Featured Post

Pinned Post, A Policy Note:

I have made a decision to keep this blog virus free from this point forward, at least until the smoke clears. This is not a judgement about ...

Sunday, September 27, 2020

Crit: "London" by Paul Halliday

A few caveats. First, the thing I'm looking at is a video presentation of a project that is, I think, not done. The film is shot, but we should take this as a preliminary edit, at best. Second, I think Paul is an awful human being, and so find myself prone to the "and your photos are shit!" fallacy.

Which this in mind, you can view this video at this link: Dekho Paul T. Halliday. The video production is not great, I think it's just a recorded Zoom session. The english text at the beginning is rough, but there's a language barrier so get over it. You can watch it sound-off at double speed if you just want to see the photos, all of which appear in the first 60 minutes. Paul's talk is, um, well it is its own thing which I will get to.

Let's start with the pictures, though.

Paul displays a strong sense of graphic design now and then, almost frequently. There's some really punchy pictures in here, and of the 60-odd photos there are 3 or 4 that I genuinely like. I dare say you'll also find a handful that make you think "wow, that's just a good photo" and that they won't be quite the same ones I like. The collection has that flavor. There's also some more photos that I think are OK, near misses, that kind of thing. There are really only a few that look like total duds. Again, you might find a few duds, but different ones than mine. The collection has that flavor.

He is not, however, consistent. Many of the frames are just a jumble of stuff, or some cheap "street tog" juxtaposition. The arrow points right, the people walk left. The giant hand in the poster appears to grab the woman's head, that sort of thing. Many of the better photos feel vaguely familiar, and one guesses that Paul picked them off the contact sheet because they reminded him of whatever it is that we're recalling. It's a little like looking at Vivian Maier's photos, but attenuated.

The framing is frequently a bit off. Paul doesn't seem to be able to handle his rangefinder and is constantly chopping people's feet off and more generally the photos either feel like they ought to be cropped, or got cropped a bit badly. Several times he's interested in some cute replication of subject or form, but frames the picture is such a way as to practically conceal the joke. He does not seem to have any sense of positioning himself, of moving, to get a good framing.

The influence of Cartier-Bresson is felt throughout. My first impression was these look like all the frames Henri did not circle. After another viewing and some noodling, that still seems right. Which, you know, isn't entirely bad, right? HCB rejected some decent pictures. It also feels a bit like some random would-be "street" tog's Instagram.

And therein lies the real trouble. This thing is incoherent. It's just a bunch of whatever Paul thought were "the good ones" in no particular order. There is no sense of place, no sense of time, and no sense of any relationship at all between the pictures. Two more or less identical pictures of amusement park rides joggle shoulders with a picture of a cat in a window, two nuns on the subway, and apparently endless photos of people milling around in streets. The closest thing we get to a theme or an idea that carries across photos is three pictures of people sleeping.

Let us now turn to Paul's commentary. We learn that he spent 20 years on this, 1986 to 2006 which to be fair are probably the least visually interesting years in human history. He has an archive of 120,000 negatives holy shit this is the best he could extract? He has been all kinds of minor-league academic and has lived all over London, all his life, etc and so forth. It becomes clear that he's in the habit of going out weekends and knocking out a few rolls of film. He tells us, mercifully briefly, about his Leicas.

In all this blather, he spend a lot of time justifying his pictures. He offers up "longitudinal study" which it's not because he never seems to return to the same location at all, let alone over years. Like all the other justifications he mentions it once and moves on. He proposes that he is a "critical urbanist" which means something, I guess. An urbanist is someone who favors gentrification, but not the lame kind, the cool kind that produces awesome cafes, a thriving art scene, and affordable rents.

As a critical urbanist Paul is "quite interested" in the ways people move through and use urban spaces, which I suppose explains all the pictures of people milling around. Surely there's more to it than milling around, though?

Paul is also "quite interested" in urban animals. For one frame. He's "quite interested" in gesture, for one frame. He's "quite interested" in sleeping people, for three pictures. Indeed, there seems to be almost nothing Paul is not "quite interested" in for a frame or two.

All this blather feels like he's trying to tell us what the point of this project is, but none of it succeeds. He dribbles off, and is on to a new thing for the next picture. It's clear that if he has a concept here, he is utterly unable to articulate it either with words, or with pictures.

And now the last bit. Paul is extremely woke. He operates a Master's program at Goldsmiths where you can spend a year learning Wokeology and Photography for a mere 10,000 pounds (18,900 if you're foreign.) For those of you in the cheap seats, Goldsmiths is evidently well-respected, so god knows how Paul wiggled in there. He's some sort of interstitial scholar type, a failed PhD presumably on-staff for his admin skills and ability to extract money from wealthy foreigners.

This makes the one theme which actually does run through his blather especially sticky. Paul talks a lot about consent. He's really into contemporary discussions of consent in "photoland" and it shows here in his blather. His problem, though, is that he has rather a lot of pictures of people glaring at him, and many more pictures of people who haven't noticed him. He spends quite a bit of effort attempting to explain why this is OK.

