{"id":43632,"date":"2022-03-05T23:45:34","date_gmt":"2022-03-06T04:45:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/?p=43632"},"modified":"2024-12-30T16:57:09","modified_gmt":"2024-12-30T21:57:09","slug":"guest-post-33-dennis-low-on-the-gian-butturini-martin-parr-controversy-c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/2022\/03\/05\/guest-post-33-dennis-low-on-the-gian-butturini-martin-parr-controversy-c\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest Post 33: Dennis Low on the Gian Butturini\/Martin Parr Controversy (c)"},"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 3 appears below. Click here for Part 1<\/a>, here for Part 2<\/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′ (c)
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

… If the campaign against Gian Butterini’s book London<\/em> and Martin Parr could be handed over, so, too, could the machinery of that campaign. In 2019, Paul Halliday was an active participant in the small protest outside London\u2019s National Portrait Gallery, briefly referred to by Moritz Neum\u00fcller in his article about the debacle (2021, p.153). \u2018The people we spoke to outside the @NPGLondon were appalled\u2019[1]<\/sup><\/a>, wrote Halliday, whom Michiel Kruijt has also revealed as the filmographer for an accompanying video.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Only later, would Halliday recast himself, from a member of a family outing with his daughter Mercedes Baptiste Halliday and his partner, Roxanne Baptiste (Mercedes\u2019 mother), into a third-party witness: \u2018I saw the protest outside the #NationalGallery led by young #BlackWomen\u2019[3]<\/sup><\/a>; \u2018I saw how @LTHdebate was ignored, then belittled for challenging what she and her friends knew to be wrong\u2019[4]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Paul

Paul Halliday, Butturini tweet, 5-27-19<\/p><\/div>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

As we begin to see here, already, in these quotations, the \u201cLess Than Human Debate\u201d (@LTHDebate) account on Twitter would also undergo a metaphorical transfer of ownership. Having begun life as a collective \u2018we\u2019, Twitter\u2019s @LTHDebate account soon became interchangeable with Mercedes herself, right up until the present: \u2018When people talk about \u201cphotographic history\u201d, this will be there\u2019, wrote Halliday, \u2018Write your account Ben[jamin Chesterton]. I\u2019m writing mine. @LTHdebate will write hers\u2019[5]<\/sup><\/a>; and, more recently, \u2018I\u2019ve been approached by Moritz [Neum\u00fcller] for an interview along with @LTHdebate\u2019[6]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, both users on Twitter and the press at large seemed at least partially aware that everything was not what it seemed regarding the Mercedes narrative. American photography journalist, Andrew Molitor, called out @LTHDebate as a \u2018sock puppet account\u2019[7]<\/sup><\/a> on no less than two occasions, only to receive, from Halliday and @LTHDebate, clumsily worded responses. \u2018So,\u2019 writes Halliday, \u2018the @LTHdebate that you describe as a \u201csock-puppet account\u201d was set up by a young #Black woman\u2019[8]<\/sup><\/a>. Similar wording, and a tell-tale first-person singular seem to betray the true identity of @LTHDebate: \u2018As I previously said, this account isn\u2019t run by Paul [Halliday], he is just supporting it, as a number of other people are. This account was set up by a young black woman\u2019[9]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Andrew

Andrew Molitor, Butturini tweet, 5-30-19<\/p><\/div>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

\"TheSome journalists took up the Mercedes narrative unknowingly and in good faith. Writing for The Art Newspaper<\/em>, Tom Seymour reported: \u2018Mercedes Baptiste Halliday, from London, who is currently a student at University College London, drove an 18-month protest against the book and Parr’s involvement, which led to the prominent photographer stepping down from the Bristol Photo Festival this week\u2019[10]<\/sup><\/a>; \u2018Mercedes Baptiste Halliday, from Clapham, London, who is currently studying anthropology at University College London, has driven an 18-month protest against a photography book credited as being by Parr and which he promoted for a sustained length of time\u2019[11]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

On Twitter, too, Seymour would lend his support to the Mercedes narrative, tweeting, \u2018I told her personally and will say publicly that Mercedes should be proud of herself for raising these concerns\u2019[12]<\/sup><\/a>. By September, Seymour was turning to Mercedes\u2019 father for an expert opinion on his own campaign:<\/p>\n

