Our venues
Our museums and galleries

Also in this section…?

Transcript of Recollections exhibition talk podcast

A gallery talk in the Recollections exhibition, in which Dr Julian Stallabrass of the Courtauld Institute of Art discussed the role of Philip Jones Griffiths in the photographic community and his impact upon photojournalism.

Annie Lord: Morning everybody. My name’s Annie and I work for the exhibitions department at the National Museums. I would like to welcome you all here today on behalf of ourselves and the Open Eye Gallery. This morning can I just introduce Julian Stallabrass who has come to talk to us today about this exhibition Recollections. Very unfortunately Philip passed away at the beginning of last year but he was really keen to have this exhibition in Liverpool and I was very lucky to meet him and work with him. So I shan’t go on any more but will just let Julian talk us through the exhibition. Julian lectures at the Courtald Institute of Art. He was the curator of the Photographic Biennial down at Brighton last year and he has written extensively about art and photography. Over to you.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: Thanks very much Annie. So, Philip Jones Griffiths. This show concentrates on his work made in the UK. Some of you will know Philip Jones Griffiths was one of the most remarkable photojournalists of his generation, a long time member of Magnum and a president of Magnum for quite a while and probably best known for his work done on the Vietnam war and in particular an extraordinary book which he published in 1971 called Vietnam Inc, Vietnam incorporated. In the kind of black box in the middle of this show you can see some of that work.

But this exhibition and this book as well, this very beautiful book published by Trolley, I have a vested interest here as I wrote the preface for it, is really the first sustained look at Philip Jones Griffiths’ UK work and that’s what we’ll be talking about today.

His work was scattered really for a long time and some of it has been recovered and saved from newspaper archives. It’s a rather partial record in certain ways because newspapers were, and perhaps still are, rather careless with photographers’ negatives and possessions. Some of it was recovered from being thrown away by the Sunday Times magazine. So as I say, it’s a kind of partial recovery of the work that Philip did. But he was working initially as a part time photojournalist, he had to work as a chemist to sustain himself, and he was doing jobbing work for magazines like the Sunday Times, the Observer, the Guardian and for magazines as well.

In doing so, he’s looking at Britain at a time of really rapid and quite sweeping social, environmental and political change. So the works look at the changes to the visual environment, he’s very sensitive to that. There’s lot’s about buildings and graffiti and signs and the way people interact with that environment. There’s a lot about class relations, about in particular a very close attention paid to the conditions of working class Britons especially here in Liverpool. About changing racial composition of the country, about multiculturalism. About commerce and the way that that’s affecting again the environment and especially the built environment.

So what I’m going to do is, I mean this is a large crowd, so we’re going to go round and look at some pictures. I’ll try and concentrate on the big ones I think otherwise it’s going to be rather difficult for you to see. And it would be great if you have comments or questions as we go, don’t be shy and speak up.

So shall we start with this one here. All along here up to this point here with the miner [looking at Coal-face worker photograph], these are pictures that Philip took in Wales, where he was from, at various different dates. Some are taken with his first serious camera, which was an Agiflex, a weird British copy of a German medium format SLR. It’s a large camera and you hold it down at your waist here and you look down into it. It was a rather noisy camera, it was an SLR, it had a mirror flapping up and down but nevertheless, the kind of photographs that you take with that and the kind he took in the rectangular format here with a Leica - a quite different, we can look at that a little bit. But this was taken on that old camera, on the Agiflex at waist level, which is great for photographing children in particular.

Already here in this early photograph from 1952 you can see a lot of what makes Philip special, I think, as a photographer, already assembled. As with many photojournalists there’s an intense focus on facial expressions and on gestures, the little boy’s gestures for instance, the girl here, in this one the little girl leaning forward and looking with such curiosity into the camera. It’s a rather beautiful composition too and if one looks in particular at the way in which he’s matched up the various elements of the background to the figures, this is not an easy thing to do.

Throughout his career, although he’s using rather sophisticated cameras, and certainly Leica is an extraordinary technological artefact, basically it’s very simple. He was usually using a fixed lens, not a zoom. It’s a clockwork camera, it’s a very simple device and the control you have over a scene like that, it’s quite minimal really. It’s a question of, you think “Where am I going to put myself” or “Where am I going to put the camera and when am I going to place the shutter, those are the two essential things.

