{"id":43602,"date":"2022-03-02T23:45:12","date_gmt":"2022-03-03T04:45:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/?p=43602"},"modified":"2022-03-12T10:44:18","modified_gmt":"2022-03-12T15:44:18","slug":"guest-post-33-dennis-low-on-the-gian-butturini-martin-parr-controversy-b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/2022\/03\/02\/guest-post-33-dennis-low-on-the-gian-butturini-martin-parr-controversy-b\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest Post 33: Dennis Low on the Gian Butturini\/Martin Parr Controversy (b)"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Toward the end of September 2021 I received an email from one Dr. Dennis Low, a London-based photographer<\/a> and researcher on the niche subject of historic zoo photography.<\/em><\/p>\n

Dr. Low contacted me because I serve on the advisory board of the European Society for the History of Photography (ESHPh)<\/a>, with which he found himself in contention over an article recently published in its semiannual journal, <\/em>PhotoResearcher. Dr. Low had drafted an extensive response thereto, which the ESHPh had refused to publish. Given my connection to the organization, he asked, how would I suggest he proceed?<\/em><\/p>\n

\"ESHPh

ESHPh logo<\/p><\/div>\n

I concluded that I could best serve the interests of Dr. Low, the ESHPh, and “the discourse” on photography by making space available here at <\/em>Photocritic International for him to present his argument in full. <\/em> (Click here to download a PDF of the original article to which he responds.<\/a>)
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Due to its length, I have divided Dr. Low’s paper into installments. Part 2 appears below. Click here for Part 1<\/a>, and here for part 3<\/a>, here for part 4<\/a>, and here for part 5<\/a>. When the series concludes, a PDF download of his complete article will become available.<\/em> \u2014 A.D.C.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

A Reply to Moritz Neum\u00fcller’s ‘”A Stone Thrown At My Head”:<\/strong><\/p>\n

London<\/em> by Gian Butturini \u2014 A Reception History, 1969-2021′ (b)
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Dennis Low<\/strong><\/p>\n

… For all of Moritz Neum\u00fcller\u2019s profuse claims of impartiality and critical objectivity, the very notion that Gian Butturini\u2019s book had not only offended, but offended widely \u2013 indeed, globally \u2013 remains an untested one, founded not upon documentary evidence, but on faith, or magical thinking, alone. \u2018I genuinely believe\u2019<\/em>, he writes, \u2018that the juxtaposition \u201chorrified\u201d, \u201cappalled\u201d, \u201cdisgusted\u201d and \u201coutraged\u201d many, in a debate involving the photographic community in the UK, the US, and other Western countries, and to a lesser extent, in India, China, Russia and Latin America\u2019 (2021, p.153, my emphasis).<\/p>\n

\"PhotoResearcher,

PhotoResearcher, Issue 35 (2021), cover<\/p><\/div>\n

Conversely, if Butturini\u2019s detractors had to, somehow, be augmented, contorted, and marshalled into the semblance of a coherent argument, that could, subsequently, be used in some kind of ideological balloon debate, Butturini\u2019s supporters, consisting of international academics, gallerists, and respected journalists from national newspapers across Europe, not to mention the Butturini estate itself, had to be curtailed or declawed.<\/p>\n

Neum\u00fcller\u2019s principal strategy when it comes to this is heavily reliant on careful elisions of his article\u2019s subtitle, \u2018A Reception History, 1969-2021\u2019. Far from delivering the \u2018full historic perspective\u2019 that, promised early on, encompasses \u2018the reception and discussion of the book, between late 1969 and early 2021, in an academic discourse\u2019 (2021, p.137), Neum\u00fcller erases key parts of that chronology. In fact, his first erasure constitutes almost the entire chronology, from circa 1970, when London <\/em>won the Premio EPOCA Diaframma 22 prize (2021, p.140), to circa 2014 and the publication of Martin Parr and Gerry Badger\u2019s The Photobook: A History, Volume III<\/em>, in which it is featured (2021, p.140).<\/p>\n