Nazis, fuck them anyways, their consent doesn't matter and anyways I saw that one eating a bagel later (?!) The nun probably recognized me because we'd been riding the train together for years, although we've never exchanged a word, so that makes it ok (the nun is palpably angry.) The people sleeping? I don't even know why it's ok to photograph them, but I'm "quite interested" in sleeping people. The girl canoodling made eye contact before this frame was shot, so that's OK. And on and on. He's always got a story, and the subject is always either glaring at him or oblivious.

I get it, his opinions have changed. He was shooting this shit starting 35 years ago. It's ok to say I wouldn't take this photo now.

It must have been crushing for Paul to see Butturini's book. The latter is focused, intense. It has a powerful sense of time and place. The framing is consistently good. The edit is tight. The time it was shot was visually interesting. I don't think Butturini's "London" is really all that, it's not my favorite book, but it is astronomically better than Paul's efforts, and this damned Italian knocked it out in a summer. Paul's 120,000 negative archive might as well go in the bin now, and he probably shouldn't have started.

Butturini's photos are geographically tight: Regent's Park, Picadilly Circus, The Underground. That's pretty much it. It's temporally tight: summer of 1968. It's focused: this is what I saw and felt in London that summer. Paul's photos, in contrast, are all over London, all over time, and to no particular purpose. Could something be made of Paul's project? Maybe. It would be completely different from Butturini's project, and Paul probably doesn't have the chops to do it.

Is Paul conscious of this? Probably not. But at some level I think he picked up on it. It's pretty obvious.

13 comments:

  1. The British satirical magazine Private Eye has a section called Pseuds Corner for pretentious, pseudo-intellectual statements. On his website Mr. Halliday describes ". . . an informal methodology by which ideas of ‘somewhere-ness’ and ‘nowhere-ness’ were revisited and rethought through an ongoing visual praxis that involved the possibilities of being unintentionally lost." I think Mr. Halliday qualifies as a pseud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no doubt. Academic photography is infested with fairly stupid people. It appears to be a place the least of the academics can crawl in to.

      Delete
    2. It means "practice, and I am a humongous jackass"

      Delete
  2. Paul frequently presents online as an "awful human being", though no doubt he and his photoland sycophants would rather see him as exemplary, even heroic; it has to be considered they are collectively enlisted in a more recent, quixotic project, to which any and all other concerns including photographic, are suborned. So yay for Paul, his allies and photoland sycophants.

    But surely his 1986 to 2006 project predates that project, and can't be so evaluated, despite Paul's mumbled and barely coherent rear-view projections recorded in the cringe-worthy youtube. And thanks for watching it through so we don't have to (I saw enough to form an impression the sad bastard has utterly nothing interesting to say, or show us).

    Halliday once had a perambulatory practice of street photography, a genre he since has repudiated and renamed, "urban photography." If that is/was his intention, then Eugene Atget would have been a better model than HCB.

    It's curious, to put it mildly, that he was induced by a book besmirched by the hated Martin Parr's role as blurb contributor(!) to publish his own, dubious legacy under the same title.

    One must presume it will include no visits to the London zoo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he may have been in-progress on his own book, when Butturini's showed up. He certainly seems to be irrationally enraged by the latter, and this is as good a theory as any to explain that, I suppose.

      Delete
    2. In other notes, Paul's "London" project as it appears in the video does include a visit to the zoo, the penguin enclosure to be exact, at 41:38. Paul has nothing to say about the picture, so it goes by very quickly.

      Also, on his "critiqueofurbanphotography" site, which you link to, the "Interview" is in fact Paul being interviewed by his partner ("wife") and even with that comforting presence he can't manage to avoid gibberish.

      E.G. this gem: "In your question you point towards an implicit binary between what might be described as an ‘intuitive’, possibly even ‘shallow’ approach to doing street work."

      It's as if he's trapped between a rock, or as I like to say there's many a slip twixt the cup.

      Delete
    3. Checked out http://urbanphotographers.org, the land of the bland?

      Here's Andy Day spouting insane gobbledygook about his pictures of some man-child desecrating war memorials by hopping about on them:

      "This project proposes that photography and edgework (Lyng) [?] – and physicality more broadly – can combine to create interventions into sacrosanct space that allow a contemplation of the self in relation to the future, through embodied encounters with historicity. [...] Through its inscription of the body onto the intensely visual notion of landscape, it brings a tactile and experiential reinterpretation of a space that emerges through an exploitation of the gaps found amongst a once-dominant spatial narrative."

      Delete
    4. Andy thinks photographing spomenik is creative, if you add a parkour doofus to the picture. I mean, I guess it adds visual interest? And you're combining two wildly overdone themes into... something not overdone yet?

      But what the hell is is supposed to mean? What is the point?

      Delete
    5. The web site doesn't seem to have been updated since 2017 ...

      Delete
  3. Don't think I haven't noticed that you've spelled "Butturini" correctly five times in a row. Gold star!

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My blood pressure spikes now whenever I have to spell that name! Note also that I dodged it by saying "this damned Italian" which I felt was very clever.

      Delete