I guess the other thing to think about here is what sort of relationship does he have with his subjects, and that relationship is quite variable. Sometimes it’s clear that the subjects know there’s a camera there, they are interested in it. Other times it’s a much more candid relationship and Philip has made himself invisible somehow in taking these pictures. I asked him about this picture and he was saying that it was a very momentary thing. They were aware of the camera, interested in it, and he came to know this woman a little bit later after she’d grown up, she became a barmaid apparently this one here, but basically it was a very passing thing. And generally Philip says that, except on photojournalistic projects where he was going out to meet and know people and find out about their lives very specifically, those relationships often are very transient and that he tried not to, I suppose, interfere too much with the subjects of the pictures. But as we’ll see, that’s a variable thing.

Audience member: It’s great that he was 16 when he takes that, it was 1952 so he was barely a boy himself, it’s extraordinary.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: That’s right. Does anybody want to say anything about this picture?

Audience member: I particularly like the photographs around Liverpool of buildings and I’m always aware if there are any children around because I’ve been challenged a couple of times and it makes me feel very uncomfortable, you know, “Why are you taking photographs of our children?”, I say “No I’m not”. I think we’ve lost this ability to take photographs of people, they just don’t like it. How do other people feel about this? I don’t think you could take a photograph like this now.

Audience member: It’s illegal isn’t it?

Dr Julian Stallabrass: It’s not illegal, no.

Audience member: Is it not?

Dr Julian Stallabrass: No, but the very idea that it might be or that people might be suspicious of what you are doing is one of the many obstacles I think to photojournalism. I think another thing is, look at this street, this unidentified south Wales valley, and when we come to look at the Liverpool photographs, the environment in which he was working is entirely different really to our environment now. One thing about it is that there’s very little traffic, the streets are arenas for social interaction and for children to play in obviously, everything is on public display more. That’s really, that’s the environment in which photojournalism developed and grew up, documentary photography of the city in particular. It’s much more difficult to pursue, for all sorts of reasons these days, I think but partly because that environment has been destroyed in part just by sheer weight of traffic.

Again just thinking about faces and gestures, this is five years later than that picture and now he’s working with 35mm, but really a remarkable and lovely picture of these boys who, well, they’re partly playing for the camera but he’s also caught them, it seems at a slightly unconscious moment as well. And again, even here where the background is relatively uncomplicated, if you look at the relationship the lines of these hills and the boys’ heads, it’s very beautifully done.

Ok, now what was I going to show you next? There’s a picture downstairs of children playing in war ruins and I think one of the things that Philip does is, there’s quite a lot of photographs from this period about development but also about slums, about condemned buildings and people living in them. We have to remember that for really a long time after the war bomb sites were a very common feature of the UK urban landscape, and dereliction in general of course. So Philip here is concentrating, through photographing children again, which he was very good at, at getting at elements of working class life. Again, obviously a focus on a particular incident. He’s been very sharp with the timing of this picture. Remember that he’s probably at this stage in 1966 not working with a motor drive or anything like that. You can take pictures nevertheless reasonably fast with a 1960s Leica but it’s very far from the automated 5 frames a second or more that we’re used to now. So he’s picked his moment very masterfully with the ball in mid air and odd little incidents in the background, the guy on the ladder. And if we can look at this, again just to make this point about the street environment. I know there are probably areas of north Liverpool that still look a bit like this but it is remarkably empty in a sense, these streets, and quite clear of visual clutter as well. If one thinks of all the apparatus that goes around, both commerce, shops and so on, but also painting on the road, road signs and so on, all these things to regulate traffic and protect pedestrians I suppose. And a very strong visual and spatial sense so, as I say, you don’t have many choices in making a shot like this. It’s a choice of the focal length of the lens, but the way that he’s placed himself to arrange these children in relationship to the boy on the bike is really nice. And then the relationship of that building to his head and the way that the pavement swings around like this, it’s all really beautifully done. It’s hard to believe in a sense that it’s not in some way altered or Photoshopped or something. I suppose one thing to say is that Philip was a very meticulous printer and one thing that you can do, especially with black and white, is to alter the tones. So he would work on the composition by quite a bit of manipulation of the tones to produce different greys. And Philip, although he did work in colour sometimes for commercial reasons, was a big enemy of colour in relationship to documentary and photojournalistic work. He thought it introduced such a degree of arbitrariness that it tended to undermine the serious nature of the image. One of his examples for instance is the bright colours of canisters used for food containers in famine, whether they’re bright red or bright blue, what does that colour mean if you’re photographing that scene?