\"Gian

Gian Butturini, London (1969), cover<\/p><\/div>\n

Neum\u00fcller asserts that, soon after its publication in 1969, Butturini\u2019s London<\/em> \u2018became a cult book, recognized for its rough and provocative style, and its highly political content\u2019 (2021, p.135). A few pages on, however, he suggests that, shortly after publication, \u2018London by Gian Butturini<\/em> soon became a rarity and was little known internationally, until it entered volume III of Parr\/Badger\u2019s photobook anthology\u2019 (2021, p.141). [See Part 1 for details of this book’s distribution and availability in both its editions. \u2014 Ed.]<\/em> If most of its history is as a \u2018cult book\u2019, Neum\u00fcller\u2019s readers are never privy to that history: he never describes who the book\u2019s collectors are; what his sources are for their recognizing its \u2018provocative style\u2019 and \u2018political content\u2019; and what sustains their interest, for almost four decades, until Parr and Badger bring it wider attention by including it in The Photobook<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Neum\u00fcller\u2019s second erasure is a contemporary one. In contrast to his delicate picking over of individual tweets from the \u201cLess Than Human\u201d \/ @LTHDebate account on Twitter, Neum\u00fcller frankly seems uninterested in London<\/em>\u2019s reception in Italy from 2020 onwards. He mentions \u2018several discussions\u2019; \u2018an exhibition called Save the Book<\/em>\u2019; and how this exhibition, on its own, resulted in \u2018around 70 news items, both in digital and traditional media\u2019, including \u2018larger newspapers such as La Repubblica<\/em>, and the Corriere della Sera<\/em>\u2019 (2021, p.157). All of this is hurriedly dispatched, in barely half a paragraph, unceremoniously handicapped to make for a fairer fight when pitted against the non-existent argument of the tiny anti-Butturini mob.<\/p>\n

\"Associazione<\/p>\n

Neum\u00fcller\u2019s dogged determination to achieve a seemingly balanced article doesn\u2019t stop here, and his interventions soon become ever more brazen. On no less than three occasions, for example, does Neum\u00fcller raise the question of whether Butturini\u2019s contemporary audiences would have understood his book as racist.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a useful question: racial slurs, like any aspect of culture and language, are geographically, historically, and culturally specific. Twice, Neum\u00fcller cuts the difference: \u2018[…] to contemporary Italian viewers, the simianisation trope might not have been instantly recognizable or a binding interpretation for this spread in the London<\/em> book\u2019, he writes, \u2018This does not mean, of course, that other readers and the author himself were not aware of the racist trope\u2019 (2021, p.141).<\/p>\n

\"Gian

Gian Butturini, London (1969), spread<\/p><\/div>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Later, reading Victor Burgin on Garry Winogrand, he again asks: \u2018Do we have to find binding proof that the Italian (and British) public of the late 1960s would not have understood the aping trope?\u2019 (2021, p.161) Neum\u00fcller\u2019s is, at this point, a topsy-turvy and wilful logic, one that demands conclusive but impossible proof of something not existing, rather than leveraging reasonable and documented proof to the contrary.<\/p>\n

If such proof existed, it would be a simple enough matter for Neum\u00fcller to find contemporaneous uses of the \u2018racist shit\u2019 Butturini was accused of channelling in his photography, whether that be in the form of newspapers, satirical cartoons, joke books, police reports, academic studies or reports on racism \u2013 European, late-1960s equivalents of the North American material so carefully and importantly archived in Michigan\u2019s Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

And, yet, unable, or unwilling, to even begin to show that simianisation tropes directed at black people were circulated and commonly understood in Italy and\/or Britain circa 1969, Neum\u00fcller reaches an impasse that can only be overcome by misdirection. In order to maintain the possibility that Butturini knew the trope that this spread in London <\/em>allegedly replicates, Neum\u00fcller outsources research on the subject to an expert, before, in an apparently inexplicable move, relegating that same expert to his thirty-second footnote:<\/p>\n

