Against politically correct policing

<p>I don't need somebody else telling me how my [gender/race/nationality, etc; whatever category that the PC police self-appont themselves to supervise] "ought" to be portrayed in photographs. I'd like to see all kinds of portrayals, by all kinds of people, from all kinds of viewpoints/perspectives and make up my own mind about what those pictures tell me both about what's in them and the person who made them.</p>

<p>Not only am I, and I think most people, fully able, as free adults, not to need nannying and hand-slapping from outsiders, the constant SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH!!! of outrage about every little possibly, maybe, might-be perceived incorrect imagery; I think this kind of self-censoring is hugely damaging to how one is able to see pictures. It's intrusive, and, I think nearly ruinous to the possibility of expanding beyond the iconic or the propagandist, "acceptable" stance that is considered okay by the PC police.</p>

<p>Setting aside PC policing of pictures or women, (gosh, Lisette, <a href="http://www.photoeye.com/auctions/img/442/Large_H1000xW950.jpg">what were you thinking??</a>), consider how hard it is for African-Americans to build a cultural portrayal that gets beyond stereotyping: "Iconic blackness as larger-than-life image (Rosa Parks, Jesse Owens, Martin Luther King Jr. to name just a few) and spectacular blackness -- from criminal deviance to excessive bodily enactments -- are the dominant visual modes for representing black subjects and black lived experience, in particular throughout the twentieth century." — <em>Nicole R. Fleetwood</em></p>

<p>Why does Stanley Crouch, when describing photos by <a href="http://teenie.cmoa.org/">Teenie Harris</a>, feel the need to write as follows:</p>

<p>"We can see as the little white boy stands with the other kids and listens to the black man play the small piano somewhere out on a Pittsburgh street that he is not assuming that he is among exotics or savages or coons."</p>

<p>"The white kids who are present at a black baptism aren't acting as though they are lost in some kind of urban jungle and might be only a few minutes from a cook pot once the natives notice their presence."</p>

<p>"The handsome black lifeguard and swimming instructor standing in the pool and showing kids, black and white, how to keep afloat and get from one place to the other exhibits neither subservience nor condescension, just pure professionalism burnished with grace."</p>

<p>"Those white guys with the black girlfriends and the dignified but melancholy white woman sitting next to her black guy don't seem to feel as though Tarzan and the apes form a good metaphor for their experience."</p>

<p>Why use words like "coon" and "natives" and "Tarzan"? Because, I think he knows they'll shock white people like me out of my politically correct, paternalistic smarminess when looking at Harris's "nice" portrayals of his home town. The trouble is, that in doing so, in <em>needing</em> to do so, he's blotted out my ability not to see the pictures <em>in those terms</em>. Now I've got <em>coon</em> and <em>native</em> and <em>Tarzan</em> on my mind and I've lost the ease of just pondering the pictures, letting the pictures do their own work.</p>

<p>As Crouch notes later, "Unless something of imperishable value from the dead world of the past is held onto, the undeclared audience that we all are could get that dead world dead wrong." I totally agree; and I think the iconic/propagandic, and the politically correct -- which certainly have their purpose and power within the political arena -- stand between, thwart and even prevent a full, rich and deep portrayal in all its glorious <em>and</em> inglorious un-PC human imperfection.</p>

<p>As Richard Wright wrote, "our history is far stranger than you suspect, and we are not what we seem."</p>

<p>" Our history is a make up history and nothing to do with a real history."<br /> " People not supposed to know the real history."<br /> " History is always written by the victorious."<br />" Truth has no political correctness."</p>

<p>" People watching "Reality Shows", but, they have no idea of reality around them."</p>

<p>Why are you paying attention to these commentators? They are promoting their own agenda on the back of another persons work and often doing it with a large chip on their shoulder. I notice this a lot when I look to see what the thought police are up to. I generally ignore them as they serve no useful purpose. See through your eyes, not Crouch's.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Is the problem taking the pictures or is it finding a market for them? As a PJ I have always known that I could take (and do) take pictures that will not make it to print. Is this political correctness or simply understanding a market and then creating a product to fill that market.</p>

<p>From a commercial standpoint (and therefor from a publishing standpoint) any picture with a strong political point of view is self-limiting. Unless the photo transcends politics and cultural sensitivities its subject both sells and limits its sale. My point is that often what is described as PC is actually a commercial decision. </p>

