War, crisis, funding, sorry and a crock of shit written on duckrabbit
Written by duckrabbitWhat a mess.
Spent the weekend apologizing to people for drunken comments left on a post that discredited itself by being factually incorrect ( the post was not written by me or anyone who works at duckrabbit).
For some reason the debate on duckrabbit ended up being about Magnum and the Magnum Foundation. Having worked at the BBC for a long time it reminds me of how the Tories would beat up on the broadcaster for a single mistake (not implying here that Larry made a mistake). They did it because they had an agenda, and reading some of the stuff written here, the massive generalizations being made, over the top pessimism and a half baked attack on the management of Magnum it felt like there was another agenda at work.
I’m not interested in Magnum, I am interested in the work their photographers produce, much of which is stellar and some which is not so good (has it ever been any different).
So once again, and for the record, to those involved. Sorry.
Now lets do this properly (so I can get on with my life).
Anyone who has commented or taken an interest in the debate you need to watch this video (which never should have been left off the original post):
This was one response on Kickstarter and Larry’s reply:
I agree with David Alan Harvey when he says:
Also a bit confused about how some think Larry needs to respond or spend his personal time. For example, why can’t Larry go a a Magnum business meeting, take his wife to dinner, have a beer at the local pub, talk or not talk about Afghanistan, and still be very responsible with funds donated by believers in his craft so proven over so many years? I think no matter how many stones one wants to uncover, the motives of Larry Towell are going to come up clean
BUT contrary to the massive misunderstanding on this blog the work of Larry Towell as presented in the video was EXACTLY what Cynthia was commenting on.
Last year we had the Time cover that said ‘This is what happens if we leave Afghanistan’ (or something to that affect) accompanied with the picture of a girl with here nose cut off. Jodi Bieber when asked by the New Yorker Magazine, picked her own photo as the most memorable photo from 2010. Many people agreed it was memorable, but for different reasons. Some thought that the captioning of the photo was a stark reminder of how imagery remains a tool of propaganda (the first casualty of war is truth). Often, (in Bieber’s case we presume), without the knowledge of the photographer. Given that, when photogs are asking for support, I think it’s important that people feel they can raise legitimate questions about how the photography might be used. Of course it is up to the photographer how they respond.
In his video Towell makes the eloquent point that he wants his photos to be part of the debate about the war in Afghanistan. Do I believe as a documentary photographer he should feel compelled to state a position on the war? No I do not. Should he have politicized his video that asked you to donate? You have to respect that he chose not to.
David Harvey says:
‘Doesn’t Larry Towell ONLY owe us his work?’
That’s fine. But it is only fair to point out that Larry in this instance does not let the work speak for itself, he chooses to present it with a voiceover.
Watch the film, remember its function is to fund-raise and make up your own mind up.
Sorry for the mess and finally now you have the money Larry, god speed.
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (37 Comments)
Very clear explanation, duck. You’re a good editor.
Thanks!
Well done for straightening this out Duckrabbit.
Now clear, concise, and free of the sensationalist tone of the original post.
Here’s hoping LT has a safe, productive trip. I look forward to seeing the final work.
…not sure what was so bad about the original post and in my reply to DAH – I even posted a pic of a book that I had bought of his… I only meant it to me read by readers of this blog who have seen much worse and did not intend to take the fight onto Kickstarter itself!
“let it go… let it go…” says the voice in my head 🙂
I am still hoping DAH comes back…
Thats the problem of being anonymous … if you punch me in public IAMNOT everyone will know … the benefit is no-on will hold it against you!
“I am still hoping DAH comes back…”
More chance of flying to the moon with Ryan Air for a tenner than that happening.
That was not a punch duckrabbit – that was a shake and a hug – same with DAH. Your left hook follow on post, your right hook on twitter and your kick in balls on Kickstarter certainly did a job on it!!!
The anonymous was not meant to work that way. I had some not very nice things said to me and mentioned them before on this blog so being anonymous was supposed to keep everyone i speak of anonymous too.
I wanted to make the points without being personality based, issues based instead. Under this tangent of a situation it did not withstand scrutiny so only fair I stay here as a member of the masses….
Only fair if I ask for responsibility and take it too and so did you. Such a shame it was cut short with DAH. Could have been a great debate!!
@ falling
Do Ryanair do return tickets for £20?
Don’t know if this is the right spot to post this link:
http://verbal.co.za/2011/01/crowd-funding/
At least the word ‘funding’ is in both titles..
I think Daniels article reflects how a lot of youngish photographers feel after having invested a lot in degrees and masters.
