is also tagged “sex education.” To be clear: there is nothing indecent about these images, and there is nothing ethically problematic about them as family photos, assuming that they are the children of the two photographers who produced the photographs. However, it is alarming that they are available to download from the archive of a global photo agency and tagged so that visitors to the website can easily find them by searching for images of children’s genitals. Magnum has these images in its library; it must be able to explain how they were produced and why they were made available for licensing.

A screenshot from Adobe Bridge after having downloaded the low resolution images.

Keywords Removed, Problems Remain

Following questions on Twitter about the Branco image, Magnum removed the visibility of its keywords from its archive. However, while the keywords were no longer listed alongside a photograph, they still appeared in the metadata of the low-res images that Magnum served for those browsing the website.

Magnum was then challenged as to why a photograph by Alec Soth of a young cheerleader — “13 to 18 years old” — was tagged with the word “vagina.” A day later — and almost a week after the David Alan Harvey images were revealed as potential child sexual abuse — Magnum took its entire archive offline for a “scheduled upgrade.” Late on Friday afternoon — a time often used by governments and corporations to bury bad news — Magnum issued a statement.

The Statement

Olivia Arthur, president of Magnum Photos, issued a statement on the Magnum website. It includes the following:

Recently, we have also been alerted to historical material in our archive that is problematic in terms of imagery, captioning or keywording and we are taking this extremely seriously. We have begun a process of in-depth internal review – with outside guidance – to make sure that we fully understand the implications of the work in the archive, both in terms of imagery and context.

Arthur notes that in the 75 years that Magnum has been photographing the world, “standards for what has been acceptable have evolved. Issues and questions that were previously overlooked have to be addressed.”

Magnum has called in a crisis management consultancy to help it navigate its current challenges. “Our experts make crisis incidents disappear,” the consultancy's website claims. “We … manage the crisis so that the outside world remains unaware there ever was an issue or, at the very least, ensure the negative impact is much less than you originally feared.” It can likely be assumed that these lawyers have drawn up a strategy which is now being mulled over by Magnum’s members — the ultimate decision-makers — some of whom will almost certainly be enraged by the measures being proposed.

The statement from Magnum’s president, though thoughtful and well-worded, is hard to reconcile with the agency’s record. In 2017, the agency’s Global Business Development Manager, responding to concerns that Magnum and LensCulture used a photo of an alleged child being raped to promote a competition, stated that “the protection of vulnerable and abused children is of paramount importance to Magnum Photos.” Given that scores of images of child sex slaves — many of whom were identifiable — remained in the archive for another three years, this was patently untrue.

The Deafening Silence

Unlike most other photographic agencies, Magnum is owned and run by its members — the legendary photographers whose incredible images have been revered by the industry for decades. This elevated status seems to have bred a culture of arrogance, fed by a sense of untouchability established by their connections and clout. Photoland remained almost silent during the week following revelations about David Alan Harvey’s sexually explicit images of what appears to be a child. Magnum’s photographers are not just photographers: they are writers, editors, curators, consultants, and more. They are career-makers. As a result, photo land is still largely terrified by the prospect of discussing Magnum’s ongoing problems because too many individuals can’t speak out for fear of upsetting photography’s elite gatekeepers. Elsewhere, major publications such as the New York Times remain silent as even mentioning the scandal would undermine long-standing friendships built on years of mutual backscratching.

As discussed in the article that revealed David Alan Harvey’s troubling photographs, the culture within this tightly knit agency of photographers is frequently void of moral considerations. “I have no ethics,” says Bruce Gilden proudly, clearly gleeful in how his photographs treat their subjects like trophies, an attitude that the art world — dominated by Magnum’s chums — has rewarded over and over. Magnum’s former president described sex workers covertly photographed as “models,” and the agency recently used an image of an alleged child being raped to promote a competition. Martin Parr stood down from his role as director of the Bristol Photo Festival last month after being listed as the editor of a republished photobook from the 1960s that juxtaposed a black woman with a caged gorilla. Whether the photographer was making a racist commentary or not is now almost irrelevant: Parr was made aware of concerns about racism in May 2019, didn't respond until December, and chose to continue promoting the book for more than a year.