<p>Suppose I was editing a newspaper in New Orleans. A freelance PJ takes a picture of a minstrel show revival done by some civil war reenactors. If I choose not to publish the picture I can be certain that many people would call my decision political correctness. I would maintain that it is not that at all. It is my editorial judgment based upon my desire to serve my market. This picture could not stand as wild art without a story to support it and I may not feel that story worthy of the space. Do I know that the picture may offend a number of my readers? Sure. Editors offend readers all of the time. It is sort of what editors do/control. But when deciding to offend, there should be some compelling motive for accepting that offense. It should serve some greater purpose than simply publishing the salacious and such.</p>

<p>When we look back on pictures of black Americans from the 1940's and 50's we are observing a world in which political correctness itself demanded that whites and blacks rarely be shown freely associating. Not having blacks date whites or Jews as members of one's country club WAS politically correct then. Never but never would you see a story about homosexuals or a Japanese man dating a white woman. We have to be careful about the use of the term 'political correctness'. It is a moving target. I think we are moving in the right direction. It would be odd to wish to reset the clock. <br>

The internet offers a venue for artists unlike anything before. You can publish just about anything and maybe even find an audience for it. This was certainly not always the case. So my point is that no matter what one defines as 'politically incorrect', unlike in the past, it finds a potential audience on this media. So with the possible exception of clearly illegal subject matter, there has never been a better time to publish just about anything. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why are you paying attention to these commentators? ... See through your eyes, not Crouch's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Crouch's view will be very different from the view of most white Americans. That's why. One can stick their head in the sand and pretend that they understand everything, but they don't. That's why we need people like Crouch.</p>

<p>So, Julie, you've self-appointed yourself as the "PC police" police. Clarify for us how that is a more attractive position, please? It appears that you're doing exactly what you criticize.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am politically incorrect, that's true. Political correctness to me is just intellectual terrorism. I find that really scary, and I won't be intimidated into changing my mind. Everyone isn't going to love you all the time.<br />—Mel Gibson</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mel Gibson is what he seems. Yet he uses the current trendiness of calling an attempt at remedying the wrongs done to others and a move toward sensitivity to other human beings "political correctness."</p>

<p>Anyway, of course monitoring language and our photographic output can be overdone and we always need to be vigilant to allow free speech. But, when we put up a photo or exercise our free speech, it's best to remember that all kinds of people have all kinds of freedom to react. So, you make a photo that's the equivalent of yelling "Kike" out of your car window, and you may get a bunch of people screaming back at you. Call the response political correctness or whatever you want, it's a great and fitting response.</p>

<p>In a lot of ways, I think political correctness can go too far, for sure. But in as many ways, people are using a trend against so-called political correctness in order to reassert their racist, homophobic, and misogynistic views . . . or pictures.</p>

<p>______________________________________________</p>

<p>The power to react negatively to a photo is just as vital as the power to make and show a photo. The power to point out the culturally ingrained symbols and signs in a photo is just as important as the power of any symbols and signs to the artist and photographer to begin with.</p>

<p>Freedom to present your views in a photo means that others should have the freedom to comment on your photo's point of view whether you agree with their comments or not. A society can't be half free where only certain people have the right of self expression. Who's going to decide who has this right? "Shutting" people up is a dangerous road to travel down. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>he's blotted out my ability not to see the pictures <em>in those terms</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't allow critics to do that. First off, I usually don't read critical commentary until I've looked at the photos or movie or play or exhibition myself. And, then, once I've seen the work, I've usually formed my own opinions about it and felt it and analyzed it however I wanted. When I read the critic, I do so as critically as the critic observes the photos. I may or may not get anything out of what the critic writes. To me, a critic adds a voice to a dialogue, often a knowledgeable one that I can learn from and just as often with a sense of taste I don't share. I always feel free to accept or reject what a critic, a friend, a curator, even the photographer himself or herself (a little "political correctness" thrown in for good measure) says. It's all part of the conversation.</p>

<p>Julie - "Why does Stanley Crouch, when describing photos by Teenie Harris, feel the need to write as follows:..."</p>

<p>Here's my take. If Stanley thought that in that past all whites acted from pejoratives, here are pictures that show that not all whites in the past acted from pejoratives. He felt the need to correct himself for having had a previous misperception about all whites in the past. In Teenie's pictures Stanely is seeing some pretty normal human interaction in the past when of that past he previously may have thought those normal human interactions between whites and blacks just weren't possible because of how "those people" [whites] were. So he may have had the experience of pictures confronting his own stereotypes of whites and felt the need to write about that experience. Because thought of himself that he had it dead wrong, and wouldn't have known that about himself if he hadn't seen those pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The trouble is, that in doing so, in <em>needing</em> to do so, he's blotted out my ability not to see the pictures <em>in those terms</em>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. Words have meaning and power. Otherwise the momentum of social media wouldn't be so powerful.<br>