According to Stefania Ragusa, a specialist in African Culture from the University of Parma, discrimination in these years was mainly aimed at Roma, Sinti and Caminanti, as well as Jews, and the inhabitants of the southern part of Italy. She notes that \u201cmany Africans who came to Italy in the 70s \/ 80s of the last century, often for study reasons, say they felt then the object of curiosity rather than racism. Things began to change in the late 1980s, when migration to Italy intensified\u201d. (2021, p.148n)<\/em><\/p>\n

Stefania Ragusa\u2019s comments certainly begin to offer a counterpoint to Nwagbogu\u2019s unfounded assertion that \u2018Butturini was 100 % aware of this and the danger of aping blackness\u2019 (2021, p.162). But, shoehorned into a small-print footnote, rather than highlighted on a separate and differently coloured page and given pride of place in the way that Nwagbogu\u2019s interview is, Ragusa\u2019s comments \u2013 and, by extension, her critical position and scholarly authority \u2013 are necessarily diminished for the illusion of critical balance.<\/p>\n

Neum\u00fcller\u2019s strategic but somewhat passive-aggressive decision to do this is made all the more evident when the source for Ragusa\u2019s comments is fully considered. Neum\u00fcller references the above as coming from a \u2018personal email exchange, on 19 January 2021\u2019 (2021, p.148n). From the selected quotation, it presents as a general overview of post-war race relations in Italy. In actuality, however, Ragusa\u2019s email responds, directly, to Neum\u00fcller\u2019s repeated quandary regarding \u2018proof that the Italian (and British) public of the late 1960s would not have understood the aping trope\u2019 (2021, p.161).<\/p>\n

Ragusa\u2019s original email begins:<\/p>\n

Hello everybody.<\/em><\/p>\n

Here is my answer. I can’t know what references Gian Butturini had in his mind when he made his book or if he was familiar with the American debate on racism. I\u2019m sure however that in Italy, in 1969, there was no specific discussion about the use of the word “black” or the racist and discriminatory power of certain images.<\/em>[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In addition to burying her within his vast and unwieldy textual apparatus, Neum\u00fcller is also compelled to severely redact Ragusa\u2019s comments, all the while giving absolutely no indication that he is doing so. As I have argued, the absence of argument from Butturini\u2019s detractors necessitates this. But, as we will see, there was still more for Neum\u00fcller to do. Not only did he need to create an argument for Butturini\u2019s detractors to make his article present as balanced and critical, not only did he have to hamstring a respected academic and journalist writing in support of Butturini by covertly redacting their opinions, but he also had to go so far as to help the detractors conceal their true motivations and identities.<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

In their editorial, the editors of PhotoResearcher<\/em> give a flavour of what is to come in Neum\u00fcller\u2019s article. \u2018In late May 2019,\u2019 they write, \u2018the renowned British photographer and photobook collector [Martin Parr] suddenly saw himself confronted with an accusation of perpetuating racist tropes when the black student Mercedes Baptiste Halliday posted a tweet drawing attention to a combination of motifs on a double-page spread in the book that she felt were offensive and hurtful\u2019 (2021, p.4).<\/p>\n

\"Martin

Martin Parr at PhotoLondon 2018 with original LONDON edition, still from video by Butturini Estate<\/p><\/div>\n

Neum\u00fcller picks up and sustains the same narrative, introducing the student as \u2018Mercedes Baptiste Halliday, a young woman from Clapham, [who] called on her followers \u201cto confront such vile #racism within #BritishPhotography\u201d\u2019 (2021, p.135); and \u2018Mercedes Baptiste Halliday, who started the social media campaign\u2019 (2021, p.157).<\/p>\n

Pupo, his interviewee, also picks up the same thread: \u2018I also understand that Mercedes (Baptiste Halliday), when she received the book, was upset. I would dare to say that 95 % of black or colored people would be shocked\u2019, he writes, \u2018[…] I understand that Mercedes felt offended by the image\u2019 (2021, p.150).<\/p>\n

Of course, it is not without reason that the editors of PhotoResearcher<\/em>, Pupo, and Neum\u00fcller himself pursue this Mercedes-focussed narrative. It was, after all, the very story that was reported in the press, both in the UK and abroad. In Neum\u00fcller\u2019s article, there is a tacitly held assumption that the press is professional, unbiased and balanced, in the same way that he himself purports to be. In making that assumption, however, Neum\u00fcller overlooks \u2013 or must wilfully ignore \u2013 that not all journalists are created equal in this respect.<\/p>\n