Audience member: Do we know if he was taking many versions of his photographs or if he was just taking the one?

Dr Julian Stallabrass: He may well have done. The way to know is to go and look at the contact strips, which are held at Magnum. One of the priviledges of Magnum membership actually is that you can go and look at anybody’s contact strips and see how they worked. I think Philip was, especially at this stage, pretty economical with film, not least for financial reasons. As I say, lets remember that for much of this time he’s working as a chemist in Boots and pursuing this as a part time venture. But, no, there may well be a number of these which he then picks from.

Audience member: Was that the same group of children as the previous picture? The bike’s almost identical.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: I’m not sure

Another audience member: It’s definitely the same.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: The bike’s the same?

Another audience member: Yeah.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: Really? Oh that’s interesting. OK, lets move round to this wall here. One thing that interested Philip and obviously the papers of the time was changing social habits and morays in particular and one of the things he does is to often cannily get at the contrast between traditional 1960s Britain and then the behaviour of youth, you know, the invention of the teenager and there’s a kind of counter-culture emerging which he gets at here as well. Another aspect of those changes I suppose is exposure of basically a rather conservative and sometimes philistine British population to modern art and to shocking displays, such as this. What he’s doing here in both of these pictures paired together rather nicely here is looking I suppose for ways in which people reflect what they’re looking at. So her little legs here kind of reflect the sculpture and equally this mother and child is reflected in that. So there are quite a few pictures of that sort and I guess there’s, unlike the very dark work made about really a genocide in Vietnam for which Philip is best known, there’s a lot of wry humour running through these scenes and in general in his work on Britain, quite a lot of social comedy I guess. I’m reminded of Henri Cartier Bresson, one of the founders of Magnum and a very famous photojournalist, who said he liked working in Britain because he felt it was like going to the theatre, that people dressed very deliberately and elaborately to illustrate their social roles. There’s something of that feeling of a kind of social and class comedy, I think, played out in a lot of Philip’s work.

One can see it here too with this Black lady with a camera. We can’t see what she’s photographing, which gives the piece a slightly surreal air. It’s a bit again like one of those Cartier Bressons with someone looking into a space with fascination but we don’t know what it is. But the point is these ladies at the back looking at her with, well, hard to judge exactly what their expressions mean but certainly she’s a big item of curiosity for them, perhaps in a sense the combination of the camera and the dress and the colour. It’s taken in, oh it is in Brighton in 1960.

Audience member: I think that’s the amazing thing about Philip’s Vietnam work though, that same satire and wit and humour runs right through the Vietnam book as well I think as a very dark undercurrent. But a lot of the images of the American soldiers are very very satirical and almost comic.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: Yes. Well there’s an amazing picture for instance which he had to wait for days to get, a very common scene but difficult to photograph of a GI being pick-pocketed in the street, there are those sorts of pictures. It’s true that there was a kind of absurdist dark humour that runs through much of that work. I remember Philip telling me that he was photographing this scene where Vietnamese villagers were being driven out of their homes by GIs. They were allowed to take possessions with them because they were being forcibly sent to a resettlement camp but then their homes were burned. They were frogmarched off with rifles pointed at them to this new camp, concentration camp essentially. One of the GIs turns to Philip and says “Isn’t it great to see people voting with their feet for freedom?” Philip said that the whole scene, apart from the tragedy of it, was also incredibly funny as he put it. So it’s a strong kind of, a sort of catch 22 type humour I suppose, which runs through the work, it’s true.