<br>

Other than Carlos Danger's real life political avatar, few politicians have been brought down by photographs. Most have hanged themselves on their own words, often in 144 or fewer characters.<br>

<br>

Most of the misinformation and disinformation I see on Facebook from well meaning family and friends have little to do with taking a photograph out of context and everything to do with taking words out of context, or spreading outright lies, propaganda and misattribution - often with the photograph of the alleged guilty party attached only as an artifact.<br>

<br>

If words about photographs had no power this forum wouldn't exist. We certainly wouldn't see the "he said/he said/no I didn't, YOU said" discussings and cussings over what photographs mean and the meaning of meaning.</p>

<p>Julie - "The trouble is, that in doing so, in <em>needing</em> to do so, he's blotted out my ability not to see the pictures <em>in those terms</em>."</p>

<p>Then imagine instead that you are an African American and that those words almost blotted out your ability to see yourself and your people in your <em>own</em> terms.</p>

<p>Lex, I agree that words have power, which is why so-called political correctness ever took form to begin with. Alec Baldwin calls gay people fags. That word has a lot of power and a lot of negative attachments for a lot of people. Then people who aren't all that empathetic with gay people accuse the gay people who go after Alec Baldwin for using that word of "political correctness." Now the phrase "political correctness" takes on a power of its own.</p>

<p>In some cases the phrase "political correctness" is used every bit as powerfully and as charged as "fag" or as whatever epithet bothered the "politically correct" to begin with. When political correctness got brought up in this thread, for the fun of it, I googled "Maya Angelou and political correctness" and got to see how hate-filled and misinformative those who charge Angelou with political correctness are. In some cases, it just sounded like "politically correct" was substituting for another epithet we've all come to know and hate.</p>

<p>Julie - "...consider how hard it is for African-Americans to build a cultural portrayal that gets beyond stereotyping..."</p>

<p>It's that hard because African Americans aren't the one's building the cultural portrayal.</p>

<p>Julie - "Why use words like "coon" and "natives" and "Tarzan"?"</p>

<p>(You forgot "exotics".) Those words are examples of racial epithets whose use generally is not politically correct. But you're suggesting Crouch in using racial epithets was doing PC policing of the kind you are against? How is Crouch's use of racial epithets PC policing? I fail to see how Crouch was functioning as a PC cop when he used racial epithets that were not PC. Note I'm not suggesting that Crouch's use of those terms was not politically correct use. What isn't politically correct as I understand that term would be to call other people those things, generally speaking. Therefore Crouch's usage was PC. So was it Crouch's PC usage that came across to you as him doing some PC policing?</p>

<p>Consider that you go on to say Crouch's use of racial epithets had the effect of knocking you out of an attitude of "politically correct, paternalistic smarminess" that you would otherwise have adopted when looking at "Harris's "nice" portrayals of his home town."</p>

<p>What's the attitude that Crouch knocked you out of, an attitude of smarminess that was paternalistic <em>and</em> politically correct? Is there such a thing as a paternalistic smarminess that is politically correct? Smarminess may be neutral to the political correctness police, but paternalism isn't politically correct as I understand political correctness; unless the word paternalistic is used to describe an attitude that an adult holds toward children, or used to characterize a less than ideal attitude. We just don't praise a paternalistic attitude held by men towards grown women, for example. To have a paternalistic attitude toward other adults isn't viewed as appropriate, whether politically correct or not. Therefore, and it is confusing to me, is it that you had a politically <em>incorrect</em> attitude of paternalism; you were aware of that paternalism as politically <em>incorrect; </em>you encountered Crouch's PC usage of racial epithets and felt you had been policed? Then you wished he hadn't used those terms so you could instead have the pictures work on you more slowly toward the same result?</p>

<p>You say that Crouch thought he knew as he wrote that his use of racial epithets would shock white people like you and me out of an attitude. How would he know what attitude that was, there are so many attitudes white people like you and me could have, why write to one that is so hard to conceive of and express?</p>

<p>Julie "Now I've got <em>coon</em> and <em>native</em> and <em>Tarzan</em> on my mind and I've lost the ease of just pondering the pictures, letting the pictures do their own work."</p>