Andy Day, senior writer at the photography interest site, Fstoppers<\/em>, was one of the first journalists to break the news about the allegation of racism levied at Butturini\u2019s London<\/em>, and Parr\u2019s subsequent resignation from the Bristol Photo Festival. Day reports, simply, that \u2018Complaints were first raised in May 2019 by Mercedes Baptiste Halliday, a student who received Butturini\u2019s book as a gift\u2019[2]<\/sup><\/a>. The campaign\u2019s spin-doctoring begins here, given that even Paul Halliday\u2019s own tweets confirm the he would \u2018never forget the look on my partner\u2019s and daughter\u2019s faces when I showed them #<\/a>MartinParr\u2019s layout\u2019[3]<\/sup><\/a> and \u2018bought her another book\u2019[4]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Paul

Paul Halliday, Butturini tweet, 5-28-19<\/p><\/div>\n

It was a point of fact that did not go by unnoticed. Manick Govinda noted that \u2018[Mercedes Baptiste] Halliday was reportedly<\/em> given the book by her father on her 18th birthday\u2019 (my emphasis)[5]<\/sup><\/a>, something that was soon followed up (without reply) on social media. \u2018Can I ask Paul was @manick62 right in his article that you gave the book in question to your daughter?\u2019 asked Rupert Rivett (@rupephoto), \u2018And if you did what was the reasoning for you to do that?\u2019[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Additionally, what the statement from Day also belies is that Day had been wanting to run the story for more than a year. As the \u201cLess than Human Debate\u201d account (@LTHDebate) debuted on Twitter, he wrote, in reply to their pinned \u2018horrified\u2019 and \u2018appalled\u2019 tweet, quoted by Neum\u00fcller (2021, p.153): \u2018Has there been any response from the photographer, the publisher, or Parr? @duckrabbitblog @PaulTHalliday Putting together a short news article for Fstoppers\u2019[7]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Andy

Andy Day, Butturini tweet, 5-28-19<\/p><\/div>\n

It\u2019s interesting, seeing so many of Butturini\u2019s detractors assembled, so early, in the one tweet \u2013 Benjamin Chesterton (@duckrabbitblog); Mercedes\u2019 father, Paul Halliday (@paulthalliday), a photography lecturer at Goldsmiths University; the @LTHDebate account; and Andy Day (@kiell). But, even more interesting is tracing their relationships elsewhere on Twitter. \u2018Cobbling an intitial [sic] draft of an article for Fstoppers\u2019 writes Day to Halliday in August 2019, \u2018Might send it over to you for some thoughts\u2019[8]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The informal mentorship this tweet hints at is readily unpacked by other exchanges. On one occasion, Halliday tweets: \u2018I remember when @kiell was doing his MA Photography & Urban Cultures at @SociologyGold, thinking: \u201ctoday is Andy day, and I wonder what incredible monuments and buildings he\u2019s going to show us?\u201d\u2019[9]<\/sup><\/a>; to which Day replies, \u2018Ha! Those were some good times\u2019[10]<\/sup><\/a>. In another, Halliday writes, \u2018Yes, it\u2019s true Andy – what with your highfalutin ideas around #photoethics and hands-on image-making – what gives you the right to have views on #photography?\u2019[11]<\/sup><\/a>; to which Day replies, \u2018I guess I need to send back my degree certificate. Let me know your address\u2019[12]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Paul

Paul Halliday, Andy Day tweet, 6-12-20<\/p><\/div>\n

What is also absent, from Day\u2019s piece on Butturini for FStoppers<\/em>, is any indication, professional disclosure, or otherwise, of Day\u2019s intimate and evidenced relationship with Halliday \u2013 his former lecturer and Mercedes\u2019s father \u2013 to whom he feels very comfortable sending FStopper <\/em>article drafts. Day\u2019s silence with regards to this prior relationship proved crucial in the early formulation of the Butturini scandal, because it gave Halliday the opportunity to distance himself from his own campaign, allowing it to run as if it had been the brainchild of a quickly anonymised daughter, who not only played better with the media at the height of Black Lives Matter<\/em> protests in mid-2020, but was never called upon to present any argument regarding Butturini\u2019s alleged racism.<\/p>\n