OK. This is a really remarkable picture I think, again taken on that early square format camera, the Agiflex and probably would have been pretty difficult to get any other way I think. He’s quite close to these guys, they’re hanging around outside Pentonville Jail at the time an acquaintance or friend of theirs is going to be hanged, so very early in the morning. You can see that this guy in particular is looking at the camera but may not really know that he’s being photographed. Again it’s a remarkable composition, remarkable for the look of these people, their gestures, their expressions. It seems very much to come from another age. People don’t really look like that any more and I think it’s true of some of the pictures of Liverpool as well. I suppose it’s to do with diet in part as well as the clothes and physical labour, they have the most remarkable aspect. It reminds me too of George Bataille’s remark, as a dissident Surrealist, that when we look at our ancestors it’s always like looking at monsters, there’s a sort of real alien aspect to such pictures. And guess there are lots of reasons why, although we’re only looking 50 years ago here, that that should be the case. Part of it’s to do with photographic style, to do perhaps with a passing away or at least fading of the tradition of humanist photojournalism of which Philip was such a great and self conscious practitioner, of the tradition of Cartier Bresson, W Eugene Smith and so on. It’s partly I think to do with black and white too. One can imagine this photograph in colour, it would have been perfectly technically possible to make it in colour, and it would have been incredibly different. But also I think it’s to do, this is an important part of the book and the show as a whole, to do with the passing away of a particular set of relationships between the classes. In particular I suppose of the decline of the organised, unionised working class and the capability of that class to provide for itself with some reasonable degree of security and so on.

This I also wanted you to take a look at. Taken in Piccadilly Circus in 1960, just a very canny photograph. Night photographs are not easy to do at this time either and Philip’s very good at doing it. This is also a very nice scene, a night picture taken nearby. You have this perhaps slightly bewildered looking elderly woman looking out of the frame and the lights of Piccadilly Circus reflected in her glasses. And then this nice complex scene behind – she’s standing in front of a shop window showing a nativity scene which is lit here and where the window isn’t lit what you get is a reflection coming from the lights of Piccadilly, especially this large Coca Cola ad reflected backwards, reversed out of the window. It seems to be a comment, plainly on commercial display, Piccadilly Circus being then the most intensive place that you would go for those sort of neon light displays in the UK. With religion, but again a religion which is itself commercialised – it’s a shop window display this, I think. Her view out looking at this scene, but some slight suggestion I suppose that she by virtue of her generation has stepped into a newly minted and rather alien world. There’s a picture too which presses on the same sorts of issues which shows some elderly people wandering around a new supermarket in the 1960s, it’s not in this show, again with an air of bewilderment at this environment, at the choices on display.

Anyone want to say anything about any of this, I haven’t been pausing.

Audience member: I take what you’re saying entirely here but at the same time, maybe when you analyse a picture in that way you kind of you stop observing the sensation of looking at the picture, those immediate contrasts and the fact that it’s about signs. It’s very strong tonally as well isn’t it. There’s just a very strong immediate visual dimension to it isn’t there.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: I think that’s right. There’s a nice quote of Philip’s on the wall over there saying that form and content have to work together and be equally strong. There is often an extremely strong compositional formal structure created in these pictures. But one that in the best pictures works very closely with social meaning as well I think. It’s not that you can, in terms of an analysis for a while you can separate them out but I think with the best pictures they come together to reinforce each other.

Audience member: At first sight she seems to be among them, which is kind of nice as she seems as bewildered as they would be if they were in that situation.


Dr Julian Stallabrass: Yes. I hadn’t thought about that, that’s nice.

OK, if we just look round at this large picture here, there’s quite a nice contrast here. Philip obviously in his job as a photojournalist photographed politicians. This I think is his most sympathetic portrayal, they tend to be rather jaundiced his pictures of politicians, especially those of the Conservative party. But quite a nice lyrical portrait of a rather introspective looking, as he was, Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Tony Benn outside the Houses of Parliament. Again a rather beautiful composition with the way he leans back and then these lines, there’s a balustrade and the Houses of Parliament come forward and even this little line in the water of the Thames there, it’s really sweetly done.

[Looking at the photograph of Harold MacMillan.] This is more typical of the kind of photographs that Philip was taking of politicians in this period and again there’s a strong sense of wry humour running through these. You’ll notice for instance that there’s a sign here saying ‘Discerning people read the Birmingham Post’. She maybe has found another use for it, which is quite nice [indicating a woman with a newspaper on her head]. He’s showing us what Conservative ladies, for these are delegates, you can tell from the badges, looked like at that time and I think there’s an implicit critique there. The other thing that he was interested in was, this is MacMillan and his wife, who was having a long running affair with some guy whose name…

Audience member: Boothby

Dr Julian Stallabrass: That’s right. So he’s interested in the distance between them I suppose, which he thought was telling of that semi-public scandal.