<p>And you fault Crouch for putting those words in your mind? Who put those words in <em>his</em> mind, and how does he feel about that? That's the crux of it, not that your enjoyment of looking at pictures has been disturbed.</p>

<p>I used to be fond of saying that the West was just as controlling on its people as the Soviet Union but instead of sending the thought police around in the middle of the night and having you sent to a Gulag we do it much more insidiously, we viciously mock ideas, demote or retard a person's progress often to the point that they become imprisoned in perpetual poverty.</p>

<p>The reason why Political Correctness is out of control is that many careers are completely dependent on it.</p>

<p>But if "politically correct, paternalistic smarminess" means "my political correctness that can come off to other whites as a sort of paternalistic smarminess towards whites" then sure, here's an African American writer of an article who uses disturbing words that wouldn't be PC when spoken by a white person. That disturbing sort of language can interfere with a fuller appreciation of the pictures. I think that just goes with the territory.</p>

<p>The thing is, PC does limit the discussions we can have about race. It's a sort of official directive to only discuss race within the boundaries that PC creates. Fleetwood notes that the official PC story of race is marked by icons accompanied with a mostly white sanctioned liberal narrative that puts the issue of race in the past, limits it to a discussion of whether one has bad attitudes or not, etc. The PC boundaries put discussions of reparations off the table, for example, and the list of what is off the table is long, wide, and deep. The problem is that most anti-pc narratives advocate for a revisionist history and seek to move the discussion back in time instead of forward.</p>

 

<p>Clive, I think PC is usually a lazy, quick way to feel virtuous; and/or a bludgeon to use against those who disagree with the party line.</p>

<p>My comment, "The trouble is, that in doing so, in <em>needing</em> to do so, he's blotted out my ability not to see the pictures <em>in those terms,</em>" was not a complaint; it was recognition of and sympathy for the Catch-22 cage about which Crouch is writing.<br>

<br>

To expand on the OP:<br>

<br>

Can you look at <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/henderson_leroy_childatfune.jpg"><strong>THIS PHOTO</strong></a> and see 'a little kid who has lost his father'? Or must that view be smushed under the freight of 'African American boy in America'? If you respond with a chipper, PC, "Both!,", I'll say, bulls***. They're duck/rabbit -- the latter consumes the former and that consuming one is a monster where the other is a mouse. [<em>image is</em> Untitled<em> by Leroy Henderson, ca. 1989-1991</em>]<br>

<br>

"As modern visual poets, they [black photographers] were equally concerned with locating and reproducing the beauty and fragility of the race, the ironic humor of everyday life, the dream life of a people. Whether through portraiture or impromptu "street" shots, black photographers sought to capture something deeper than victimization, more complex than a heroic rebellion against the Man. And they found it: the interior life of Black America, the world either hidden from public view or forced into oblivion by the constant flood of stereotypes," writes Robin D.G. Kelley in the Foreword to <em>Reflections in Black</em>. <br>

<br>

That's a nice sentiment, but it simply isn't enough to do the job. It just encourages more strenuous PC filtering to "nice" stereotypes. As Nicholas Natanson wrote of the twentieth century portrayals of African Americans, you had your Colorful Black, your Black Victim, your Noble Primitive, and, best of all, your Role Model, framed by the limits of the hypervisible icons and all the rest, the ever invisible.<br>

<br>

See Roy CeCarava (one of the best, IMO, photographers of his or any time as I've said more than once in these forums) talking about one of his best photographs <em>Dancers</em> [ <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H16DBnLnieM/TuESXeO7MwI/AAAAAAAAEhQ/5QSunD7PRcM/s1600/Dancers+%25281956%2529+by+Roy+DeCarava.png%20%20%20%20%20"><strong>LINK</strong></a> ]:<br>

<br>

"... it's about these two dancers who represent a terrible torment for me in that I feel a great ambiguity about the image because of them. It's because they are in some ways distorted characters. What they actually are is two black male dancers who dance in the manner of an older generation of black vaudeville performers. The problem comes because their figures remind me so much of the real life experience of blacks in their need to put themselves in an awkward position before the man, for the man; to demean themselves in order to survive, to get along. In a way, these figures seem to epitomize that reality. And yet there is something in the figures not about that; something in the figures that is very creative, that is very real and very black in the finest sense of the word. So there is this duality, this ambiguity in the photograph that I find very hard to live with."<br>

<br>

For years before I read that from DeCarava, I loved that picture without seeing anything more than a fantastic evocation of the feel of dancing. I wish I had not read about his misgivings. And it scares me to think that he's shooting with these hesitations limiting his response. What have we lost because of it?<br>