\u201cPandora\u2019s box has been opened,\u201d says Paul Halliday, a photography lecturer at Goldsmiths University of London. \u201cIt\u2019s a moment of crisis for photography\u2019s status quo […] A lot of lecturers have been very upset by recent events and are increasingly uncomfortable with how these so-called masters have been traditionally taught,\u201d Halliday says […]<\/em>[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Seymour and Andy Day were important components in initiating and sustaining the Mercedes narrative. But while they were wittingly or unwittingly disseminating it, other parts of the press seemed wary. Referring to the protest at the National Portrait Gallery, Lanre Bakare, writing for the Guardian<\/em>, chose not to mention any of the protestors by name.[14]<\/sup><\/a> Halliday was incensed: \u2018This makes disturbing reading. The @guardian article erases the activism of young #BlackWomen who campaign against racism in #BritishPhotography\u2019[15]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Gian

Gian Butturini, London (2017), cover<\/p><\/div>\n

So, too, was his partner, Roxanne 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), and the @LTHDebate account: \u2018@LTHdebate was set up by young black women fed up with the presentation of racial stereotypes within British Photography. @Lanre_Bakare @Guardian this was a wasted opportunity to talk to young black people about why #BlackLivesMatter\u2019[16]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Conversely, any journalist who attempted to highlight Halliday\u2019s paternal relationship to Mercedes quickly drew ire: \u2018Even those who criticise this trend are mobbed\u2019, wrote Manick Govinda for Spiked<\/em>, \u2018Paul Halliday \u2013 the father of principal protester Mercedes, and an MA course leader at Goldsmiths \u2013 accused me on Twitter of being a \u2018brown racist enabler\u2019<\/a>. He has denounced others<\/a> for their associations with Parr.\u2019[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Michiel Kruijt\u2019s long article for the Dutch newspaper, de Volkskrant,<\/em> is a masterly piece of detective work when it comes to recuperating Halliday\u2019s carefully hidden involvement in the matter, but it only served to confirm what academics, industry insiders, and other interested parties closer to the ground seemed to already know.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\"Goldsmiths,The beginning of the new university year in September 2020 saw a litany of high-profile public complaints levied, not at the undergraduate student, Mercedes Baptiste Halliday, but at her father, Paul Halliday, lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London. At the time of writing, the ensuing investigation by Goldsmiths\u2019 senior management is in its tenth month. [Note: Seventeenth month as of the date of this publication. \u2014 Ed.]<\/em><\/p>\n

If there is any residual doubt as to whom the campaign against Butturini belonged, it is put to rest by Halliday\u2019s more recent tweets: \u2018I, along with 3 other people […] challenged a book juxtaposing a Black woman with a gorilla\u2019[19]<\/sup><\/a> he writes; \u2018Yes, I was \u2018Spiked\u2019 when I challenged a publication that juxtaposed an elderly Black woman with a gorilla\u2019[20]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Paul

Paul Halliday, Butturini tweet, 4-3-21<\/p><\/div>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Neum\u00fcller was aware of most, if not all, of the political machinations and backstage personal politics that I\u2019ve described here, but they are, for the most part, actively suppressed in his account. Early on in his article he writes, \u2018To my regret, Dennis Low did not release his interview for publication\u2019 (p.138). An important passage, relating to the public complaints made against Halliday, had been carefully redacted from the transcript of my interview and this, as I explained to the editors of PhotoResearcher<\/em>, was the reason I had been unable to release it for publication. [See the Author’s Note prefacing Part 1 of this essay<\/a> for details. \u2014 Ed.]<\/em><\/p>\n

In minimising Halliday\u2019s involvement in the campaign against Butturini, Neum\u00fcller is able to re-authorise the very same Mercedes narrative that even social media and the press had begun to question and shy away from. Even if Butturini\u2019s detractors lacked an argument to support their allegations, at least, in Mercedes, they had the shape of something: an emotive, against-the-odds story that was easy to get behind; a \u2018young, black woman\u2019 protagonist who, coming of age on her eighteenth birthday, might, conceivably, have just a pinch of Jen Reid\u2019s zeitgeist heroism.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Mercedes narrative legitimised Butturini\u2019s detractors, and kept them respectable. On paper, it superficially resembled a clear, ideological position, fuelled by a defiance of racial injustice. In actuality, it was a subterfuge, a mere foil \u2013 albeit one cut from noble principles \u2013 to hide the pettiest and basest of motives: the green-eyed monster of professional jealousy.<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

Paul Halliday, by any measure, cuts a strange figure. His career seemed to begin promisingly enough. By his own account, he had, by the age of 17, become \u2018the youngest tutor in ILEA (Inner London Education Authority)\u2019[22]<\/sup><\/a>. He was commissioned by Channel 4 for Steven Lawrence: Living with the Bunker<\/em> (1994), a documentary that was warmly received.[23]<\/sup><\/a> He taught at Croydon College; was \u2018invited to become a visiting Fellow in the Centre for Urban and Community Research\u2019[24]<\/sup><\/a> at Goldsmiths; and would take up a position, at Goldsmiths, as programme convenor for the MA Photography and Urban Cultures degree.<\/p>\n