Images of Suffering

Magnum has produced some truly remarkable and hugely influential photographs over the years, but for many — especially in light of the questionable decisions and assertions listed above — the signs that it has a cultural problem that goes to the core of its organization is not a revelation. John Edwin Mason, teacher of African history and the history of photography at the University of Virginia, was called upon by National Geographic to review its archive in 2018. In a series of tweets last week, Mason explained how Magnum developed its culture of ends (i.e., art) always justifying the means (e.g., exploiting the plight of sexually exploited children). “After founding Magnum, right after WWII,” Mason explains, “they built its reputation by photographing the world. They especially traveled pathways that British and French imperialism had created and that was increasingly maintained by the US. Imperialism & white supremacy gave them the ‘right’ to go.” He continues:

Imperialism and white supremacy also granted them 'permission' to photograph virtually any black and brown person, no matter what circumstances they might be in and over whatever objections they might have. To a large extent, Magnum’s reputation came to rest on its images of suffering or exoticized black and brown people. People who didn’t have the power to say no. People who had no ‘right’ to photograph the places Magnum’s photographers came from. But, you say, Magnum’s photographers were the good guys. Humanists. The very model of the ‘concerned photographer.’ That’s true of many of them. But they were trapped in systems larger than themselves. They failed to recognize that. And they never put their own house in order.

Magnum is now scrambling to do just that. (Note that Mason’s use of the term “white supremacy” refers here to colonialist attitudes of entitlement, not to far-right hate groups.)

The statement from Arthur falls short. It talks of a journey, problems that must be solved, a realization that attitudes have evolved, and a will to understand. There is, however, no apology, no contrition, and no mention of the sexually explicit images of what appear to be children produced by David Alan Harvey. It says that it recognizes that there are issues, but very carefully it does not mention what those issues are.

A Right to Report?

Some commentators are keen to invoke conversations about freedom of expression, but all of that can be put aside for one simple reason: creating indecent images of children is an offense. A first-time offender in the U.S. faces a statutory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. Journalistic intent does not even begin to figure as mitigation and claiming a duty or a right to report will not be considered a defense. After this article appeared, Conde Nast may want to consider reminding the editors of Wired Italia, one of its subsidiaries, of both the law but more importantly, the company’s Code of Ethics, not to mention its Code of Conduct, notably a document that was hastily drawn up after sexual harassment allegations were leveled against Mario Testino and Bruce Weber.

In short, photojournalism simply cannot give sex offenders a means of gaining access to vulnerable children.

Questions Remain Unanswered

As it stands, the questions listed in a previous article remain largely unanswered:

  • Why was Magnum photographer David Alan Harvey taking sexually explicit images of what appear to be children in Thailand in 1989?
  • Does Magnum acknowledge that creating a sexually explicit image of a child constitutes an act of child sexual abuse?
  • Why does Harvey have a photograph of what appears to be a naked child approaching him where he is sitting or lying?
  • Why did Harvey think it appropriate to submit this image to Magnum’s archive?
  • Why did Magnum think it appropriate to include Harvey’s images in its archive?
  • Has Harvey been suspended from Magnum?
  • Will Harvey be subject to an investigation?
  • Will Magnum report Harvey’s images to the police?
  • Will Magnum ensure that any images of child sexual abuse in its archive are destroyed?
  • Will Magnum accept an investigation of its archive with the oversight of a child protection officer?
  • Why did Magnum fail to review its archive properly following an outcry in 2017 over its use of an image of possible child rape to promote competition?
  • Is Magnum finally willing to remove hundreds of images of child sex slaves from its archive?

Get In Touch

If you have information about the conduct of a photographer or an organization and wish to discuss it in confidence, you can email photoland.confidential@protonmail.com.

Andy Day's picture

Andy Day is a British photographer and writer living in France. He began photographing parkour in 2003 and has been doing weird things in the city and elsewhere ever since. He's addicted to climbing and owns a fairly useless dog. He has an MA in Sociology & Photography which often makes him ponder what all of this really means.

Log in or register to post comments
57 Comments

It's a difficult subject to write about - and i believe you wrote it right the way it should be.

"We Need Answers" ??
No, Andy, YOU don't. Nothing in your career has lead to you needing or deserving anything from Magnum. You are just a conservative photographer who is trying to big note himself by writing articles, mostly about gear with the occasional dose of Magnum-bashing, on a website.