You are getting plenty of credit in the public forums for your incisive journalism duckrabbit on that link eva posted… well done for investigating and scrutinising the photojournalists on kickstarter phenomenon 🙂
Are you joking?
Anyway it was yours and David’s journalism right?
Come on IAMNOT let me buy you a drink …
Yes.. Of course… Totally joking!!!
Posted a couple of days ago by Larry on Kickstarter.
“Dear everyone
Sorry for the delay. I was quite ill and then on the road for over a week where I had no internet acccess. I will try to address a few questions. The reason I’m photographing landmine victims, heroin addiction, prisons and even soldiers, is because I want to cover some of the victims of this war.
The little film is just an introduction of sorts. It can’t say everything to everyone but for those of you who know me, you know the nature of my inquiry. Heroin addiction has skyrocketed in the past 4 – 5 years as a direct result of the sense of hopelessness and dispair this conflict has created. There are now over one million heroin addicts. 10% are women. 60,000 are children and we all know the puppet government is complicit. The local NGOS are struggling to rehabilitate a vulnerable population. I’m including landmine victims because the landmine legacy is now completely ignored. There are still 7 million landmines throughout a country which cannot be properly de-mined because of the war. 300 civilians a month step on them. Half a million have been killed. They were supplied by the USA, Russia, Iran, Italy, China.– The Russian legacy is the direct result of the Reagan legacy. When I was working in Central America as a young man, the CIA was building training camps in Pakistan and encouraging the radicalization of madrasses to build the Mujahedin who became the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, al Qaeda etc. The prisons are full of innocent people accused by neighbours of being Taliban due to jealousies, rivalries, or property. Most are not given trials. Those who may see a judge and are found innocent must pay their way out. Their families must constantly lobby the legal system with bribes. The legal system is a sham. The medical system has collapsed. This is just normal daily life. As a westerner, I will never photograph civilian victims of a drone attack. I can never photograph women. I am still trying to figure things out and I am attempting to photograph daily life, and dare I say, bits of happiness. But access to most places is almost impossible unless you want to turn your story into a military embed, but you must also embed to see the story and to see the Afghan National Army who are malnourished villagers getting paid something for the first time in their lives. It is the hardest country I have ever worked in. Everything and every place is difficult to access. I am however currently working on other situations, but cannot be specific. There is a lot of work to do on this book and I am trying to make some sense of it. I’m not going to make a book that pleases everyone. God knows I couldn’t, but thank you for your interest. I’ll do my best. I also especially thank Eva and Bojan for their words of encourgement and support.
Larry”
Thank you Larry. Respect your audience and they will come back and ghive you more. As I said, I have bought your books before and if you have read my previous comments then you will see that I have always been a fan of your work.
My post was about respecting audiences and your potential donators to maximise the possibilities of the platform. It was a plea for more great content without all the noise that just gets in the way of producing and showing great work.
Tomas van Houtryve says:-
“Dear Larry,
Congratulations on reaching your goal and on being one of the first established photographers to give crowd-funding a real go. I think your previous work stands above reproach, and I look forward to seeing Afghanistan through your vision.
Wading into the unruly world of internet comment boards and putting to your pitch straight to the public took some guts. There are some great lessons to learn from people contributing comments, and I hope you’ll take them into account to make your work even stronger and more transparent. And as for those making snarky comments and using anonymous login names, they remind me of the two grouchy critics on the Muppet Show. Take their criticism with a grain of salt and a sense of humor, and the show will go on.
Safe travels,
Tomas”
Dear Tomas,
If you are refering to me then read my post.
I fail to see how I can be seen to come across as a supporter of the medium asking for the industry to work harder to respect and reach audiences, people like me.
For too long photographers and the photographers union have acted like their compositions are the most sacred thing in the world when it should be a lower priority than the subjects, subject matter and the audience, audience, audience. “Snarky” is not right and the photographers union protecting itself to legitimate criticism is not going to help it evolve.
I fail to see why being an anonymous member of the public invalidates the value of what is said unless someone is looking for it to be personalised. I specifically showed I was a supporter of Towell’s work and stated a desite for a thriving industry. I hardly see that as “snarky”.
If I said “I am confused when seeing another stereotyping Mao photostory put up as legitimate journalism all because it makes for interesting compositions. You use 3,500 people to characterture a country of 1.4 billion that is driving the global economy and miss what is really going on in China” then you could say it is unfair that I have done that anonymously, you could call me names back yet even if I am an anonymous member of the public, that should still be legitimate criticism of journalistic intent.