\"PhotofusionIn 2007, he became a director of Photofusion<\/a>, then one of the UK\u2019s most prestigious photography charities, which enjoyed long-standing National Portfolio of Arts Organisations (NPO) status at Arts Council England. Up until that point, it was a career of which any mid-career academic\/photographer would have been justifiably proud.<\/p>\n

\u2022<\/p>\n

It is difficult to pinpoint precisely what faltered for Halliday. Perhaps it was the decline of Photofusion. Halliday\u2019s directorship oversaw the collapse of that charity\u2019s revenue, which fell from approximately \u00a3600k in 2007 to \u00a3100k in 2015. In 2014, Arts Council England announced there would be no more funding for Photofusion, which had received funds, annually, for 30 years. Halliday stepped down from his directorship in 2015, just weeks after that funding formally came to an end. (With Photofusion no longer the portfolio concern it once was, British photography would, it seemed, need to lean on a new charity, the Martin Parr Foundation<\/a>, founded in 2014.) [“Charity” is the UK equivalent of the U.S. “non-profit.” \u2014 Ed.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"LondonYet, for all the institutional troubles at Photofusion, a booming interest in street photography, which had quietly gathered momentum since Nick Turpin\u2019s founding of the in-Public<\/a> collective in 2000, seemed to offer new opportunities for Halliday. 2011 saw in the launch of the inaugural and highly successful London Street Photography Festival (LSPF)<\/a> which, in addition to representing many members of the in-Public collective, also invited Martin Parr to participate. Parr not only contributed to the festival but went on to select images from that festival to show at the prestigious Les Rencontres d\u2019Arles photo festival the following year and, in doing so, helped revitalise interest in contemporary street photography.<\/p>\n

Either the LSPF festival or the Arles show might have been high-profile exhibition opportunities for Halliday except, however, he was not part of LSPF and, therefore, not available for Parr\u2019s selection for Arles. On the opening night of the LSPF festival, marked by the opening of an exciting exhibition of women street photographers at Photofusion, Halliday staged his own, non-festival event at Whitechapel Gallery, in which he discussed his own street photography of London, an extended project which he called Urban Detours<\/em>.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Urban Detours<\/em> was, even by 2011, already old work. Describing it for London Independent Photography<\/em> magazine in 2006, Halliday wrote: \u2018This summer will see the completion of a twenty-year photography project focusing on London\u2019s streets and public places. I decided to initiate the project whilst completing the London College of Printing (now the London College of Communication) diploma in photojournalism in 1986\u2019[26]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Paul

Paul T Halliday, Dekho, Youtube, 2020-09-23, screenshot<\/p><\/div>\n

Its exact dates frantically oscillate thereafter, perhaps in an attempt to appear current and, therefore, relevant. Helen Thomas and Jamilah Ahmed\u2019s Cultural Bodies: Ethnography and Theory<\/em> (2008) noted that Halliday was \u2018currently completing a 12-year photographic and film project focusing on street cultures in London\u2019[27]<\/a>. Five years later, in 2013, when Halliday\u2019s partner, Roxanne Baptiste, interviewed him for his own <www.critiqueofstreetphotography.org<\/a>> website, the project had elongated back to 20 years, encompassing \u2018images of places in London that were also shown in the Channel 4 documentary `Living With The Bunker\u2019 which you directed in 1994\u2019[28]<\/sup><\/a>. In an interview for <PersonalWork.Online> in 2020, confusingly titled \u2018Paul Halliday, Course Leader Goldsmiths MA Photography & Urban Cultures, on why he\u2019s spending 20 years photographing London\u2019, the project snaps back to a twenty-year one with the original dates, \u2018launched at a Tate Modern conference in 2006\u2019[29]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Without doubt, Urban Detours <\/em>was, and continues to be, Halliday\u2019s magnum opus. It was the sole content of <www.paulhalliday.org<\/a>> which ran from circa 2007 to 2018, and the principal focus, too, of the recently defunct <www.critiqueofstreetphotography.org<\/a>>. Tragically, for Halliday, no-one has ever seemed much interested. Recently, the newest iteration of Halliday\u2019s twenty-year project has been an extended YouTube presentation which, at the time of writing, had received 182 hits, 2 likes, and 4 dislikes.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Critical indifference to his Urban Detours<\/em> project seems to have spurred Halliday into action. In 2012 he founded his own Urban Photo Fest<\/a>[31]<\/sup><\/a> and an academically minded International Association of Visual Urbanists<\/a>[32]<\/sup><\/a>, clearly in competition to the London Street Photography Festival and the in-Public collective from which he\u2019d been excluded the previous year. But still the critical indifference and exclusion rankled.<\/p>\n

