TL;DR
Get art and craft supplies delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Hyperallergic art review considers Deana Lawson’s ongoing photographic series “Edge Control,” which draws on surveillance images displayed in beauty-supply stores. The review questions who controls access to images of people accused of theft, and notes that Lawson barred visitors from photographing her Gagosian exhibition. The identities and views of the people pictured are not provided in the source material.
A Hyperallergic art review of Deana Lawson’s ongoing series “Edge Control” examines how images used to discourage theft in beauty-supply stores can turn people into publicly displayed suspects—and asks who has the authority to photograph, exhibit or restrict access to those images. The review also describes a no-photography rule at Lawson’s latest Gagosian exhibition, making visitors confront their own habits of looking and recording.
Lawson began “Edge Control” in 2023. The series addresses what the review calls the “beauty-supply surveillance photo”: pictures typically pinned behind store counters as a deterrent to theft. The review describes the practice as a ritual of humiliation, but does not identify the people shown or establish whether anyone pictured was accused or convicted of a crime.
At the exhibition described by the reviewer, visitors were told not to take photographs. An attendant handed out Gagosian-branded stickers for covering phone cameras. The reviewer says the restriction prompted reflection on dependence on phones to record and recall what is seen, as well as on the relationship between memory, looking and control.
In an interview cited by the review, Lawson said she felt a stronger identification with the people depicted than with an imagined observer judging them. Her comment frames the images as an ethical problem for the photographer as well as for the people who display or view them. The review’s title asks who the thief is, but its central concern is who controls the image—not a factual finding about a particular person’s actions.
Who Controls the Images
The series draws attention to the gap between being photographed and having power over how a photograph circulates. A surveillance image posted in a store may serve a practical purpose for its owners, but it can also publicly mark someone as suspicious. The review asks readers to consider the consequences of that exposure, particularly when the people depicted are anonymous and unable to speak in the account provided.
Lawson’s exhibition rule adds another layer: while her work engages images made through monitoring, visitors were prevented from making new photographs of the artworks. That contrast does not settle the ethical questions, but it makes the terms of access visible. The review asks whether artists, institutions, businesses and viewers have different kinds of authority over images—and what obligations come with that authority.
privacy protection phone camera cover
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Store Cameras to Gallery Walls
The review places “Edge Control” within a familiar retail practice: beauty-supply stores may display surveillance pictures behind counters to deter theft. Those pictures are not presented in the source as a complete record of what happened. They are images used in a specific setting, and the review focuses on their public display and its potential to shame the people pictured.
Lawson’s series began in 2023 and remains ongoing. The reviewed exhibition was at Gagosian, where the no-photography instruction and camera-covering stickers became part of the reviewer’s experience. The source does not give the exhibition’s full dates or a complete account of the works on view.
discreet camera cover for smartphones
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Images Cannot Establish
The source material does not name the people shown in the store surveillance images, provide their accounts, or establish what happened in any individual case. It is therefore unclear who the people are, whether they consented to the images being displayed, or whether the images accurately represent the events associated with them. The review raises these issues but does not resolve them.
It also does not provide full details of the Gagosian exhibition, including its dates or the complete scope of the works. Lawson’s interview comment is reported, but the supplied material does not include further explanation from her, the gallery, store owners or the people depicted.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Questions the Series Leaves Open
“Edge Control” is described as ongoing, but the source gives no announcement of a next exhibition, new work or publication. For now, the review leaves the discussion with questions about consent, surveillance and control rather than a stated resolution.
Further reporting could establish more about how Lawson selected or made the images, what permissions or safeguards were involved, and how people depicted in such store displays understand their circulation. Those details are not confirmed in the source; the review’s immediate contribution is to make the power behind the images a subject for scrutiny.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is Deana Lawson’s “Edge Control”?
“Edge Control” is an ongoing photographic series Lawson began in 2023. It focuses on surveillance images associated with beauty-supply stores, where pictures may be displayed behind counters to discourage theft.
Why does the review ask who the thief is?
The title raises a question about who takes from whom: the people associated with alleged theft, or those who photograph, display and circulate their images. The review does not identify a specific thief or make a finding about any person pictured.
Why were visitors asked not to photograph the exhibition?
The reviewer reports that photography was prohibited at the Gagosian exhibition, and that an attendant distributed stickers to cover visitors’ phone cameras. The source does not give the gallery’s stated reason for the restriction.
Are the people shown in the surveillance images identified?
No. The supplied review does not identify the people, provide their perspectives or establish what occurred in the events connected with the images.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