<br>

Crouch, it seems to me is kicking <em>both</em> the PC police <em>and</em> the Roy DeCaravas of the world in the head, out of pure frustration; he's chaffing against the confines of this limiting, silencing, self-censoring, gag that prevents free expression. <br>

<br>

What strikes me about the pictures in Deborah Willis's <em>Reflections in Black</em> is how <em>careful</em> the pictures are. Watchful, deliberate (which sense DeCarava's comment supports, even though, to my mind, his pictures most often exceed/escape this limit). This is censoring from within which is reinforced by PC censoring from without -- both of which filter, distort and limit the fullness of what is shown.<br>

<br>

Can you look at <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/cox_renee_hottentot.jpg"><strong>THIS PHOTO</strong></a> by Renée Cox and see a nude, or must it be ... oh, wait. Renée has already answered the question for me ... LOL<br>

<br>

[Rick M, this is off topic, but at the end of Crouch's piece on Teenie Harris, who was a PJ in Pittsburgh, he writes this: "We should remain ever proud of that fact [that Harris compiled this body of work], and be grateful to him for knowing what had to be done and for rising up from the world of wishing into the very special one where those who choose themselves for the tasks get the invaluably human jobs done." <br>

<br>

With so many small newspapers disappearing, who, in the future, will "know what has to be done," to "choose themselves" and "rise up from the world of wishing" to do that job? Who will commit a lifetime to such community projects?]</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For years before I read that from DeCarava, I loved that picture without seeing anything more than a fantastic evocation of the feel of dancing. I wish I had not read about his misgivings. And it scares me to think that he's shooting with these hesitations limiting his response. What have we lost because of it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, it's probably just those hesitations—which are his authentic, genuine, and felt feelings—that gave him the passion and inspiration to shoot the way he did. They are causing, not limiting, his response. There's no perfect world where a photographer gets to have everything he wants in life. Some people suffer, some people have misgivings or hesitations. Those realities of life, good and bad, go into every good photographer's work. Why ask DeCarava to be who he was not or feel something "better" than you think he was feeling in order to make you a better picture?</p>

<p>It's just these dualities and these tensions, IMO, that make for the best photos and art. I wish life and history were different in many ways but NOT because I think that would have made for better art. The artist takes whatever world he inherits or is in and the good and bad in his life and transforms it into art. Sometimes he uses his art to make life better in certain ways, or at least bearable. What would this artist have done if he hadn't been starving, that artist have done if his father didn't beat him, that other artist have done if the love of his life hadn't left him? It just doesn't work that way.</p>

<p>I'm not saying I want people to have painful lives so they can bring me art. I'm saying life has its miseries, its doubts, its flaws, its hesitations, and I want people to be able to express those in their art and talk about that in their statements to me. Art is not some gallery experience that's there only for MY benefit. It's a sharing from artist to viewer and I don't want the artist hiding away his reality, his thoughts, his process, his doubts because I want some kind of unfettered artistic experience. That would be putting art in a vacuum. Art is too lived for that.</p>

<p>There is a way that you can very easily get to look at Teenie Harris' pictures without having them coloured by Crouch's comments. All you have to do is start calling him "Crouch the Grouch" or even just "grouch" - childish I know, but effective all the same, because you've in effect placed an equivalent layer of bias or bile on the writing to even things up.</p>

<p>Julie - "Crouch, it seems to me is kicking <em>both</em> the PC police <em>and</em> the Roy DeCaravas of the world in the head, out of pure frustration; he's chaffing against the confines of this limiting, silencing, self-censoring, gag that prevents free expression."</p>

<p>Crouch's use of racial epithets was PC and you haven't made a case for his having written anything that could be construed as a kick at PC police.</p>

<p>Crouch's comments that included racial epithets weren't a kick at the DeCaravas of the world either. That's because DeCarava commented on African Americans while in contrast, Crouch commented on the behavior of whites around African Americans, saying over and over that in the photographs the whites weren't acting like they thought African Americans lived up to those negative stereotypes. It also wasn't Crouch kicking the PC police when he praised the photographer and his pictures. Can't Crouch just give well deserved praise because he felt grateful and <em>only</em> offer that praise because he felt grateful to have the pictures? Why attribute some veiled motivation to his praise, or veiled motivation to any of his comments? Could it possibly be that he meant exactly what he wrote?</p>