Audience member: Is the caption correct here, saying it’s the Prime Minister in 1956? That was the time, if it was the autumn conference, of the Suez crisis and Eden was Prime Minister then, MacMillan didn’t become Prime Minister until January the following year.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: It could well be that, I’ve noticed some discrepancies with the captions. As I say there was a sort of a process of reconstruction going on here to an extent. Philip unfortunately was working on this book right up until his death. He suffered from cancer for a long time and unfortunately his memory was not what it was sometimes. But it was very striking to me in writing the preface to this and to see him working through really very difficult circumstances to complete the book, it just showed his remarkable commitment to his work and to photojournalism really.

There are a few pictures of Northern Ireland just here which we can talk about briefly I guess. These two in particular, I hope you can see them OK, a supermarket scene and a little girl running round a corner and here behind some sandbags, a soldier on the ground with his rifle. This one, again a sort of banal domestic scene but with a soldier crouching in the shrubbery, using that bizarrely as cover [looking at Mowing the lawn, Northern Ireland]. And I think that there’s another one near here where he photographs someone that actually, the soldier is near the ground and someone is stood on the barrel of his rifle, bravely. He said that the officer who was there and saw him taking the picture then tried to confiscate his camera and rip the film out but Philip managed to save the picture.

But if one thinks about say Don McCullin’s work in Northern Ireland around the same time, there’s a famous picture of British soldiers charging down the street with batons in their hands, it’s a very dramatic combat picture, in a sense. Philip’s interest here is something else really, it’s about the tragic but also again somewhat humorous eruption into very ordinary and banal lives of this conflict. That’s perhaps above all what he fixes on. I suppose as a way of saying that, it’s almost as a way of saying that Philip is not a war photographer, more that he’s a photographer who’s intensely interested in people’s everyday lives and some of that work he happens to pursue in wartime circumstances. The classic combat pictures is not something that he was so interested in and in a way that’s one of the things that makes ‘Vietnam Inc’ such an extraordinary and special book, because in the end it really is about the circumstances of ordinary Vietnamese. That’s what he was most interested in, not so much in the spectacular aspects of American military operations.

[Looking at Ban the bomb enactment.] Well the last thing I’ll show you is this picture and we’re just using it to stand in really for a lot of pictures Philip took of the peace movement, the anti war movement, the anti nuclear movement CND during the 50s and 60s. I think that he was interested in it for lots of reasons. One is that obviously it was a big, mass popular movement and one which stood outside mainstream politics to an extent. I think Philip was very suspicious basically of politicians and mainstream political engagement. He was certainly a man of the left but he wasn’t formally involved in political parties, not actually involved even in the anti war movement around Vietnam directly although his work did a lot for them. Again a movement which was alternative and popular but yet pressed on an issue which was absolutely fundamental to the whole constitution of the British state, one might say, and to so many aspects of our lives the kind of security state that, well, still surrounds us. There’s a sense I think that these pictures, despite being of another era, and of another medium, one might almost say, in terms of them all being black and white film and to do with this tradition of humanist photojournalism, I think they can still speak to us very directly.

So I think that’s all I have to say but it’d be really great to hear from you and if you want to look at anything else that I’ve missed out, and I know I have missed lots of things out, we could do that.

Audience member: I wonder if you ever spoke to Philip Jones Griffiths about his apparent resistance to change towards the end of his life? I’m thinking of Magnum in particular and his resistance towards people like Martin Parr. That was quite a big thing at the time but I’ve never heard him actually talk about it and I wondered if you ever spoke to him about it?

Dr Julian Stallabrass: He was very suspicious of art photography essentially, and I think one of the reasons why his work wasn’t seen in galleries for a long time, I did speak to him about that, was that he wanted to go on making it. He thought that those photographers who concentrated on printing their own work and made gallery shows had somehow given up and abandoned the cause in which he was most interested in. Martin Parr, do most of you know his work? His elevation to Magnum was very controversial among many Magnum members, Cartier Bresson too hit the roof over it. I think what it did was to open up a division in Magnum and a rather invidious one between so-called photojournalists and so-called art photographers. One of the points about it I suppose is that Parr’s work can be seen as anti-humanist in certain ways, there would certainly be a reading of it like that. In other words Parr photographs the working class, Liverpool’s working class at play in New Brighton for instance in such a way as to make their condition appear pretty hopeless. But nevertheless I think oddly, if one looks at some of the photographs here, Philip’s early work in Britain, and imagines it in colour I don’t think that it would be that far away from Parr. I think that to an extent some of that division is an artificially imposed one. But yes, he was very passionate about it and there were plenty of Magnum members who he would never talk to, I’m afraid, right up to the end of his life.

