I suppose the placards do the talking. But yeah I like the idea that there is effort to decode the image before immediately categorising it to a narrative.
Great photos Neil. And I spy photographer Chris Leslie! Seeing as you’re also good with words I’d be interested in your take on the atmosphere of the day.
What I see is what your camera saw. I’m not sure I can deduce anything else from the pictures alone, except perhaps some compositional similarities and the montage effect of a particular sequence. Almost any ‘story’ could be told about them. Interested to see how the words provide context and a more precise interpretation of events. Even a sequence of images is pretty ‘wild’ and indeterminate.
It’s not so much context that’s at issue but interpretation. I can observe the studium, but there’s no way of knowing from the pictures how events played out, which side was dominant, how people felt, or what the outcome was. Of course, words can be unreliable too, but they can provide valuable support, narrowing the range of possible meanings. For example, there’s no real way of knowing whether or not your pictures show some kind of historical re-enactment. Imagine how they might be viewed in 50 years time, without any captions or supporting text.
Absolutely. Words may be unreliable but they also might surprise people out of their complacency. Is someone wearing an Orwell hat right or left? A lot of people seem to assume the latter. Likewise, whenever a black person starts singing in support of Tommy Robinson it takes on an outsized influence because of preconceptions.
Indeed. It’s not possible to tell from the picture alone which side the Orwell cap wearing person is on, although the phrase “Make Orwell fiction again” is surely anti-authoritarian in spirit. I like the way that some of these pictures contain their own captions. Usually, captions help the viewer to interpret the image but the words inside these pictures seem to be made less secure by being embedded in the image (rather than underneath or alongside). A forest of signs.
Yes, the placard-writing is a very important modern art form!
Re:Orwell it depends on what you think is the limits of free speech. I should have spoken to the woman but I inferred it was aligned with Graham Linehan / Lucy Connolly side of the spectrum.
That’s interesting. I would have assumed it was a reference to Trumpism and the censorship of dissenting voices in the American media - something we can look forward to here if Farage wins the next election (all the time claiming to be defending free speech). Some words are freer than others?
The Orwell cap is especially interesting because he is beloved by right and left. In her case, I think it was from the perspective of the restrictions on free speech.
I love the complete lack of commentary here to let the photos speak for themselves. Now I have 10 times the number of questions I would otherwise!
I suppose the placards do the talking. But yeah I like the idea that there is effort to decode the image before immediately categorising it to a narrative.
Great photos Neil. And I spy photographer Chris Leslie! Seeing as you’re also good with words I’d be interested in your take on the atmosphere of the day.
Thanks Emma! It was great to see a familiar face in the melee. Very curious to see his photo essay.
What I see is what your camera saw. I’m not sure I can deduce anything else from the pictures alone, except perhaps some compositional similarities and the montage effect of a particular sequence. Almost any ‘story’ could be told about them. Interested to see how the words provide context and a more precise interpretation of events. Even a sequence of images is pretty ‘wild’ and indeterminate.
Thanks Jon! The placards provide a fair bit of context but there is plenty of nuance. Will update soon.
It’s not so much context that’s at issue but interpretation. I can observe the studium, but there’s no way of knowing from the pictures how events played out, which side was dominant, how people felt, or what the outcome was. Of course, words can be unreliable too, but they can provide valuable support, narrowing the range of possible meanings. For example, there’s no real way of knowing whether or not your pictures show some kind of historical re-enactment. Imagine how they might be viewed in 50 years time, without any captions or supporting text.
Absolutely. Words may be unreliable but they also might surprise people out of their complacency. Is someone wearing an Orwell hat right or left? A lot of people seem to assume the latter. Likewise, whenever a black person starts singing in support of Tommy Robinson it takes on an outsized influence because of preconceptions.
Indeed. It’s not possible to tell from the picture alone which side the Orwell cap wearing person is on, although the phrase “Make Orwell fiction again” is surely anti-authoritarian in spirit. I like the way that some of these pictures contain their own captions. Usually, captions help the viewer to interpret the image but the words inside these pictures seem to be made less secure by being embedded in the image (rather than underneath or alongside). A forest of signs.
Yes, the placard-writing is a very important modern art form!
Re:Orwell it depends on what you think is the limits of free speech. I should have spoken to the woman but I inferred it was aligned with Graham Linehan / Lucy Connolly side of the spectrum.
That’s interesting. I would have assumed it was a reference to Trumpism and the censorship of dissenting voices in the American media - something we can look forward to here if Farage wins the next election (all the time claiming to be defending free speech). Some words are freer than others?
Works for me!
Thank you Michael! I will add a version with captions to see if it changes how people interpret the photos.
🙌
No words needed. The photos and the placards tell the story pretty clearly. Oh, and not to forget the cap of the woman: „Make Orwell Fiction Again“.
Placard writing is an art form!
The Orwell cap is especially interesting because he is beloved by right and left. In her case, I think it was from the perspective of the restrictions on free speech.