"Deafening Silence"
This surprises you? Of course there is silence - no one has to answer to you. You have no authority here. Your shrill little fight against Magnum is obviously based on a personal vendetta. Let the authorities and professionals deal with the professionals at Magnum.

"Get In Touch"
Once again, leave this for the professionals and authorities. Andy, you are not qualified to act as legal or psychological help in actual cases of harassment, discrimination or, well, anything really (except parkour and climbing, of course). All you would be doing here is gathering more wood for your giant pyre of Magnum-hatred.

"Let the authorities and professionals deal with the professionals at Magnum."

Whch authorities & professionals are you aware of who are currently dealing with Magnum?

Great thinking, Willy. A truly great question.
"Which authorities are you aware of who are currently dealing with Magnum?"
All the ones that are necessary would be getting involved (without having the need to drum up publicity, mind you) at the appropriate tempo and volume. Without having to clear it with you, or me.
What's definitely unnecessary is the Online Court of Andy Day 'Great Social Justice Warrior'. He, and his online warrior cronies (or alter egos), really aren't required.

You said something quite specific about a process involving certain "authorities & professionals".

But you're not actually talking from any position of knowledge, simply expressing an opinion?

Or am I wrong and you do know whats going on behind the scenes but wont say?

I only ask because whichever 'professionals you think (or know) it is that ARE involved, will give me some idea of what may be actually happening, or likely to happen, but if you genuinely dont know then fine, just say so.

(I dont know either so I'm trying to get a handle on this, and you seem to have some insight.)

Andy Who??? What next? Attack Michelangelo and remove David, (I hope you know what David is, the naked man with a small dick, watching millions of young girls every year) and the Sistine Chapel Ceiling or Leonardo Da Vinci or everybody else who made some nudity. These images were taken when was ok to take them. Now, these nobodies call themself photographers attack like David Alan, Gilden, Steve McCurry, and so on. You should remove yourself from Fstoppers and try to get in Magnum with your bs cliche photography. You people killed photography with your laws, Code of Ethics, Code of Conduct. Novadays can't even take an image of a dog, that is Animal Abuse.

"These images were taken when was ok to take them."

When was it ok to take them? Can you give me some idea of the time period you are referring to, as you seem very well informed? Thanks.

I mean by ok when was no Code of Ethics, Code of Conduct and the story was the most important in an image. Maybe you know the Vietnam war's naked napalm girl image by Nic Ut an Associated Press photographer. Was it ok to take the picture or not? That was 100% child abuse, isn't it? Ceternally I totally agree with the Child model Law and so on but when you do a documentary about prostitution, drugs, wars and so on you can't follow ethics, if you do it won't be documentary.By the way, David Alan Harvey is a documentary photographer not like Andy Day who photographing parkour.

I know the Ut photo - not a good comparison because it's not the same. But as you've asked, yes it was ok, because its an image taken in public with witnesses and clear context. Therefore: news.

You're comparing it to images taken with (apparently) no witnesses, and in circumstances where the law (not you or me) in various jurisdictions actually describes the resulting images as 'indecent images of a child'.

If you think there were no codes of ethics nor applicable laws regarding child protection twenty/thirty years ago you might find this of interest:

Child Sex Tourism to Thailand: The Role of the United States as a Consumer Country, Washington International Law Journal Washington International Law Journal 1995
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&conte...

You said: "but when you do a documentary about prostitution, drugs, wars and so on you can't follow ethics, if you do it won't be documentary."

You absolutely can follow ethics, and it still be documentary, indeed you MUST follow ethics because if you dont its not journalism but fiction. In fact if someone calls themself a 'journalist' there are many codes of ethics they must follow, and in fact the actual law in many countries applying to the conduct of journalists is applied more strictly because of the position of trust they occupy.

So for example heres a few exctracts from the USA's Society of Professional Journalists Code of Conduct:

"
Journalists should:

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

-Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes."

and so on and on...

None of this is my opinion - its what is stated in law in many countries regarding both 'journalistic freedom' and, under a different set of legislation, 'child protection'.

Where they overlap is where the problems arise, as in this instance.

You mixing up journalists with documentary photographers. I don't care what the USA Laws and Code of Conducts say. I don't live there. I follow International Laws. Anyway, everything is subjective in life but looks like nowadays the sheep want to kill the wolf.

So you actually believe that documentary photographers are somehow different from journalists, and that ethics dont apply to them?

