Sounds interesting this.

Its to coincide with a retrospective of his work at the Tate Britain.

While that no doubt consist of all his incredibly hard-hitting images of Vietnam and various other war-zones, this programme is showcasing his photos of England. Which I don’t really know at all.

I’m out on Monday Night Pub Ride but recording it for when I get back in

Oooh – brilliant – thanks for the PSA!!

Saw an exhibition of his photos, including the ones of the East End and Bradford, a few years ago. They were some of the most incredibly moving images I have seen, and the gallery might have been a bit dusty from time to time. I may even treat myself to a day out in the smoke to see the Tate exhibiton.

I’m planning a trip down to that there London to go and see it. Glad it’s at the Tate Britain which is my favourite gallery.

Saw the exhibition at the Imperial war Museum and they are indeed some of the most moving and powerful images you will ever see. And not just the more obvious ones either. First time I’ve ever seen people openly crying at an exhibition. I might have been one of them

A really interesting interview with him in yesterday’s Observer

Brilliant thanks Binners, greatly appreciated. His documentation of the working class in the north and south are powerful, evocative and all too familiar even now.

Many thanks for posting this – I’m looking forward to it!

Thanks binners – really enjoyed that!

I’ve read there is a film about his life being produced with Tom Hardy in the role of McCullin, which I think is a good casting fit.

That was a good watch. What an affable bloke he is.

Interesting, but I didn’t think his pictures were anything special.

Talented, right place and time, but …

How did those people recognise him? Is he famous or was there someone walking behind him with a clapboard with his name on it? 🤷‍♂️

Talented, right place and time, but …

You’ve just described precisely the skill and talent of a photojournalist/documentary photographer. OK so there’s also knowing precisely what to point your camera when you are there but I’m still not sure what you think his pictures lack?

How did those people recognise him? Is he famous

Yes, very much so, at least in the photograpy and journalistic world. You will almost certainly know many of his pictures even if you haven’t attributed his name to them (like most conflict/documentary photographer). This is perhaps the most well known image he produced:

In order to get that picture he spent many days in the most vicious front line fire fights in Hue when the US launched the Tet Offensive. He was eventually wounded by shrapnel and evacuated.

There is a particularly good documentary on him, featuring him extensively talking about his life and work as well as the other people in his career who have worked with him that is well worth watching – it’s on iTunes and perhaps on Prime as well and is simply called ‘McCullin’.

It’s incredibly moving and deeply upsetting in many parts as he recounts the terribly things he’s seen.

I find him a fascinating person; he’s clearly got a lot of conflict in him and isn’t afraid to articulate that, almost like he’s searching for peace. One of the most interesting themes that comes across when you hear or readbout about him interviewed is that he loathes being known as a conflict photographer. He feels it such a terrible epithet. He’s been photographing the landscape a lot more recently and has just published a new book on his landscape work.

He commented in that programme last night how he is making his pictures darker and darker as he gets older; it;s something I noticed as well and his landscapes are very moody and almost exclusively shot in very overcast weather with very dark toning to them. I’ve often wondered if this is a pictoral reflection of his struggle with the things he’s seen, or at least that’s my interpretation of it.

Talented, right place and time, but …

Erm, I get that. And also in an era where the only people taking photos of others was for journalistic purposes, for a story board or cover shot.

But kids playing football on the sand? Or a woman walking a dog on the sand?

I can point you to insta where you’re gonna find plenty of that, and plenty of tits and plenty of car crashes.

Never seen that image ^^ again, to me, it’s just a soldier of a era captured in Black and White.

As for being famous, we’re all famous for 15mins aren’t we.

Never heard of him.

Seemed like a nice bloke, a bloke that takes pictures of other people.

🤷‍♂️

it’s just a soldier of a era

Wow.

Folks who get it, see also – https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2354205/?ref_=fn_al_tt_5

Bikebouy of course you can point to a million photos like his taken since. That’s the bloody point, he’s one of those photographers that shaped what we think of as good photographs. He was original in what he did at the time though. You are only able to look through the eyes of someone who sees thousands of images a day, his photos are from an era when that wasn’t the case. You have never heard of him because he didn’t take pictures to become a celebrity or to put himself in the spotlight.

he needs to learn the difference between pompous and eccentric 🙂

Can’t really find words to respond to bikebuoy …

anyway, moving on …

the film is on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-r0IjB44KY

I get it if YOU like his stuff, that’s a personal choice.

But I follow some photogs who, IMO, are better at snapping.

HeyHo.

Good programme though, brought me up to speed with who he is and what he does, that’s what BBC4 is all about IMO.

His Unreasonable Behaviour is well worth a read

But I follow some photogs who, IMO, are better at snapping.