You can reply to it by describing why it is legitimate to choose an isolated outpost in China as symbolic of something substantive that I have missed or that the quality of images made them legitimate. It is you and Larry Towell who are showing work in the public realm, not people from the blogsphere. You can change yourself but you cannot change new media audiences as even if you keep me quiet by calling me names, the blog world will still exist.
My post on Towell was not rude, it was based on the words and actions of the photographers themselves and it was a plea for a higher level of professional conduct from a long time fan.
I think Larry should not have taken it with a pinch of salt and I applaud him for his detailed response to the situation which was to stick with comments about the subject matter on the posts. That showed everyone that he cares about what they think – his audience.
Kind Regards,
Anonymous.
I appreciate these comments IAMNOT … I think the proof is in the response … its dangerous to be seen to ignore people when they ask genuine questions about work which you are fundraising for.
That was the point of my piece, a passionate plea for the industry for positive change in the way it both conducts itself in public and in its treatment of the audience.
If attacking my anonymity is the only defense they have got then once they get over that technicality then all they will be left with is what I said. That does not change. Towell response did the right thing, not for me, not for duckrabbit and not for any other blogger.
In my opinion, he did the right thing for the audience asking the legitimate questions he invited and for Magnum and particularly the Magnum Foundation, who he is representing in his public life.
Totally agree.
“Mao Incorporated” by Tomas van Houtryve
http://www.viiphoto.com/showstory.php?nID=1174
@iamnotasuperstarphotographer
One thing I don’t understand.. why did you open a posting on this blog here instead of writing directly on one of the blogs run by those you question? In the case of Larry Towell specifically, who is not a blogger, not a net person, how would you think to have an interaction if he wouldn’t even know this posting here was around? Not everybody knows who/what the Duckrabbit blog is about.
DAH, Tomas van Houtryve, Magnum, they all have blogs.. much more likely you will get a debate going, don’t you think?
Actually Eva, duckrabbit has about 44000 visits a month. It has record of looking at some of these things.
she is right, not EVERYBODY… my mum doesn’t know who you are!
Neither does my Mum. I haven’t told my girlfriend either.
My mum doesn’t even know who I am. (sobs).
I’ve told your girlfriend for you Ben. She wasn’t happy.
@eva
“Why did you open a posting on this blog here instead of writing directly on one of the blogs run by those you question?”
The way my contributions evolved. I was totally out of the industry after experiencing too much unchecked cultural rigity that at a couple of times, turned into racism. I looked into this phenomenon and concluded that there was not a chance that someone with my world view, could break into PJ’ism because of this. My ideology was not to show stereotypes to pander to an editorial community that at times fells very colonial. I simply felt that there was no place for someone like me unless I conformed to shooting foreign suffering for sale in 5 or 6 images when I was more interested in the detail of different social dynamics, the causes and the solutions. Everyone just wanted the see macho images of some negative outcome in a foreign land. So my camera’s have long gathered dust.
I described these elements in some old posts and mentioned events that I believed were better handled anonymously. I do not want to people who said what they said to me revealed as I did not want to be personal and saw no point. I was kindly invited to post on the proviso that I could stay anonymous. Blogging elsewhere means I lose that anonymity and therefore who I am becomes associated with the content of my words. It enables Tomas to call me names and for me to get dragged into something far too common in PJ’ism – the constant friction from fighting for rare resources and some recognition. That jealousy always comes out in the end and it is not very pretty. Makes most reasonable people shy away from employing people from tha industry in my view.
I also take the view that I do not want to “take the fight” to others and debating here is my chosen forum as duckrabbit are superb in their bravery when scrutinising the more unpleasant bits of a beautiful medium as I suspect, like me, that they were brought up with a higher sense of professional conduct carried over from a previous career.
If Magnum want to treat their audiences as mythical to legitimise their own behaviour then that is their perogative. I just think it explains much of why PJ’ism is in the state that it is in today. More women, more cultural diversity, more world views, more professional discipline, more external business minds need to be brought into PJ’ism. That is why I am happy here debating. I do not swear, I do not use bad language, I use satire where I can to make it interesting but I always try and make sure the substance of what I am saying is at the forefront. I stand by the logic of what I say and always offer and do apologise if I am wrong or cross the line.
After all, I am not a superstar photographer and in fact not a photographer at all. I am just a member of the public, a potential customer, someone who might buy a book, a poster, pay to see an exhibition.
Hence I will stay here (in the comments sections) and I will stay anonymous. A bit long winded but I think the previous situation meant that your question was very valid and deserved a proper explanation.
Look, I don’t think that the issue, approached the way it was (with a fingerpointing posting made here at first, followed by another even worse, and then one more posting about the issue you REALLY were addressing, the one with DAH’s response.. back and forth, comments up and then deleted and then up again..see, it becomes quite confusing.. I think this posting is the fourth??), was the most effective one to: 1) approach the people who really could change things at the base, like DAH with the ties he has to the Magnum Cultural Foundation, to name just one, I’m sure there are more.. don’t think the whole crisis is all Magnum’s ‘fault’, isn’t it? It’s broader.. and 2) get going an interesting debate and eventually change.. it’s not by taking a go at someone that people will react in a positive way.. being anonymous one more problem.
To me it much more effective what Tomas van Houtryve does on his blog. For one thing he has written a posting analyzing the problem, for the other, one can do a bit of research and see who Mr. Houtryve is, where he comes from.
If I am to invest my money (as a consumer of photojournalism) and I have a choice, I will do so where I think that it is invested well. And that won’t be a couple of copied and pasted sentences taken out of context. That, to me isn’t journalism..
I think to engage with someone in a constructive discussion, debate, argument, you need the other side to participate.. the point you make is an important one, but posed in an awkward way, to put it mildly.. no matter how many hits the site gets..
Here’s the blog post by TvH I was referring to, I think he makes very good points:
http://tomasvanhoutryve.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/new-funding-models-part-iv-%E2%80%93-crowdfunding-the-good-the-bad-and-the-awkward/
@Eva
There is a lot of stuff you mention that I can agree with. Anonymity is an issue and I have addressed that. I am staying here in the comments section. If people read me then they do. If they do not then they do not. I have no agenda and I have ZERO economic interest in duckrabbit so what do I care about hits? I do not see any conflict of or mutual interest. Do I care about hits? Sort of but not for economic gain. Talking in a vacuum is bit pointless though!
I am just expressing a passion. I do not want to “take the fight” elsewhere and I do not want to invade the personal virtual spaces of others so I am happy staying within the boundaries of this blog and now only within the comments section.
I read TVH blog post. It is bland as you like and he is part of the photographers union. He is cheerleading as is his right. I am not part of that union and I am not a cheerleader. Gerd Ludwig, Larry Towell and Krisanne Johnson – a former class mate!!! Lets see about how incisive he is:-
“• My personal connection to Krisanne (Qualitative)
• Talented photographer (Qualitative)
• Original project idea (Qualitative)
• Reasonable incentives (Qualitative and Quantitative)
• Endorsement from the Magnum Foundation which funded a previous segment (nobody can apply – it is a closed editorial selection process)
• Funding exceeded goal by 30% (Quantitative)
• Two months later, and still no project updates posted online” (I posted elsewhere that the big risk is that PJ’ists take the money and run – like I said of Towell and I have said this time and time again).
I would not be so bold as to tell TVH how to shoot on long term photographic projects overseas but I do not expect him to provide a decent analysis of Kickstarter as a sustainable tool for photojournalists to raise income. Kickstarter only raises enough to keep name photographers funded during the life cycle of each project and if any of these fail to deliver then the incentive to give is very much reduced next time and that is no good for anyone.
I know that TVH is a member of VII, and Magnum have signed up to Emphas.is which is a pre-filtered Kickstarter for photojournalists. This is not the environment for incisive debate but a group of collectively vested interested photographers working to keep the dream alive that they might fund each other using micro-payments in the form of donations (or investment). I have no issue with vested interests at all – totally understand that but his analysis is just not incisive enough.
I ask myself, what kind of investment is going to go into the distribution of that and how much of that income is going to help the aspiring photojournalists.? How much of that is going to be re-invested into the health of the medium?
Is that Towell’s responsibility ? No. Is that Magnum’s? Yes.
Does the Towell/Kickstarter project look sustainable beyond funding his trip to Afghanistan? No as he has to rely on other business models again to get the work out there.
You asked me once about the validity of the Tik Tok watch comparison. They asked for more in aggregate but rely on smaller sized pledges. You get the final product delivered to your door. It would have been better had the business minds in Magnum say to Larry – it costs xxx to print and xxx to distribute your story. A print costs XXX and for you to get all this done you need to sell xxx amount of pledges at xxx price. Instead he is reliant on 7 people to be 60% of his funding just to cover the costs of the trip.
They are all critical questions to using a great Kickstarter platform sustainably.
