Photo book: Inflagrante Two

I recently ordered Inflagrante Two, a republished and updated version of a book of photographs by Chris Killip, originally published in 1988. I saw Killip’s work at Tate Britain  and wrote about my impressions on my TAOP blog.  I loved the images I saw, the grainy black and white style, and powerful social documentary. I wanted to buy a book but the gallery shop only had his work Seacoal, which was not what had been exhibited.  I bought it anyway as I really loved how powerful his photographs were.  The book was extremely evocative; as was the story about how Killop ended up shooting that community, a process that was not easily won – in fact it took him several years to be allowed in.  But I was also a bit disappointed not to have some of the images I’d seen in the gallery, as they really were very strong indeed.

When I saw that Inflagrante had been republished I didn’t hesitate to order it because I really wanted to have access to more of Killip’s work.  The book is large – an oversized edition, and the images are printed on one side of a double page spread, on the right hand side, mostly in landscape but surprisingly there are also a few portrait so you must turn the book to view those.  Apart from the title page and a couple of pages at the back of the book with thumbnails and titles, as well as some dates, and library info on the other side, there is no text – the image is all.  The lack of text has a resounding impact – the silence, not having any syntax or written authoritative ‘voice’, not even an introduction or anything, seems oddly like a very ‘loud’ absence in a way.  There is no one telling you what you ought to think or how you should see these images.  There is a void – you are left without anyone’s contextualised views about the places and people in the images – only Killip’s visual record.  You are simply required to look and respond yourself. It takes some confidence in the images to do that, I should think.  To insist on having no accompanying introduction waxing lyrical about the photographer or the photographs.

All the images were taken between 1973 – 1985.  It’s strange for me to see these images.  They are so very English.  But not the England that existed in my imagination and thought I yearned for as I grew up in South Africa. Instead it is the England that my ex boyfriend who grew up in Cumbria told me about.  An England, at best forgotten about during the era we think of as dominated by Thatcherism.  At worst, deliberately dismantled and eroded. The images show you a world that is very different to the idealised images you might have seen via advertising and media during that era.

Last night as I looked through the photographs I was instantly and overwhelmingly affected by one picture in particular (click on link).  The image is of a trestle table with abandoned sandwiches set out on a street.  Behind it there are posters of Charles and Diana, and anyone who was alive and sentient at that time can deduce that this must be have been a street party to celebrate the royal wedding.  A wedding for a marriage that has been scrutinised in the press to the nth degree and is now widely considered to have been a sham, or at least an unfortunate and unhappy arrangement.  At the time of it – the expectation of joy that usually surrounds marriages, and especially royal marriages, had made its way over to South Africa and I remember watching the ceremony on TV in Jo’burg with my parents, both of whom were English, and another family where the husband and mother in law were Londoners but the wife was South African.  We watched it at this other family’s house, in their font room.  Although there were no street parties in SA, none that I remember, we were all very excited and impressed by the pomp and splendour. Street parties like the one in the picture seem typically English and quite foreign to me.  I attended one for the fist time when the more recent royal wedding took place, and when street parties were held all over the country too, perhaps in a bid to try and recapture some kind of nostalgic metaphoric time travel. I’m not sure how they will have felt in the past but the one I went to seemed odd – like we were reenacting a scene from a play I’d been in at University which was set during WW2, like we were acting something out.

It’s hard for me to look at images with unpolitised eyes and see only the things that are actually in the image.  So I asked my 11-year-old to tell me what his impressions of the wedding picture were.  He said England looks awful, tacky and grimy.  I asked him about the posters on the door but he had no idea who or what they were about. He said he wouldn’t like to go there.

When I look at the image I see what look like grotesque caricatures of Charles and Diana in the background, smiling with these bizarre teeth that are so whitened that their faces, Charles in particular, look like masks.  They represent an institution I have no understanding of.  An institution that seems entirely rooted in history books and totally out of context for today.  I have no problem with the individuals that are photographed in the posters – how can I?  I do not know them and am extremely unlikely to ever meet any living royals in my lifetime.  I do not understand the system they represent.  Because I did not grow up here I do not understand the fascination people have with royal family members beyond the fact they are rich and impossibly groomed.  Of course, I am, like anyone fascinated in a prurient way by the salivating details that get leaked to the press occasionally – it’s hard not to succumb to that aspect of our human nature.  Gossip is always tasty, isn’t it?  But beyond that… I am at a loss.  And when I look at that image, I do not understand why people with so very little would look up to them, and want to celebrate that wedding. Actually, I do understand the historical context, the habit, the centuries of serfdom and royal patronage, echoes of which seem so hard for Britons to let go of; but I do not like it.  Perhaps not everyone did want to celebrate the wedding.  But there was a social compulsion to do so.