Audience member: You just get the feeling here that it’s very much of its time all of this work and you certainly couldn’t make a living out of this kind of photography any more, I don’t think. It was quite clear to me that Magnum was going to go to the wall really without some sort of change. But in spite of all that he continued to maintain that people shouldn’t be admitted to Magnum.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: Another thing to say is he was suspicious of the industry of photojournalism too. I think he saw the decline of the illustrative magazines coming and in a way his works were produced primarily for books. He made his living on other ways but it was the book form in the end that he was passionately committed to, because it meant that, and you can see it in looking through this, that rather than relying on a single strong image, no matter how great that image might be, you can construct through a sequence of images, and through a juxtaposition of those images with text, a really quite complicated view of a social and political scene and say something profound about it.

Audience member: Going back to your point about the objection to Parr. If you remember Magnum really, the founding principles by the four after the war were governed by this concern for humanity and so obviously the old guard still had that basic concern of is your photography a concern for humanity. Maybe he saw that it was drifting away from those essential principles and obviously Cartier Bresson would uphold the original principles of Magnum.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: Yes. And lets remember that all those Magnum members, I think many of them were Communists, of a popular front type, a broad leftist type. They were very much on the radical left. And as politics changed as well as the industry scene changed in terms of getting photographs published and the sorts of photographs that newspapers and magazines were interested in publishing, that created those sorts of tensions I think.

Audience member: I think that’s a really true point about the similarity between him and Martin because although he described in public Martin as the antichrist sleeper agent intent on destroying Magnum from within, actually when you think about it if Martin Parr had gone to Northern Ireland or Vietnam he probably would have made the same sorts of pictures that Philip made. Because Martin wouldn’t have gone to the front lines either, he would have gone and looked for those strange and surreal moments where American GIs are doing a fake invasion on a beach and there’s a bunch of people sunbathing in front of them or the GIs are reading their brochure for buying their Corvette Stingray car while they’re relaxing on a tank. So ironically you can also see that if you turn Philip’s pictures into colour with flash that could almost be Martin Parr’s version of Vietnam. So I think ironically despite the fact that there was a lot of animosity from Philip’s point of view, there was actually an extraordinary similarity at the heart of both them, which is this biting satirical Hogarthian wit that you find in both of them that actually makes them much closer together than you might think from the kind of apparently formalist differences in the way they work.

Another audience member: I went to see Philip Jones Griffiths in a gallery in Carnarvon just before he died, it was in September. Somebody asked him about Martin Parr and he said if Martin Parr did photographs of the crucifixion of Christ they’d have someone filming the blood running down his leg, someone taking shots of the people looking at it and someone in the far distance, he wouldn’t actually be there covering the event. He was very bitter towards him when he was talking about him. It was quite interesting especially seeing this and the similarities between the two.

Dr Julian Stallabrass: Well I think one can say this, there are similarities between in particular some of Martin Parr’s earlier work and some of Philip’s earlier work. I think they do diverge however quite strongly, I think you can overplay this. I think one of the big divides would be around colour, as we talked about earlier, but also use of flash which Philip does use on occasion but rarely. Most of these pictures are taken in available light. There’s something also about those early members of Magnum, Cartier Bresson too saying that use of flash was like, he thought of it as incredibly rude apart from anything else, like firing a pistol in a concert he said. So there’s something about flash too. It’s about turning those methods of almost a sort of fashion photography onto the documentary scene, which is disturbing.

Audience member: I was just going to say, Parr doesn’t use flash in that way, he uses it as a fill in, it’s not the same thing is it?

Dr Julian Stallabrass: I know, it’s not but what it does tend to do is cut out the figure and flatten the shadows obviously. And play up the garishness of the colours as well, it helps to do that.

Anyone else? Well thank you so much for much for listening, its been a pleasure.