<p>Where exactly in the text does Crouch express frustration with the PC police directly, where in the text does he say he is poking fun at gaging censors, feels silenced, gagged, and not free to self express? Where does Crouch give any indication that he isn't just giving his readers an account of his own personal experience while viewing the photographs?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From Julie's quote of DeCarava "The problem comes because their figures remind me so much of the real life experience of blacks in their need to put themselves in an awkward position before the man, for the man; to demean themselves in order to survive, to get along. In a way, these figures seem to epitomize that reality. And yet there is something in the figures not about that; something in the figures that is very creative, that is very real and very black in the finest sense of the word. So there is this duality, this ambiguity in the photograph that I find very hard to live with."</p>

<p>Of which Julie writes "And it scares me to think that he's shooting with these hesitations limiting his response."</p>

<p>DeCarava didn't write that he photographed with hesitation, didn't write that he limited his response. He describes how the picture he took conveyed to him both content that was deeply troubling to him, and deeply inspirational, that he photographed a duality. He didn't hesitate to photograph duality, he didn't limit himself to picturing only something nice, he didn't flinch and not take a photograph that spoke directly of men who in their attitude endured and prevailed despite a plethora of horrid conditions that we are all too familiar with. He didn't hesitate to show us a deep injury so difficult to contemplate, he didn't hesitate or limit himself in communicating to us with words exactly what the injury was and about how in their injury's expression he found something magnificent there. DeCarava has given us to contemplate what we have lost because of injury and we've lost nothing from DeCarava at all. We've only been enriched by his unhesitating ability to communicate both with a photograph and with words.</p>

<p>There was more to see in that photo than "...a fantastic evocation of the feel of dancing" and we can't un-ring the bell once we've seen it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Julie - "Can you look at <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/henderson_leroy_childatfune.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><strong>THIS PHOTO</strong></a> and see 'a little kid who has lost his father'? Or must that view be smushed under the freight of 'African American boy in America'? If you respond with a chipper, PC, "Both!,", I'll say, bulls***. They're duck/rabbit -- the latter consumes the former and that consuming one is a monster where the other is a mouse. [<em>image is</em> Untitled<em> by Leroy Henderson, ca. 1989-1991</em>]"</p>

<p>Let me reconstruct those questions into several. Can you look at this photo and see it solely as ‘a little kid who has lost his father’? Does the freight associated with the term ‘African American’ interfere with our natural propensity to empathize with the grieving subject in purely human terms? Does the volume level of that freight interference rise to the level of drowning out the universal that is human grief and loss? Is that volume loud enough that it is as a monster consuming a purely sympathetic/empathetic view (the mouse)?</p>

<p>Does anyone's mention of gender/race/nationality always come off as something that is just PC, 'PC' speaking warranting anything from dismissiveness to castigation from the listner? Not always. There are also times when mention of gender/race/nationality turns into a negotiation for a 'PC pass card'. In a negotiation for a pass card, the discussion is still all about the listener and not much about 'the other' who is speaking.</p>

<p>When the pass card isn't issued, then the refusal of a pass card becomes an injury to the asker that warrants anything from dismissiveness to castigation. Further discussion just gets shut down by the listener. Who in the dominant group hasn't said "Honestly, I just don't even <em>notice</em> that you're [non-dominant group member]?" A non-dominant group member thinks or says in reply: "You don't notice? That's funny, because I sure notice what <em>I</em> am - I <em>have</em> to." The grieving African American boy notices. We may not, we may say we don't: he doesn't have that luxury of not seeing. Seeing ethnicity: he <em>has</em> to. Just as instinctively as we in the dominant group don't see our own ethnicity, or gender, as significant factors in our 'personality'. We don't <em>have</em> to. We are barely even conscious of it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Following up on this topic I thought I'd introduce something about a photographer that was "discovered" but I'd forgotten her name - all I could remember was that she had been a nanny, so typed in "nanny photographer" and of course up comes Vivian Maier and of course countless articles along the same kind of path as Julie's original one. </p>

<p>http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/20/finding-vivian-maier-review-exposure-photographer-nanny</p>

<p>Can we look at Maier's work without it being coloured by all the hype about her being extremely private and a NANNY?</p>

<p>Can we look at Van Gogh being influenced by all the deluded crazy artist stuff?</p>

<p>or Picasso now that he's fallen foul of PC?</p>

<p>Words like Nanny, non-professional and spy make her seem "interesting"and good for an amateur single woman. Many photographers are single, have a day job and are not amateur because they don't get paid to take photographs. Maybe its easier to talk more about the personality of the artist than their art.</p>