The masks in the posters look down over a street that looks dilapidated and as my son says, grimy.  The posters themselves are pasted on the door of someone who clearly wanted to get involved, who evidently felt strongly that a royal marriage was something to get excited about.  The entire door is covered in the Union Jack and the crazy mask like faces of the couple as well as one of the Queen (I hate putting a capital there but it looks so wrong without it!)  The door beside the decorated one has nothing on it.  In fact I almost missed the fact there even was a door behind all that propaganda. The people living behind that door were effectively subsumed by royals.  There is a total dichotomy.  A blank door with a broken post box, behind which apparently lived someone who perhaps couldn’t give two hoots, or simply didn’t have the wherewithal to put up posters. For whatever reason the two doors come to represent the possibility of two opposing relationships with the royal wedding within the context of that street.  The street represents so many streets across Britian

Some of food on the table has been eaten and what’s been left looks abandoned, dry and stale.  It appears to be relatively inexpensive food along with some homemade simple cup cakes. (Quite different from the posh cheeses and pates that all went to waste at the street party I attended; no one seemed to eat very much then.  And there was also a lot of wine. As well, the people who baked cakes seemed to have gone to quite a lot of effort – many of my friends and people who live nearby are heavily influenced by the plethora of cooking and baking programmes and have become really good at making extravagant cakes). There are two blurry figures on the edge of the frame and seem to be just getting on with their day – they may have been passers-by or may have joined in but in this picture they’re leaving the scene.  Perhaps they are off to watch the ceremony although I suspect the street party began after the ceremony had been televised. There is a boy who seems to have caught Killip’s eye and is watching him take the photograph. The balloons to the left seem like a slightly pathetic token gesture. Over the table and on the street there are shadows of bunting, another sign of ‘party’, of celebration – but only the shadow, just a shade of dark hanging over the scene.  The actual bunting is outside the frame. The ‘celebration’ aspect in the picture appears ignored. It is tired and perhaps even incongruous.

Who knows what sort of party is going on outside the picture.  There is no way of knowing. But Killop has chosen to show this  – a sad, tired old bunch of stale sandwiches in front to two very different doors.

I felt incredibly emotional when I saw the photograph. It had a strong impact on me. There was so much to be angry about, seeing people with comparatively little being expected to celebrate a marriage that would have cost goodness knows how much money to stage.  And to know, when looking at it through history, what a tragic farce the whole marriage must have been from the very start.  (And of course, the dramatic ending to Diana’s life will also have some importance in the way in which the photograph is viewed today, although I can’t quite work that out yet.)

The three strongest points in the image for me are those crazy masks in the posters – those teeth; along with the abandoned stale sandwiches and sausage rolls – they look like the limp and tired ends to a rubbish party; and the boy who watches Killop take the photograph.  He’s of his time. He’s a little boy. He’s the future of that street, a future which at that moment looks like it might be rather bleak.

My old friend from Cumbria said that there were towns all over England like the one he came from, and like the one in the picture, that were totally forgotten about during the eighties.  Killop’s camera is documenting those towns and communities in Inflagrante Two. I’m very pleased to have the book.  I would recommend it to others.

Inflagrante was first published 1988 and then revised and republished by Steidle in 2015

Image sourced at Musea Oriena Sofia At: (Accessed on 7 April 2016)



10 thoughts on “Photo book: Inflagrante Two

  1. There were a number of photographers working in the era, women and men, who documented without a great deal of comment. Killip’s work may have more vested integrity due to his commitment, as you note, by becoming part of the community he recorded. But apart from the ‘difference’ they exhibit about a society that was literally crumbling around them, leading up to and through the Thatcher period, I wonder what else do these works inform us of?


    1. 🙂 Love your subtle persuasion to look at the more positive aspects of the photographs. I think I talked about the sense of community in my TAOP blog when I first saw his work at Tate Britain. The warmth and connection between people and between him and his subjects is really striking – and the care he has for the people he works with is also something I see communicated via the pictures and the background to how he realised the work. I don’t think there is any hint of rose-tinted nostalgia in these photographs of his, but there is certainly a sense of time that has disappeared or disappearing. Mind you – that time, or perhaps the beginning of the end of that time, in a nearby area to where the wedding picture was taken, is marked by the Mary Bell story. Which interestingly wasn’t photographed and picked over by the press, like a later equally gruesome and upsetting story was. Look at me swerving back o the darker aspects of it all….I am very interested in the story around that community which speaks of the same themes in Killop’s work. Poverty, a society crumbling away, abandonment, children playing on their own outside happily in the main, but also at risk,… the end of a sense of freedom, perhaps of naivety. What do you think the work also inform us of?