And that its ok for them to produce indecent images of children without legal repercussions?

So what does International Law say then, that makes it different from American Law regarding indecent images of children - which is what I presume you're referring to?

Do you really need a Code of Conduct to avoid photograph a child in a pornographic situation?
Do you really think it's ok to have a 13 year old be photographed naked "for documenting"?
I mean, you know that you can tell a story in a million different ways. You can show that children are held as sex slaves without showing their face and genitals.

I wish Fstoppers would not go in to politics this way. I do not want to defend og accuse anyone but cancel culture is not a good thing. Some musician sad it was like a religion, but without any grace.
This aggressive type of dealing with things in the public, tast bad. Because it comes down to a lot of hashtags and before you know its worse then living in some muslim country where extreme muslim culture rains. I wish this writer would go write in some where they already have lost there mind and are already working on cancel police. Andy if Magnum is doing something wrong and illegal, contact the police and let them deal with it, if they do not correct their errors.
Please, stop nag online!

yeah, getting real sick of this social justice warrior crap on a photography website.

So if you oppose Day's stance on this issue that means you support, as a general principle, the taking of images that may be considered (in many jurisdictions) to be 'indecent images of a child' and to sell them for profit?

If thats not your position can you explain what your position is?

That's a pretty big leap in reasoning there, "YOU DONT AGREE WITH THIS IDIOT SO YOU MUST LIKE CHILD PORN." Come off it.

The argument "ANDY DAY WRITES A LOT ABOUT CHILD PORN AND YOU CLEARLY READ IT ALL SO YOU, WILLIAM MAC, MUST LIKE CHILD PORN!" is about as valid. I don't think Andy loves kids in that way, and I'm sure you don't either.

I don't have a problem with Andy's stance, or even care about it. My problem, in it's entirety, is that I come to a photography website, to get news, articles, reviews, and advice, on photography and photography related things. If I wanted to look into social issues, I would go to Tumblr. Or wherever people who have a bachelors degree in gender studies hang out, but I sure as shit wouldn't want to be getting it from a website that constantly argues whether canon or Sony is the best.

Just getting real sick of the SJW clickbait B.S. It has a time and a place, and that time and place is not here on a website that was supposedly about photography. (In my opinion, which, lets be real, is just as invalid as everyone else's)

Thanks for the response Carl.

No Andy doesn't, no I don't and no I'm certain you don't (like child porn).

But that wasn't the implication I made. I was curious about what your opinion about such alleged material being taken and sold by an agency is, and how that related to the wider principles of images taking/making that we are all involved in. A perfectly reasonable point of discussion I assumed in this thread.

This is, after all, some 'news' in the photography world (which is what you said you came here for), and it is absolutely about photography but its also about an aspect of that craft & profession that seems to perturb many practitioners - ethics, and also power (who has it, what do they do with it, and who 'suffers' or 'benefits' as a consequence).

The issue seems to have perplexed a lot of people (commenting on here) who seem confused about where the right to journalistic freedom ends when it interacts with eg the rights to protection of vulnerable children.

There's a simple bottom line here - more awareness and interest in the law around the rights of vulnerable young people (as photo subjects) can only mean more protection for them from exploitation. And thats not an "an SJW thing" but an integral part of the process of consideration that will (should) occur whenever you or I or anyone else lifts a camera and points it at someone else.

And I'm certain that's a bottom line you and I will agree on.

The other day I saw an interview with Ben Shapiro in which he posits that in one hundred years, future generations of what we now call Progressives will tear down the statues of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and whomever else they currently worship, just because those idols are now driving cars and eating meat when we all know these things are bad for the environment. They will cry, "They knew it was wrong and they did it anyway! Cancel those statues!"

I would agree and add that today's photographers who are railing against shooters of yesterday's generation for making photos of what was then fine but is now verboten, will themselves be read the riot act for making photos of internal-combustion-powered cars and meat cooking on a grill. "How dare you fetishize the very acts that led to the death of our planet?"

Mark my words: Once we go down this path of judging history through a modern lens and vilifying the people who lived it, we are ALL doomed to the historical trash bin.

You don't have to vilify those from the past who were guilty of morally reprehensible behaviour because they lived in a society which condoned it. We just don't need to celebrate them.

