Irish artist alters Khmer Rouge victim pictures, adds smiles

If Matt Loughrey has an artistic intent for doing this, then it can and should be debated on that level, but to claim that the images are merely "restored" when they've actually been fundamentally manipulated, and then not to mention the level of manipulation in the article is wrong.

There's many that would argue that the mere act of colourising historic photos is in itself a step too far (there was a bit of a debate about this a few weeks ago in on the Photography forum), let alone adding in smiles that didn't exist.

Vice journalists are likely the types of people who would of supported the Khmer Rouge

I didn't realise communism = mass murder. In that case capitalism = mass murder too, if Iraq, Vietnam, and other American atrocities are anything to go by. Communism is an ideology that was completely warped by regimes like the Khmer Rouge.

Cheensbo wrote: »

Not sure how you could go to Tuol Sleng and come out with the idea to do this -



This is not art, nor would it be if someone was taking the mugshot images from Auschwitz and doing the same thing.

Well I don't know his reasons. But I reckon that studies have been done in terms of impact of images and how relatable it is.


Would the image on the right perhaps evoke more sympathy/compassion for the victim? Is it more relatable to the target audience - it is a real girl who is happy and smiling and you might see her walking down the street in your local shop. Is the one on the left just an unhappy image of one of "them". "Them" being other people and not affecting us?



Everyone knows the name Madeline McCann. As they should. But lots of other children go missing but their situations aren't as relatable to "us". So we don't hear about them.

I don't think it's revisionism if the original photo and story is included.

Although the person in the photo has no say in the matter, so for that reason I'm out.

Celchick wrote: »

Whataboutery is in poor taste too.

Iraq and Vietnam were horrific - U.S. foreign policy sucks. And in Latin America and Africa. Those weren't explicitly about setting up a capitalist system though.

And this is specifically about communism. Nowhere has a communist regime been anything other than oppressive. It doesn't mean I don't support some socialist ideals - I do, very much. But glorifying the hammer and sickle, which I do see eejits in the west do today... is an insult to those who suffered horrifically.

fair enough, I just think some people compare socialism to these regimes and I don't think it's fair.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well I don't know his reasons. But I reckon that studies have been done in terms of impact of images and how relatable it is.


Would the image on the right perhaps evoke more sympathy/compassion for the victim? Is it more relatable to the target audience - it is a real girl who is happy and smiling and you might see her walking down the street in your local shop. Is the one on the left just an unhappy image of one of "them". "Them" being other people and not affecting us?



Everyone knows the name Madeline McCann. As they should. But lots of other children go missing but their situations aren't as relatable to "us". So we don't hear about them.

I dunno, maybe i'm 'biased' - having spent a full day in the place and still able to remember some of the terrified faces in the photos, and remember what they did to them, and also to feel the absolute sorrow of the place 6 years later when I think about it, perhaps i'm not the target market for this shit.

Manipulating those victims faces into smiles is like something the KR would do themselves.



It's crass and tasteless, cannot see any value in this 'art' for society tbh.

The photos don't really match the tone of the article. So I'm really curious to know what the explanation is here.

I can certainly understand , as osarusan says, if part of the attempt was to "lift" the individual out of the circumstances. Many of the families probably have no photos of their loved ones, except this. So a photo where they're smiling and not terrified may be what they wanted.

There's no indication in the article that he was denying the seriousness of the situation, or claiming that the prisoners weren't terrified. So there's some disconnect between the photos and the article.

He's done a phenomenal job on lots of other photographs, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume there's an innocent explanation until we hear more.

ongarite wrote: »

Not the first time this guy has done something like this.
He has "enhanced" 1920,30s era photos to add smiles to the subject faces.
Seems to be his USP.

He may have just done it without thinking then. But he really really should have engaged thinking mode first.

revoke his Irish passport

60,000 hits for matt loughrey khmer rouge

Donald Trump wrote: »

This came to mind when you mentioned the famine. I had seen it at the time and remembered it. Now that I looked for it again, it is the same artist!

I had thought that the colour added to the photo made the subject more "real". He didn't alter the subject's expressions though in that case.


I'm not supporting your man. I'm just theorizing reasons he might have done it.


Here is an article from the US for example. Being from the US it will obviously tend to focus on racial aspects. How are person looks does unfortunately correlate with sympathy evoked in the general public.

I'm not sure those examples are really suitable though, an otherwise-undoctored colourised famine photo doesn't compare & as you note a very American review into missing persons posters & images. As you say, you're not supporting your man, but I'm not sure where trying to get to.


The issue is not colourising the photo, it's making them look happy that they're about to be tortured... These images could easily play into the hands of deniers of the KR and their genocide, much like doctored images of the Nazi's handiwork regularly do the same thing.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well I just don't jump to the conclusion that it was your man's intention to minimize or whitewash anything.

Will it make the horror of it more real for people who suddenly identify with the person in the smiling image? It might very well. Maybe you don't think that way yourself because for you it is obvious anyway. But for some they might not give a second thought to the original because it is of an "other people" person. Not looking like a girl you might have passed in the shop this morning.

He obviously didn't think it through properly, or at least didn't make his intentions clear.

Of course not, and in this spirit - I didn't say it was his intention, I don't know that - I noted that I feel the presence of the doctored images contributes to whitewashing, regardless of it's intended purpose by the guy who modified the original images.

Regarding perception, I don't think we should modify history to make it more appealing to people - certainly not points of history that demonstrate the peak of human depravity and the absolute indifference of man, to his fellow man.

Not having a go at you btw Donald, apologies if it comes across that way

Have watched colourized WW1 and WW2 films. I agree with posters above who have said that the colourising makes the poor people look more 'real' , rather than historical images.

In this case, the manipulation of the expressions might have value, insofar as it shows how they should , and may well have, looked before the tragedy. But it only works if the photos are shown together.

If there is merit, you'd think VICE would have unearthed it rather than pull them.

Which leaves just one impression ... Appalling.

buried wrote: »

Further proof of the absolute wolloxology that pathetically tries to coin itself as 'art' in the vapid, notoriety seeking, unimaginative, greasy money seeking, plastic $hithouse that is the realm of 'modern art'. This lad is no 'artist'.

Art is about getting yourself recognised first. Talent comes later... or not at all in this case.