\"Mike

Mike Seaborne and Anna Sparham, eds., London Street Photography 1860-2010 (2012), cover<\/p><\/div>\n

In late 2011, the Museum of London \u2013 a stakeholder in LSPF \u2013 published London Street Photography, 1860-2010<\/em>, edited by their Senior Curator of Photographs, Mike Seaborne, and Anna Sparham. in-Public\u2019s founder, Nick Turpin, and Parr were both invited to contribute but Halliday was not. His response was the aforementioned <www.critiqueofstreetphotography.org<\/a>>, a personal website for which his partner, Roxanne Baptiste, interviewed him. The interview, approximately 7,000 words in length, is vitriolic, resentful, and uneasily grandiose in its claims.<\/p>\n

Unchecked, Halliday convolutedly asserts that his Stephen Lawrence documentary \u2018made history as the first Channel 4 film about a London street photographer to reach a mass audience\u2019. And, of Seaborne\u2019s book, he says:<\/p>\n

[A]ny publication that purports to give a history of street photography in London, by definition would have needed to make reference to the work of Marketa Luskacova, Rut [Blees Luxemburg], Mark [Power] and myself. I don\u2019t say that as an egotistical thing; rather, I say it as a statement of fact.<\/em> [33]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Luska\u010dov\u00e1 and Luxemburg would be quickly mobilised, too, to take a pot shot at Sophie Howarth and Stephen McLaren\u2019s highly successful book Street Photography Now<\/em> (2010), which had also featured Parr and Turpin but not Halliday. For Halliday, their exclusion \u2013 which, as we have seen, was also a proxy for his own exclusion \u2013 quickly became a smoking gun for the publication\u2019s \u2018\u2018mate-ology\u2019 […] in the section labouring under the title \u2018Reclaiming the Streets\u2019, Halliday told his partner, \u2018a disproportionate number of those were from In-Public\u2019[34]<\/sup><\/a>. …<\/p>\n

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

\u2022<\/p>\n

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

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1133135558098788352<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> M. Kruijt. (2020). Martin Parr, Icon of British Photography, in Disgrace After Being Accused of Racism. [online] de Volkskrant. Available at: https:\/\/www.volkskrant.nl\/cultuur-media\/martin-parr-icon-of-british-photography-in-disgrace-after-being-accused-of-racism~ba5a826c\/<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1282704019341955078<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].\u200c<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1288039287359971329<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1288849077585797123<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1343976635842879496<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/amolitor99\/status\/1134171620061302784<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/amolitor99\/status\/1141471572789567488<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/amolitor99\/status\/1134171620061302784\/retweets\/with_comments<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/LTHdebate\/status\/1141842389406867456<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> T. Seymour. (2020). ‘Martin Parr\u2019s resignation from photo festival sparks \u201ccancel culture\u201d debate.’ [online] Theartnewspaper.com<\/a>. Available at: https:\/\/www.theartnewspaper.com\/news\/martin-parr-s-festival-abdication-sparks-cancel-culture-debate<\/a> [Accessed 12 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[11]<\/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<\/a> Available at: https:\/\/www.theartnewspaper.com\/news\/martin-parr-stood-down-from-bristol-photo-festival-after-student-anti-racism-campaign<\/a> [Accessed 12 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/TomSeymour\/status\/1285637076298485764<\/a> [Accessed 12 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> T. Seymour. (2020). Photo finish? Dubious practices in the firing line. The Art Newspaper, September 2020 [print edition].<\/p>\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> L. Bakare. (2020). UK photography body removes image \u201cplaying to racist stereotypes.\u201d [online] the Guardian. Available at: https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/artanddesign\/2020\/jul\/02\/uk-photography-body-removes-image-playing-to-racist-stereotypes<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1278765518854504454<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/LTHdebate\/status\/1278760828469235713<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[17]<\/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 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> M. Kruijt. (2020). Martin Parr, Icon of British Photography, in Disgrace After Being Accused of Racism. [online] de Volkskrant. Available at: https:\/\/www.volkskrant.nl\/cultuur-media\/martin-parr-icon-of-british-photography-in-disgrace-after-being-accused-of-racism~ba5a826c\/<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1326330205514960896<\/a> [Accessed 11 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> Twitter. (2021). [online] Available at: https:\/\/twitter.com\/PaulTHalliday\/status\/1378425346048024578<\/a> [Accessed 12 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> A. Bland. (2020). Edward Colston statue replaced by sculpture of Black Lives Matter protester Jen Reid. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2020\/jul\/15\/edward-colston-statue-replaced-by-sculpture-of-black-lives-matter-protester<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> Archive.org. (2016). Critique of Street Photography \u2013 Interview with Paul Halliday. [online] Available at: https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20180830210013\/http:\/\/critiqueofstreetphotography.org\/interview.html<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> E. Gibb. (1994). The List: 4 Nov 1994 (Issue 240). [online] Available at: https:\/\/archive.list.co.uk\/the-list\/1994-11-04\/85\/<\/a>. [Accessed 7 Jul. 2021].<\/p>\n