So why celebrate anyone who has ever lived? EVERYONE has done something you might find distasteful. Abraham Lincoln was no friend of Native Americans, yet his statue is one of the biggest and his presidency one of the most celebrated in the nation. How long before we are told that the monuments in his name are no longer to be "celebrated" and they are torn down? (Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.)

It's not really about 'distasteful' I wouldn't describe slavery or genocide as 'distasteful'. I guess if your country has a barbaric diabolical past, then all of your heroes are going to be villains. Lets face it, if the Nazis's had won WW2 there would be Hitler statues everywhere, I'd be here arguing that it's morally reprehensible, and you'd be saying "so why celebrate anyone who ever lived".

I'm sorry Phillip...you lost me at Ben Shapiro.

Oh, no no no. I'm sorry, snowflake. If I had left out the name of the person I was paraphrasing, would that have made the sentiment more palatable to your delicate sensibilities? Or would you have insisted that I relay the name before you decided whether to be enraged?

With respect Phillip, are you aware of the laws regarding 'indecent images of children', how they are created, what qualifies them as 'indecent' (in law in many jurisdictions) and what consequences you (or anyone else) will experience if you make/share them?

If not I urge you to do so.

With respect, are you aware of the laws and regulations regarding the personal ownership of firearms and the right to carry such arms?

If you are not aware of these rules because you know you will never need to know them, then you know why I may not be aware of what the laws are regarding indecent images of children. I don't even photograph minors with a release signed by their parents because: 1) I don't like children, and 2) there are too many pitfalls when dealing with people who seem to think it's okay to eat laundry soap.

Yes I do. Which is why I don't have an illegal gun.

If you don't know the answer to the question of what the law says in your jurisdiction about what constitutes an 'indecent image' then you're in no position to make any informed judgement on what is or is not permitted.

You might assume you'll "never need to know them" (laws) but that will not stop the legal authorities from coming down on you like a ton of bricks because "I didn't know this was illegal" - (in law ignorance is not a defence) if you happen to 'share' an image that breaks the law.

None of this stuff is easy, but its got nothing to do with 'historical revisionism' or 'cancel culture' or any other weasel words, the law looks at what is there and judges it against the current legal criteria, and if its in breach of them, thats it.

Interesting direction of thought, but Ben Shapiro is otherwise very much full of shit. His half facts and full fallacies have been exposed MANY MANY times.

Ah, a dry ass pussy disciple.

I am astonished by the wrath generated in almost all the men commenting here. Who would have thought that the photographs discussed would be so dear to them? "Fine Art" won't survive now?

Its not so much the issues at hand, as the author who writes it is just a tad irritating about his soapbox.

Remove and destroy pictures? Might as well remove and destroy books too then. Remind me, does removing and destroying books eliminate the sins that they describe? Might as well remove and destroy every picture of war too. That would eliminate war, right?

Why do you need a photo of a naked child, as they were victims os sexual abuse, to be continued online?
There's no reason. And if you want to document child sex slavery, you can do that without identifying the child and not showing their genitals.
Why you people don't get it? I mean, you call yourselves photographers...

I'm not Magnum and I don't make those pictures. Perhaps address your questions to them?

You were so afraid to destroy those pictures ,so I asked you. Why do think we need pictures of a naked child?

I don't think they're "needed" by anyone, but a photojournalist may have very good reasons for making them, such as to show unlawful or harmful activity. Showing the truth demands a reckoning with the truth, and that often leads to progress. With that in mind, I would not demand that they be removed or destroyed. Removal and destruction of books has always worked against progress and in favor of fascism. Criminals universally prefer that their crimes not be shown. Criminals will be very happy to hear that you support their efforts at secrecy. Now why don't you answer my questions in my first post above?

Andy, Andy, Andy...here we go with Magnum again. Get off your soapbox kid.

What about David Hamilton, Jock Sturges and Sally Mann?

Hamilton likely committed suicide following sexual assault allegations. But Sturges is still around and Mann is celebrated. All these photographers published explicit nude photos of kids.

Or is it just underage prostitutes in developing nations we care about?

I don't condone any of the imagery but if you're going to crusade against one, it should be against all.

On your horse Andy, it's time to clean this place up!

Well written article.