      1. I suppose I struggle with a view that purports to tell ‘a’ truth, from whichever political spectrum. Of course there are those whose voices I would tend to favour, Killip’s being one of them, but overall when it comes to politics I have a strong conviction to suspect all that I hear/read/see on the screen.
        What I think the work informs us of is something about community, Killip was prevented from obtaining any agency within the community he subsequently became embedded in only by gaining their collective trust – in itself a comment on community. My feeling is that today that agency can be obtained much more cheaply – but that might be my rose tinted perspective. The sense that I have is that sense of community was demolished with the industry -harsh as it was- that sustained it, replaced by service industries where the vital sense of place within the community was dashed against the steelworks and pit-heads that died. I do have the notion that politically the North is expendable and that much of its population is disenfranchised from the bubble in the South East. And the moment when Killip, and others, froze that moment, that point in time when the vigour did as my grandfather did and left the coal mine in Durham and went south.


      2. I know that ‘truth’ is a very awkward and tricky word – and of course, Killip’s work shows us his telling of a place and time, which could be told differently by someone else. I think perhaps I don’t have a problem with this. All that is happening is that a mediated view is being presented with the aim of communicating something. The more connected to an inner sense of existence that can be shared communally, the more effective, no matter what the slant is. Plays that I acted in were always an interpretive venture. And a collaborative one at that. But they were always about communicating something that would allow some element of kinetic connection with anyone else who became involved in the overall process of staging it – i.e. in the end, an audience, but the process of rehearsing was also part of that. (It wasn’t just the performances that had any value.) Even adverts enable some form of inner communal connection when they are well done – if they make us laugh or manipulate our emotions in some way. But in the main that’s a short lived, not as interesting as is possible, kind of connection – although perfectly valid for what it is. The Poke, an online humorous record of crazy things online, also does for a second when it shows us something silly and hilarious. So I think Killip has found a way through his photographs to share something of what it is to be human – aside from all the party political stuff, Being human is intrinsically about being part of or outside of community – whatever the state of the community is in. And I suppose that is what the work manages to convey in ways that other less accomplished artists aren’t quite able to as effectively. That’s not to dismiss his political slant – it’s right up my street as you are aware. Have downloaded Postcapitalism and can’t wait to find the time to read it! I guess that’s that his work is telling us – what it is to be human in that place at that time. And some of it, despite the crumbling societal edifice all around, is poignant, warm and engaging, while other moments are harsh, tragic, frightening and shocking. But those teeth of Charle’s – really?!?


  2. The photograph is taken from a particular viewpoint of course where the black and white film and its graininess exaggerates the atmosphere. We’re looking at the remains of something…… 1981 was a year of riots – Brixton, then Toxteth and spreading round the country. The Britain of 1957 and “never had it so good” was changing to a realisation that nothing much changed.
    This site is interesting .


    1. Yes, the film stock and graininess are important aspects – I should have mentioned. It’s very much part of what I love about it work. Funny, I love it but the stuff I’m currently working on seems ultra ‘clean’ – I don’t think I want to try and emulate that type of film though -although would love to actually use some film if I were going to go down that route. I’ve not written about another book yet, Invisible City by Ken Schles, which is very grainy and atmospheric. I love them! Also like the Japanese photographers. Thanks for the link. Will take a look this evening 🙂


  3. My copy of Inflagrante Two arrived today, it is a photo book I have been wanting to own for a long time. I love Chris Killip’s work for two main reasons: his integrity and commitment and because Killip spent a number of years working in north-east England (where I am from) many of these images resonate with me. (As an aside – one of my favourite places to visit is Druridge Bay which is the beach right next to Lynemouth where the Seacoal series was shot.)

    Here is an interesting link to a short film about his work in Skinningrove, some of which is featured in the book:


    1. Thanks for that – will have a look later when kids in bed. His images really do as you say communicate a great deal of integrity. I love his work. And the book is so great to have – sure you will enjoy yours. I’ve been looking at several things in the North East recently for some reason. Not connected except by location. Weird!


      1. Not photography or course related. I watched a documentary about Mary Bell the other night which was really sad and upsetting because she really had very little support and was pretty feral as well as being extremely bright. Obviously, Newcastle based story and there was something else when I remember thinking, Northeast again! But can’t recall what that was. Will look at the Amber site and the other link you sent but may not respond immediately as I must get on with A2 now while I have a moment’s peace! Information overload right now and struggling to focus on getting on with the assignment – too many other interesting things to look at 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s