Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,271   Posts: 1,534,527   Online: 1041
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,235
    Images
    9
    In the case of the image I am refering to it is not that the place cannot be photographed but by what was in the image with it. That extra element belittled the "place".
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,246
    Not much you can do, like the guy down the street that won't cut their lawn.
    art is about managing compromise

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    248
    John Sexton played a very interesting tape on his workshop in the southwest. A quote from that tape stuck with me as it was exactly what I was feeling as I drove thru from Monument Valley to Canyon de Chelly... just me and the land. Noone in sight! It was a very soothing ride to say the least.

    The quote was as follows:

    "The land belongs to everyone and to noone." That about sums it up. It is just as much your land as it is everyone elses. And it's just as much not your land as it is not everyone elses. Think about it... it was someone elses land long before the Indians got there! What does it matter if you photograph it? You take nothing away from the land when you do that. Just leave it like you found it.

  4. #14
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    In the case of the image I am refering to it is not that the place cannot be photographed but by what was in the image with it. That extra element belittled the "place".
    In other words, an object was brought in that was not normally part of the location. I would find that culturally insensitive - liking bringing a pig into a mosque. The photographer should have asked first, while researching the location.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  5. #15
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbysandstrom
    John Sexton played a very interesting tape on his workshop in the southwest. A quote from that tape stuck with me as it was exactly what I was feeling as I drove thru from Monument Valley to Canyon de Chelly... just me and the land. Noone in sight! It was a very soothing ride to say the least.

    The quote was as follows:

    "The land belongs to everyone and to noone." That about sums it up. It is just as much your land as it is everyone elses. And it's just as much not your land as it is not everyone elses. Think about it... it was someone elses land long before the Indians got there! What does it matter if you photograph it? You take nothing away from the land when you do that. Just leave it like you found it.

    Just my $.02
    Wrong. The Rez has all sorts of restrictions pertaining to photography. No matter what some nice sounding thoughts might say, it is their land, and is not public. In fact Mark wrote an article on the ins and outs of phtographing on the Rez. John obviously had obtained permits in advance of that workshop. In it he would have had to state what kinds of photos would be taken. The Tribe has every right to say no. If someone goes their on their own and takes phtographs without being senstive to the pervailing culture and then turns around and displays or even attempts to sell them, the tribe has the right to seek recourse for those actions. Not like you can sand on a public sidewalk or roadway in Canyon De Chelly and take a picture of the surroundings. It just shows the lack of understanding of the laws of that particular land.
    Non Digital Diva

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,235
    Images
    9
    RObert, I am inclined to agree with you.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  7. #17
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    The Tribe has every right to say no. If someone goes their on their own and takes phtographs without being senstive to the pervailing culture and then turns around and displays or even attempts to sell them, the tribe has the right to seek recourse for those actions.
    In Australia they have placed restrictions on photographing Uluru (Ayer's Rock) for commercial purposes (including fine art) without a permit. A large portion of the rock is off limits to photography - that is why you only see images of the rock from a certain viewpoint.

    BTW, the picture of Uluru I use for my avartar wasn't taken by me, it came from Australia.com.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  8. #18
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,084
    Images
    190
    This gets quite close to the dilemma of the cartoons of Mohammed that have so inflamed the Muslim world. I've seen them on line and think they, in their political and editorial sense at least, are funny and very much in the manner of our Western press's iconoclastic tradition. But, as everyone now knows, they are extremely culturally insensitive and inflamatory to those of that faith. What to do? Respect another culture's mores or carry on blithely with one's own?

    I've made the personal decision to avoid the imperialist legacy of insensitivity, and I say that despite a strong dislike for "political correctness" which, in its excesses, offends ME! However, were I informed that a potential photograph would be highly offensive to the culture it degrades, in that culture's own domain, I would absolutely refrain from making the image.

    Where I live there is a large and ubiqitous Hassidic Jewish community that generally eschews picture taking, but National Geographic Magazine did a splendid story on that group thirty years ago when they were situated in Brooklyn. The photographs were stunning, but they weren't made surruptitiosly. George Tice did an equally wonderful photographic essay on the Amish who are also not keen on being photographed, but that too was done with the consent of the community. Those are the ways to do it right.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    248
    I read the question to be one of a philosophical nature. In the grand scheme of things, on a philosophical level, what does it matter? The land is every much yours to photograph as it is their's to worship. I'm not talking about a holy place built by the hands of man, I'm talking a place built by a power greater than us all. Who is anyone to claim spiritual ownership? Now, should someone intentionally offend someone for no good reason? Of course not. The photo wouldn't carry the same emotion you intended to capture... if your intentions were good to start with.

  10. #20
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    This question is very much like the court case we discussed a few days ago about the right of ownership of your face in public.

    Obviously there is no answer.

    It is all about ones moral obligation to themselves. If it offends someone but is legal then you have the choice. If it offends you then don't do it.

    To some people being offended is their goal in life.

    Recording, which is what we are doing, is neither right nor wrong, it just is. And neither creates nor destroys.


    Michael
    Last edited by blansky; 02-23-2006 at 09:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin