Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper
Nobody denies this , the photgrapher was working for Signal. The problem is that the organisers in Paris ommited to state so, so some visitors may not realize this is propaganda. The organizers have however promised to remedy to this and in the coming days it will be clearly mentionned that these were propaganda pictures. I don't blame anybody neither the people who fell for it, nor the organisers who failed to mention it, but it's a shame because this is how people get the wrong idea. You'd almost think the occupation was a blessing.
|
Thanks for reinforcing some of the stuff I've read around the web Skipper. So was the exhibition presented as objective & general truth? Or simply an error of omission of context? If the latter, and they're rectifying it, then this really seems a lot of fuss about very little.
Anyone who used/uses those pictures as some kind of genuine illustration of how positive an experience the occupation was would be being a bit dim really (as newspapers,
absolutely regardless of which one, so often are when dealing with more complicated areas). They're just another part of a massive story, a fascinating detail in the correct context.
They don't seem that strong an example of everything being fine to me either though (Perhaps why they were never published in Signal). More a fairly unsurprising set of shots from a great city and the multitude of people within it, occupation or not. An exhibition that showed every citizen in sackcloth and ashes and every second image an atrocity, or illustration of some negative incident of the time with no mention whatever of even the smallest degree of collaboration would equally require some placing in context wouldn't it?
Does anyone know if the exhibition itself has a website? I can't find one and was wondering if they'd perhaps sensibly taken it down while the arguing goes on. It'd be nice to hear some sort of statement from the 'horses mouth' of the organisers.
Cheers,
Adam.