This look into Paul Seawright’s, 1988 body of work, which was originally released with no formal name. It has since commonly been referred to as The Sectarian Murders. The work blurs the lines between documentary and art, is it still art? The work is ambiguous enough to intrigue the viewer into to deeper thought, something that is required of art, not chained to the rules of documentary or having to tell the whole story in one image. The core of Seawright’s argument is trying to find the perfect balance of explicit and ambiguity, Seawright himself says “Too explicit it becomes journalistic, too ambiguous it becomes meaningless.”
What adds to the artfulness of the set is the lack of bodies or police tape, or, in fact any evidence these tragic crimes were committed. The 15 years between act and art and the banality of the scenes, draws the set away from the documentary and closer the art.
The meaning of the images would remain lost in their ambiguity if not for the clever use of text, with the religion of victim’s purposely removed from the text. As Liam Kelly has written in his online article for British Photography.org “Paul Seawright’s photographic works are another example of the transformative power of text on image.” The text helps the viewer on their way to explanation, it also leaves them enough space to make their own opinions as Seawright goes on to say the “holy grail is to make work that visually engages people, that draws them in. And then gives up its meaning slowly”. But essentially “Still gives it up”
If we define a piece of documentary photography as art, does this change its meaning? If anything, it enhances its meaning, as Liam Kelly explains “The cold sparsity of the text, together with the concentrated absences in the photograph, unite to sustain a resounding moral condemnation of political cause and effect on both victim and violator.”
Ben's Blog 