Can Destruction of Photographs Be As Virtuous As Archiving?

>>> Photographs, as stand-ins for truth, reality and history

That, for me, is the fallacy that spikes your thesis. Nobody should be interpreting photographs in that way--if they do, it's on them. Photographs are understood to be only selectively truthful. They are art and open to interpretation, re-interpretation, interpolation, ...

And what if we destroyed all our photographs when we die? Photography itself would struggle to move forward and be relevant. We all enjoy the fruits of our predecessors. We would all be much poorer if Man Ray had destroyed his work, for example. We'd just keep on reinventing the basics over and again.

 

While I think it's important to only show your best photography, I also think it's important to preserve everything you possibly can.

Then, much later in life, time will have made all the rest more valuable - and in case you personally become a significant artist of your time, there will be a rich legacy.

Plus, it's helpful when putting together timelines and stories about your life... If only the best were preserved at that point you would have significant gaps.

I recently looked over some film I had taken about 30 years ago. At the time, I only "accepted" one shot as "good" but there are about seven shots taken that day. In the background was a whiteboard with some writing on it. Though the other shots are not as good, because they were taken with various compositions they help piece together what was written on the wall. I handed the camera to somebody who took a terribly out of focus picture of me and my friends, but it helps me see who was there.

 

i often times destroy negatives after i make a print, and along those lines have had negatives
destroyed by security offices when people appeared in images doing things that the organization didn't
want preserved, or QA people spot checking newspapers as they come off a press ( they looked like they were hanging out reading
the paperr ) or a political figure making an unflattering grimmace as they "speeched" ... not sure if it is called destruction or editing though.

 

For my own work, I only destroy bad work or work prints, if I can't recycle em. I used to have an artist that used my work prints to make collages. But he moved away.

As a curator and archivist for a large photo and film archive I dislike trashing good or historic photos. I acquired a large collection of sex photos from the 1950s / 60s. A couple of the guys looked underage, so I shredded them.

 

Family photos will be passed on to my kids. All my personal photography will be destroyed upon my death.

 

A flawed thesis. We know from logic a false or faulty thesis and a true conclusion is false logic. Also we know from logic a false or faulty thesis and a false conclusion is false logic. So either way whatever is stated after the first post is false logic. What a terrible waste of bandwidth.

 

Virtuous? Hmmm. For me it's more virtuous to communicate my photo images directly and simply, if telegraphic sometimes. Better than to inflict others with my every subtle written or photo concept rather than editing my work out of respect for them. "Respect for them" is virtuous, IMO. My work is always edited harshly by me so a lot of destruction is just the way things work.

fwiw I consider "prayer and meditation" to be methods, perhaps responsibilities, rather than virtues. Same as "leave no trace." ymmv

 

Virtue can be a complex concept. Are we working with the dictionary meaning ("behavior showing high moral standards") or something else? If we use the dictionary meaning, you are going to have to define the rubric for discussing morals, another quagmire. Usually this would not be necessary, but given recent threads, I would just as soon not be ridiculed again for being lowbrow by participating.

 

I've known a couple of fine photographers, as well as a very financially successful (and appealing to me) painter, who burned everything in order to allow important changes in their lives. Something like baptism or fire walking. They seemed relieved or even a little proud.

 

Have you made provision for that, or are you going to do it while you are still able? Death can strike quickly.

 

So true. I guess I need to add that to my will. My wife knows my wishes but unless it's in writing that doesn't mean jack.

 

On the opposite end, I have destroyed photographs that did depict a true situation and I did not want that truth to persist or extend into the future. By destroying the photo, I denied the existence of that truth and hoped I would be able to replace that image in the future with a reality more to my liking.

Absolutely correct. A good example.

 

My mother burned everything that was her history just before she died. If I have my way all my negs and transparencies will be cremated along with me. The digi files residing on hard drives will be smashed. I have several reasons. Some like Mr. Smith's, don't want to burden my kids and the other I don't want anyone to profit from them after I am dead. If people don't want to buy them now when I can benefit from the money, well then f'm when I'm dead.

 

I don't think I would be so presumptuous as to ascribe virtue, however you care to define it, to something as inconsequential to others as a decision to either keep or throw away my photographs.

 

My wife often talks of the day her dad tossed the family photos in the trash shortly after her mom’s passing. My brother-in-law caught them and prevented a “catastrophe”. The photos are important- keep them.

 

All the Vivian Maier'ites must leave there treasured pictures in the attic so someone can come along and discover there previously unnoticed works and immortalize them forever.
Last time I was on my death bed I told my wife not to throw out my gear from this and other hobbies as it was worth $$$, perhaps I disclosed too much information, cause I survived and she was wondering why that money wasnt used on other things, ha. Couldn't careless about any of my things I make, think its presumptuous that anyone else would care either.

 

When I die, the value of the photographs left behind will be much decreased because the understanding of those images will also be lost. However, they may have some value, as do the photographs my deceased parents have to me and perhaps the younger generations. I'll leave to them the decision to keep or destroy what may sometime interest them. Certainly some have value to historians interested in long gone eras.

 

I have pretty much the same sympathies as Eric. I think I've done some nice stuff in my life. If dealers don't want it now, why should they be able to profit from it later? I don't have any kids either. I think if I am still no one as I get closer to the end, it will go up in smoke. I already cull the herd so to speak from time to time. A few years ago I threw away I don't know how many prints. I filled a garbage can 3/4 of the way. I had a hard time rolling it so heavy it was. I probably have a few thousand prints left in boxes. Easy enough for anyone to chuck after I'm gone if I don't get to it first. The family pictures are kept separate.