\u2018It was a young Black student from London who stood up and challenged this abuse\u2019[13]<\/sup><\/a> tweeted Halliday; \u2018the Black student who first challenged the gorilla racist trope not only \u2018did her research\u2019, but is currently studying anthropology and archaeology in the top rated department in the world\u2019[14]<\/sup><\/a>; \u2018Seen some reactionary bigots upset that #MartinParr was challenged by a young Black woman\u2019.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\"Roxanne

Roxanne Baptiste, Butturini tweet, 7-2-20<\/p><\/div>\n

Roxanne Baptiste \u2013 Mercedes\u2019 mother, Halliday\u2019s partner, and lecturer in media production and Westminster Kingsway College \u2013 also chimed in to similar effect, distancing herself from her own, photo-documented involvement as she did so.[16]<\/sup><\/a> \u2018Young people are out demonstrating on the streets against structural racism\u2019, tweeted Baptiste, \u2018Surely the @guardian can at least make an attempt to interview the campaigners @LTHdebate they did the work. Don\u2019t take their voice!\u2019[17]<\/sup><\/a> …<\/p>\n

(Part 1<\/a> I 2 I 3<\/a> I 4<\/a> I 5<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Email from Stefania Ragusa to Moritz Neum\u00fcller and Dennis Low, 19 January 2021.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> A. Day. (2020). Magnum Photographer Martin Parr Steps Down from Festival Following Outcry Over \u201cRacist\u201d Photobook. [online] Fstoppers<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/fstoppers.com\/documentary\/magnum-photographer-martin-parr-removed-festival-following-outcry-over-racist-501809<\/a> [Accessed 9 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1133682146193870848<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1133313778777505792<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> M. Govinda. (2020). The cancellation of Martin Parr. [online] Spiked-online.com. Available at: https:\/\/www.spiked-online.com\/2020\/07\/27\/the-cancellation-of-martin-parr\/<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/rupephoto\/status\/1288254002048581632<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/kiell\/status\/1133301162801881088<\/a> [Accessed 9 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/kiell\/status\/1160891086920921088<\/a> [Accessed 9 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1271510908133609472<\/a> [Accessed 9 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/kiell\/status\/1271542628270649344<\/a> [Accessed 9 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1227860975505768448<\/a> [Accessed 9 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/kiell\/status\/1227864836006129664<\/a> [Accessed 9 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1198532479495352320<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1292747735624560645<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1285930414360715264<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> T. Seymour. (2020). Martin Parr steps down as artistic director of Bristol Photo Festival after student\u2019s anti-racism campaign. [online] Theartnewspaper.com. Available at: https:\/\/www.theartnewspaper.com\/news\/martin-parr-stood-down-from-bristol-photo-festival-after-student-anti-racism-campaign<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[17]<\/sup> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/baproxanne\/status\/1278789712635977731<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

\u00a9 Copyright 2021 by Dennis Low. All rights reserved. For reprint permissions, other usages, and questions, please contact the author: dennis(at)takemetothekittens(dot)com.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For all of Moritz Neum\u00fcller\u2019s profuse appeals to impartiality and critical objectivity, the very notion that Gian Butturini\u2019s book LONDON had not only offended, but offended widely \u2014 indeed, globally \u2014 remains an untested one, founded not upon documentary evidence, but on faith, or magical thinking, alone. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4,12,945],"tags":[2087,2088,2089,2067,2086,2093,2090],"class_list":["post-43602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-reviews-book-notes","category-censorship-of-photography","category-guest-post","category-photo-history","tag-andy-day","tag-benjamin-chesterton","tag-mercedes-baptiste-halliday","tag-moritz-neumuller","tag-paul-halliday","tag-roxanne-baptiste","tag-stefania-ragusa","odd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}