The answer to all these questions is one or more of:
(1) The photographer thought he could make a few dollars doing this.
(2) The photographer is a sick pervert.
(3) The subject was one of the “inferior” peoples of the world, who can be abused with impunity.
(4) Magnum will mend its ways only if it’s forced to do so, but will never admit it’s ever done anything wrong.
(5) Magnum and the photographer believe that anything and everything is permissible in the name of art.

Great article. Though I have a correction: it’s Alec* Soth, not Alex.

This appears to be a very insightful, well-written article. But there's one problem .... I have no idea who or what Magnum is, as I have never heard of it/them/him before. I will have to Google "Magnum" in order to find out what it is that Andy has written about.

It would have been nice if there was a brief paragraph - or even a sentence - at the beginning of the article, telling us what or who Magnum is. That's usually the right way to start an article off.

Someone needs to cut off Andy's internet access.

In general, I like Andy's content. He seems to be very hard-working when the topic calls for it, like when hard-core research is necessary to cover a topic properly.

I do seem to recall a time or two when he may have used a click-baitish title for an article or two, and of course that is very offensive and patronizing ..... but other than that the stuff he writes is well worth reading. And I don't think he's done any click-baitish titles for some months now, so that is forgiven.

This is a true iceberg of an issue.

Just a dot-point list of some of the things that ought to be unpacked for a proper discussion here:

- MAGNUM's colonialist, white, male, occidental viewpoint — invisible in the early to mid 20th century, but now obviously narrow in retrospect
- their position at the intersection of hard news reportage, historical record and personal response, the conflicting and overlapping roles of witness, reporter, and journalist and personal documentarian that are particularly at play within that agency
- the shift in understanding we are all still undergoing in terms of representation, trauma , voice, awareness, victim support, responsibility and advocacy
- the changes in law regarding the rights of women, children and the mechanics of trafficking and exploitation
- the effects of secondary trauma including issues of image, voice, privacy, narrative and public representation
- what it means to photograph criminality and why sexual crimes are different
- power and the fetishization and exoticization of of ‘others’
- how technological and economic changes to the sale, distribution and control of, and access to imagery have changes what it means to be a witness to, a participant in, or an exploiter of a criminal act
- increasing awareness and importance of privacy and anonymity in light of those changes
- how to consider "problematic" viewpoints, acts and images in history — how should they be viewed, limited, distributed, commercialised (if at all), what is the responsibility of managing large historical archive?

And of much less importance — a writer on Fstoppers demanding answers under semi-clickbait headlines in articles under the indemnifying tag of "opinion", in between posting lens reviews and hot takes on smartphone street photography.

I would love for someone at the New Yorker, The Atlantic or elsewhere — places with the ability to really pursue the story, access to people at MAGNUM, appreciation for the complexity underlying the issue and journalistic skin in the outcome?

Context and intent is really important, claiming imperialism is a slight twist of reality to prove a point, is it the same thing when a photographer is self aware of their position of privilege and trying to use it for bringing the attention of the world upon a horrific subject and abuse?

Not that I know the intention of the photographer for sure, but a portion of the article could've been dedicated to researching this and trying to understand the grey muggy areas in-between, the lines are certainly stomped on at times and mistakes made, but it's really important to gain and gather more context.

Further more;

"Whether the photographer was making a racist commentary or not is now almost irrelevant: Parr was made aware of concerns about racism in May 2019, didn't respond until December, and chose to continue promoting the book for more than a year."

It is relevant, context is relevant, is the book the problem or is the lack of a statement the problem, are they related or are they not? Again, what's missing here is a further investigation into the photographer and intent; if you've seen the two pictures in the book, lots of different interpretations can be concluded, the racist viewpoint is the easiest and laziest conclusion to reach, more so when a viewer is deliberately looking for it.

With complex issues comes a need for a more thoughtful analysis and deeper dive of the issues, statements and intent from the photographers are missing here, assumed positions and attitudes of exploitation, some of the questions you wish to be answered are still relevant, with moral lines and judgement errors regarding the photographer, but the shades of grey are still important.

It's not so easy to label things as this is good, this is bad, this is ambiguous is often the best we can do, but at this point we're quickly approaching a place where very few of us internet surfers are in a position to judge accurately all the facts and make a totally impartial decision.

The last article gained mainstream media attention, I hope this isn't just follow up bait to keep that attention and eyes in the same place.