It sounds then as if you are interested in photos as standalone objects without context rather than as an object of it’s time. Nothing wrong with that but for me the thing that has always made photography unique is that it captures and freezes a fragment of time and preserves it and will always be of that time. I’d be interested to see the work of those you like if you post a link to their work.

Talented, right place and time, but …

Sorry you don’t get it. IMHO McCullin is special.

As for photogs who are “better at snapping” I’m not sure you strictly mean that (how can you quantify ‘better’?). I suspect you may find the aesthetics of the end result suit your taste or visual education. It’s like dismissing a jazz standard because you can’t hum the tune.

These days any monkey with an iphone can dial in a filter on instagram or spend hours mucking about with layers in Photoshop, turn up the saturation to 11 and get 5,000 likes and loads of “awesome” comments for a sunset in a honeypot location.

Top trolling bikebuoy 😀

Unless you really are truly that ignorant

Yes indeed he’s a very good ‘snapper’ as you refer to him. Maybe even better than some of the people you follow on Instagram?

But its what he achieved with his photographs. A measure of his impact on modern history is the fact that his photo’s were specifically credited as turning the tide of public opinion against the Vietnam war in America. So much so that when Thatcher sent the task force to the Falklands she wrote to the MOD and specifically instructed them that under no circumstances was Don McCullen to be allowed within a 200 mile radius of the islands. His press accreditation request was immediately refused

I’m sure some of the ‘influencers’ you have added on Instagram have had a similar impact on the world. Kim Kardashian doing selfies of her arse?

I think war photography ‘peaked’ with Vietnam and Cambodia.
Although I hate in any way glorifying warfare (remember kiddies, people are dying out there) Michael Herr’s quote from Tim Page sticks in my head:

“Take the glamour out of war! I mean, how the bloody hell can you do _that_? Go and take the glamour out of a Huey, go take the glamour out of a Sheridan…Can _you_ take the glamour out of a Cobra, or getting stoned at China Beach? It’s like taking the glamour out of an M-79, taking the glamour out of Flynn.” He pointed to a picture he’d taken, Flynn laughing maniacally (“We’re winning,” he’d said), triumphantly. “Nothing the matter with _that_ boy, is there? Would you let your daughter marry that man? Ohhhh, war is _good_ for you, you can’t take the glamour out of that. It’s like trying to take the glamour out of sex, trying to take the glamour out of the Rolling Stones.” He was really speechless, working his hands up and down to emphasize the sheer insanity of it.

“I mean, you _know_ that it just _can’t be done!_” We both shrugged and laughed, and Page looked very thoughtful for a moment. “The very _idea!_” he said. “Ohhh, what a laugh! Take the bloody _glamour_ out of bloody _war!”

I think Vietnam was a high water mark as the best photographers were on the front line with the troops for long periods of time, not embedded for certain short periods. They went sort of gonzo before gonzo was a thing. And the human aspects of the war were a counterpoint to the excitement of the combat images from helicopters to jets taking off from carriers. Post Vietnam the military started to become a lot more aware of the power of the images coming back from the front and did their best to control it (See the Maggie Thatcher Falklands story above).
Read “Dispatches” by Michael Herr if you haven’t. Chase up Tim Page’s work if you haven’t seen that.
I was at Uni when the Americans left Vietnam, it seemed almost an anticlimax. Quite how America’s foreign policy in the years following was shaped by their defeat is a fascinating study.

I disagree with the Vietnam theory above, McCullin himself did powerful work in Beirut but have a look at the book Requiem for Vietnam war photography

I think in popular perception war photography peaked with Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now. McCullin was and is the antithesis of that approach and it’s probably why many will have seen his work while remaining utterly unaware of the man who took the photos.

It sounds then as if you are interested in photos as standalone objects without context rather than as an object of it’s time. Nothing wrong with that but for me the thing that has always made photography unique is that it captures and freezes a fragment of time and preserves it and will always be of that time. I’d be interested to see the work of those you like if you post a link to their work.

Ya nailed it for me.

I’m not trolling, it really is just my opinion and I really didn’t know who he was nor what all the fuss is about.

I will look further into him though.. to see what all the fuss is about.

Bikebouy.. seriously, go and check out the exhibition. Seeing things on screen or in books is one thing. Seeing them say huge prints is another.

I remember one specific print at the Imperial War Museum exhibition. It was one of the last images, if not the last, and took up a whole wall. It showed a small child in a war zone in Africa, lying in the middle of the road with a look of pure fear in their eyes,. Behind him was the dust cloud of a vehicle disappearing into the distance. Its clear that he’d been abandoned in the rush to flea a village. His parents probably already dead.

Viewing it was like being punched in the chest. It was absolutely heartbreaking. There were people stood in front of it crying. It was very dusty in there

I disagree with the Vietnam theory above, McCullin himself did powerful work in Beirut but have a look at the book Requiem for Vietnam war photography

We’ll have to disagree then, it is a matter of personal taste after all. I never went to war and Vietnam is the one I remember most as a war. With the exception of the Falklands for some reason I think of subsequent conflicts as humanitarian disasters.