[24]<\/sup><\/a> Archive.org. (2016). Critique of Street Photography \u2013 Interview with Paul Halliday. [online] Available at: https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190209215528\/http:\/\/www.critiqueofstreetphotography.org\/interview.html<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[25]<\/sup><\/a> Flickr. (2020). Flickr, Paul Halliday and Photographing Society. Flickr<\/em>, 3 Oct. 2020. [online] Available at: https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/groups\/instruction36\/discuss\/72157626775888175\/<\/a>. [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[26]<\/sup><\/a> P. Halliday, P. Kilsby, B. Keane, B. and J. Rhodes, (2006). [online] London Independent Photography<\/em>. Available at: https:\/\/www.londonphotography.org.uk\/magazine\/pdf\/2006_Summer.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 7 Jul. 2021].<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> H. Thomas and J. Ahmed, eds. (2008). Cultural Bodies: Ethnography and Theory<\/em>. Oxford: Blackwell, p.ix.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/sup><\/a> Archive.org. (2016). Critique of Street Photography \u2013 Interview with Paul Halliday. [online] Available at: https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190209215528\/http:\/\/www.critiqueofstreetphotography.org\/interview.html<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[29]<\/sup><\/a> Personal Work. (2020). Paul Halliday, Course Leader Goldsmiths MA Photography & Urban Cultures, on why he\u2019s spending 20 years photographing London. – Personal Work. [online] Available at: https:\/\/personalwork.online\/paul-halliday-course-leader-goldsmiths-ma-photogrpahy-urban-cultures-on-why-hes-spending-20-years-photographing-london\/<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[30]<\/sup><\/a> Chitr Sanstha (2020). Dekho Paul T Halliday Full talk presented by Chitr Sanstha. YouTube. Available at: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=AAQtN63vwj4<\/a> [Accessed 20 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[31]<\/sup><\/a> Archive.org. (2011). [online] Available at: https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20121203055940\/http:\/\/urbanphotofest.org\/home\/<\/a> [Accessed 7 Jul. 2021].<\/p>\n

[32]<\/sup><\/a> International Association of Visual Urbanists. (2017). [online] Available at: https:\/\/iavu.org\/index.html<\/a> [Accessed 7 Jul. 2021].<\/p>\n

[33]<\/sup><\/a> Archive.org. (2016). Critique of Street Photography \u2013 Interview with Paul Halliday. [online] Available at: https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190209215528\/http:\/\/www.critiqueofstreetphotography.org\/interview.html<\/a> [Accessed 13 Jun. 2021].<\/p>\n

[34]<\/sup><\/a> Archive.org. (2016). Critique of Street Photography \u2013 Interview with Paul Halliday. [online] Available at: https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20190209215528\/http:\/\/www.critiqueofstreetphotography.org\/interview.html<\/a> [Accessed 13 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":"

The Mercedes Baptiste Halliday narrative legitimised Gian Butturini\u2019s detractors, and kept them respectable. On paper, it superficially resembled a clear, ideological position, fuelled by a defiance of racial injustice. In actuality, it was a subterfuge, a mere foil \u2013 albeit one cut from noble principles \u2013 to hide the pettiest and basest of motives: the green-eyed monster of professional jealousy. […]<\/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":[2095,2094,2089,2097,2067,2086,2096],"class_list":["post-43632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-reviews-book-notes","category-censorship-of-photography","category-guest-post","category-photo-history","tag-lthdebate","tag-andrew-molitor","tag-mercedes-baptiste-halliday","tag-michiel-kruijt","tag-moritz-neumuller","tag-paul-halliday","tag-tom-seymour","odd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43632","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=43632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}