TVH is giving a talk about the crowd sourcing platform alongside emphas.is and I very much doubt he has a background in business strong enough to understand the complexities of value generation, distribution efficiencies and growing targeted markets for his work – either for profit or for social change. I might be wrong, he might have a MBA, a degree in economics, might be well read or he might just be a one off genius who just happens to be an expert in matters where he has no experience in.
If any of that is wrong, then I obviously apologise to him.
But his analysis is very base and simplistic that it renders it of little value as it lacks quantitative analysis and is full of qualitative judgements. Again, the curatorial and editorial ideology is being used to measure effectiveness. Just like I find his China story using Mao metaphors – simplistic
journalism using beautiful images – and he does take amazingly beautiful images. I applaud him for that. I wish I could shoot like that.
I prefer to point out that the incentive to performance is lowered as the income from Kickstarter is fixed and guaranteed. The return for pledges is often already producible from existing material so as not to oblige the producer of coming back with anything that fits the brief. It incentivises the photographer to value their photographic process unchecked by any professional scrutiny applied to aid the outcome. The only thing stopping the photographer from having a good time and taking some shots when they feel like it is personal professional pride. I am not surprised that they are all jumping on the Emphas.is bandwagon as they place all the financial risk onto the donators and the shooters take all the pleasure with no effective scrutiny.
That is an incentive for the abuse of Kickstarter audiences and lower standards – not a formula for sustained success and I am not surprised that Towell was dismissive of the funders and KJ has not returned to the Kickstarter forum once she got her cash. She did not even say “thank you”.
So I was critical of the dismissive actions of the photographers because they are at risk of killing what could be a wonderful platform for every shooter out there by behaviours legitimised by the structure that incentivises this kind of abuse.
To be fair though that is just opinion and not anybody else’s so I will stay here and say it exactly as I see it. I would like to remind people that it was not me who posted on Kickstarter nor was it me who tweeted saying Towell was “taking the p*ss”. I respect your comments and I hope although I do not agree, that they have been given due respect.
TVH’s post is decent. He’s written some incisive stuff on crowdfunding.
I think you made a mistake to think his comments related to your post. I’m pretty confident they did not. But to Daniels, which offended him, with good reason.
Who is Daniels? Paul Daniels? Didn’t he just sell his wig for a grand? I am sure DAH liked the it, not a lot… 😉
I must admit I was confused by who ‘Daniels’ was.
Also this ‘silly comment’ geezer who has now appeared.
Sometimes life can be a bit too serious can’t it? Like shocking images… gets a bit boring if the tone was the same every single shot, or every single comment.
I know war is brutal, I know there are places in the world that are so poor that internation aid agencies have to come in where the state fails, I know disease can be a horrid blight in childrens lives but hey, life can be Matt Stuart funny too!
Anybody noticed how Sky Sports dealt with sexist behaviour? That is how serious I think calling Russian’s this and that should be treated. Not calling for anybody’s head but a response would be nice wouldn’t it?
Does that build trust just to avoid the issue and hope it goes away or am I speaking in an unreasonably politically correct vacuum here?
More to the Sky Sports thing than meets the eye though. Note that Andy Gray is currently suing News Corp who are hoping for a full takeover of Sky. Convenient opportunity to get rid of him?
Gray and Keys a couple of buffoons (and their commentary is totally crap), but seems to be a wholesale over-reaction in my book. I like real life Alan Partridge characters, of which these are defo two.
You talking about the “tuck me in” footage? or the female ref one?
The ‘tuck me in’ footage was pure Partridge. That’s like the kind of thing you do at school.
Note how the female presenter was seriosuly not ammused.
Bloody hell, if Gray’s that open about it they must have umpteen other examples that will hopefully come out in the next days.
Weird how Keys hasn’t been sacked tho as well?
He phoned the assistant ref and apologised. I accept that. Women do some amazing things every single day and many of them I suggest may be slightly more complex than the offside rule… where do they get their ideas from? Sigh… Like shooting images of Mao fanatics as a piece of serious journalism. Sigh… some people are still stuck in the 70’s – just like those sitting at the top of PJ’ism dare I say it… oops, I just have!
Didn’t he (Keys) specifically apologise on behalf of them both though? That was what was reported anyway.
I still think his comments were just a convenient excuse for Sky to get rid of him and his £1.7million a year salary.
Do you really think Murdoch gives a crap about morality/equality, etc.
I now know who “Daniel’s” is.
http://verbal.co.za/2011/01/crowd-funding/
TVH versus Daniel Cuthbert. Daniel was not posting anonymously so I assume the chances of him referring to duckrabbit and other anonymous bloggers is quite high!