I will look further into him though.. to see what all the fuss is about.

The fuss is that he was there in the same way that any journalist in a conflict or humanitarian disaster zone was there; they bear witness to the suffering of people and the destruction of our humanity. There is no ‘art’ in those pictures (in my view – although the idea of that only just occurred to me and it’s a whole other debate. I’m not sure I even agree with myself!), there is only experience and representation.

His other work, i.e. his non-conflict or disaster zone work is still relevant and important and aesthetically very pleasing to my sensibilities. That said, you’re right that there are a lot of other photographers whose work in those areas is equally as capable. But McCullin’s work is celebrated more because he is famous (or at least widely known and highly regarded as a war photographer).

The irony is he hates that epithet. He doesn’t want to be known or remembered as that and I think he’s doing more landscape work now to try and redress that.

I never went to war

I have been on a frontline with a journalist; I’m not sure what that experience enables me or anyone else to know about the veracity or excellence of photojournalism but i can tell you it was a terrifying experience. Anyone who can work with that level of fear is remarkable in my view.

We’ll have to disagree then, it is a matter of personal taste after all.

Of course, sorry if my reply came across as a bit strident, perils of being in a rush and typing on phone! My view was that McCullin and others produced strong images from further conflicts; The Troubles, countless wars in Africa, Bangladesh etc which although they are humanitarian disasters all are military struggles. You could argue the impact of photography in general is diminishing due to the availability of video, smartphones and instant hosting which have already effected the traditional medium of sharing photojournalism via the printed press which leads to fewer successors to McCullin emerging.

Bikebouy.. seriously, go and check out the exhibition.

I will do 👍

You could argue the impact of photography in general is diminishing due to the availability of video, smartphones and instant hosting

I think the impact of journalism is in general diminishing; I don’t think it’s confined to just photography (journalism).

I went to a pannel discsusion recently with a number of both up and coming and established photographers where this point came up. It’s a valid question but I made the point (which everyone agreed with) that there’s never been a more important time to be good at you [they] do. The same appliesto journalism in general and indeed any profession that comes under pressure from declining standards and an explosion in (poor) participation.

I really enjoyed that documentary. I was particularly interested in the way he got talking to people prior to the photographs, though he did sound very much of his time. It is easy to forget that he is 83 (I think).
His style of printing is very much in the style of the 60s. Dark, but with lots of contrast. His framing didn’t strike me as particularly special. He’s certainly no Cartier-Bresson.

Very enjoyable, I’m sure it’s me getting old but I do like this sort of telly these days 😊

Good shout.
I saw a bbc news feature on him earlier.
I will also be visiting the wonderful Tate Britain soon.

to me, it’s just a soldier of a era

Zoom in. Take a really good look at his eyes. Look at the way his fingers are laced round the rifle and how he’s hunched in on himself. There’s a whole story in that photograph.

There are a few iconic press photos that really stick in my memory, like the kids running from the Napalm attack, or the miner and the policeman facing off at Orgreave. If someone mentions McCullin, I see that shellshocked GI straightaway.

Indeed. That image is the living embodiement of the phrase ‘a thousand yard stare’ to me.

I look at that picture and wonder what kind of living hell he’d just witnessed?

So, I took myself to the McCullin exhibition at Tate Britain this morning – really moving and impressive set of images, from the war photos some of which we are familar with to his other works showing disasters of varous sorts and his more recent landscapes. Also makes a difference seeing the photos printed.

If you have any interest at all in photograhy I’d recommend you make the effort to see it. I was first through the door and it was pretty quiet for an hour which also helped, but by the time I left it was pretty busy.

I’d been intending to also see the Diane Arbus exhibition at the Hayward, but I was a bit mentally exhausted, so I went to look round Decatlon instead 🙁

I stopped into Hamiltons gallery in Knightsbridge yesterday myself. They have represented him for the last 30 years and currently have about 60 images for sale.

They are all original silver gelatin prints made by McCulling himself, in his own dark room, very soon after they were taken, so they are about as original as it gets. The display was quite remarkable. The images offered are all relatively small, around 10×15 typically, so the presentation is very intimate (not sure how large the ones in the Tate are?) and include a few that have never been published before.

It was indeed remarkable and moving. My favourite from that collection is this:

Just sublime in print – so ethereal and of a whole other time. Sadly but unsurprisingly sold (for £20,000).

They also had an original print of the shell shocked Marine, also sold, for £70,000.

Now is the time to collect something of his if you can. An original Silver Gelatin made by him is going to appreciate pretty quickly.

That pic is in the exhibition – amazing – it’s taken on Caledonian Road!! It was printed at about 50cm wide.