Of course, there are things that have been highlighted and demanded scrutiny, but I'd hope the authors intention isn't one of gaining views and creating conflict, or pushing personal agendas, but as with the photographers, we just don't know, the information is not present to make an informed decision.

Context and intent is really important, claiming imperialism is a slight twist of reality to prove a point, is it the same thing when a photographer is self aware of their position of privilege and trying to use it for bringing the attention of the world upon a horrific subject and abuse?

Not that I know the intention of the photographer for sure, but a portion of the article could've been dedicated to researching this and trying to understand the grey muggy areas in-between, the lines are certainly stomped on at times and mistakes made, but it's really important to gain and gather more context.

Further more;

"Whether the photographer was making a racist commentary or not is now almost irrelevant: Parr was made aware of concerns about racism in May 2019, didn't respond until December, and chose to continue promoting the book for more than a year."

It is relevant, context is relevant, is the book the problem or is the lack of a statement the problem, are they related or are they not? Again, what's missing here is a further investigation into the photographer and intent; if you've seen the two pictures in the book, lots of different interpretations can be concluded, the racist viewpoint is the easiest and laziest conclusion to reach, more so when a viewer is deliberately looking for it.

With complex issues comes a need for a more thoughtful analysis and deeper dive of the issues, statements and intent from the photographers are missing here, assumed positions and attitudes of exploitation, some of the questions you wish to be answered are still relevant, with moral lines and judgement errors regarding the photographer, but the shades of grey are still important.

It's not so easy to label things as this is good, this is bad, this is ambiguous is often the best we can do, but at this point we're quickly approaching a place where very few of us internet surfers are in a position to judge accurately all the facts and make a totally impartial decision.

The last article gained mainstream media attention, I hope this isn't just follow up bait to keep that attention and eyes in the same place.

Of course, there are things that have been highlighted and demanded scrutiny, but I'd hope the authors intention isn't one of gaining views and creating conflict, or pushing personal agendas, but as with the photographers, we just don't know, the information is not present to make an informed decision.

This is Andy Day's chance at a bit of the limelight ... his "15 minutes" if you will. And he's not going to blow his opportunity to make sure you know that he's out there, and that he's got an opinion!

Do you have an opinion?

Do you come down on the side that says 'indecent images' of children are wrong?

Or are you on the other team arguing its all ok because...(insert your reason)?

Just curious.

Who in the heck is Joe Snell. His comments make it clear than he leans towards free expression even if it demeans people. Then he repeats himself with his "indictment" of Andy Day. In a world absent religious values, it is difficult to find someone who understands concepts such as discrimination; a right to privacy; racism used in multiple contexts; the maintenance of ill begotten images for purposes of making money; sensationalism; disregard for the rights of others on a basic human level. Those more knowledgeable than I am could probably develop categories and sectors, where the material covered by Andy, has had like work covered at the University level in the United States and the Philippines to cite one grand set of examples where the, "...ends justified the means by those in power, those who were famous and those who made a lot of money off such photographs that are over the line of human decency as well as demeaning individuals separately and as groups of people. Filipino PhD and Masters Degree candidates and graduates of the universities have written numerous theses and dissertations regarding the kind of material that stemmed from the entitlement of Empire by white explorers and officials for multiple purposes often eventually resulting in profits from lectures and slide presentations. These included photographs taken from the 1890's in the Philippines of tribal peoples. It is noted that they were in general in stark contrast to the themes of photographs taken of the upper class in the Philippine during the same period which included the period from the mid 1890's through approximately 1913. The abusive use and political use of the photographs said to be taken in the thousands, was ongoing in the first part of the 20th Century, during the, "American Era in the Philippines." The photographs were taken when Filipino peoples were at their most vulnerable, having no power at all after 330 years of Spanish rule, followed by the Spanish American War. With many views of what was going on at the time, a rather large group of people did in fact characterize what was happening in the Philippines at that time as America's experiment with Imperialism. I reached such proportions, that the great English Poet, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem with the title, "(The) White Man's Burden." Hundreds of books and articles with all kinds of opinions have been written about the topic with the photographic aspect of it having no small part in the history that can be found on it. The fallout of the racism and the entitlement mentioned in Andy's article, have a dramatic parallel in what I've mentioned to be the case, herein. And this, by the way, is not a matter of being on any of the right or left camps. This is a matter of humanity. AF

More comments