From: Kris Erickson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 03/03/03-10:26:58 AM Z
Lots of possibilities with it, Richard! CC me as well, please!
The Stalin propaganda images are interesting because they are not
exclusively photography (rather photomontage), but are products of both
photographers and designers--or photo-designers, or what have you (i.e.
Alexander Rodchenko, Gustav Klutsis, and John Heartfield--originally
Herzfeld). The evolution of the idea of plurality, equality, and
community (from the October revolution) towards Stalinist singularity,
power, and dominance (from the early 30's onward) is quite remarkable
and illustrative of the changing ideals of the culture.
I guess it depends what you're going for.
I think another interesting area is the censorship of students by
teachers of photography (either through direct discouragement, or
implied unreceptivity to a student's work and work interests--typically
in favour of his/her own). It's a little more difficult to suss
out--typically it's described not as censorship but as the student's
"learning process"--but I know I have felt on more than one occasion the
"pressure" to do something different from what I have been working on.
I realize that as a student, one must learn to articulate what one is
creating. However, I think that working to discourage a student from
creating or pursuing one kind of work is a sinister form of censorship
(at best), while trying to point out the possible political, social,
moral, etc. repercussions of making THAT work in particular is much less
destructive or long-term prohibitive. It is a very delicate issue, however.
Best of luck with it, Richard,
Thom Mitchell wrote:
>Dick, There's a book out featuring images that were cleansed or changed with
>the changing times, can't remember the title but it featured multiple Stalin
>images that changed over time reflecting who was in and then out of the
>inner circle. More propaganda than censorship, but possibly relevant. A lot
>of war photography books mention that the first Photographic censorship
>occurred during the Crimean war preventing photos of the dead from being
>taken. I am not sure if you want to include War photography in general
>because as a subset access was/is controlled except notably in Vietnam.
>Where access was fairly wide open allowing for many well know
>photojournalists to make their mark as well as ending up dead. Journalism
>texts and the Freedom of Information center might be good places to start
>looking because Sunshine laws and the resulting access for photography.
>Here's the link for FOI
> Also is it considered censorship to prevent a photographer from making
>an image? If so than there are many more instances...
>And I too would like to see the result of your scholarship. Thanks, Thom
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Sullivan" <email@example.com>
>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:48
>Subject: Photographic censorship question
>>I need some help on some research I am beginning.
>>I am interested in historical events surrounding the suppression or
>>censoring of photographs especially specific photographs or tight bodies
>>work that became issues of public censorship as opposed to grotesque,
>>revolting, or hard to look at photographs that were exhibited but not
>>I've got a grip on the well known events of the recent past such as the
>>Cleveland-Barry-Mapplethorpe, Seranno, Sturges, Witkin, Livingston, Mann,
>>etc. I am most interested in events of the last 20 or 30 years not as well
>>known and especially ones from the 60's on back.
>>The scope is international. Soviet, Nazi, or other settings are welcome.
>>The scope may be regional as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:24 PM Z CST