What if nobody really cares?If the destruction of a photographer's work upon death were a common and widely known practice, and the only way to save some of that work was to buy it, I think this would lead to more appreciation of the work and the artist. Just a thought.
If the destruction of a photographer's work upon death were a common and widely known practice, and the only way to save some of that work was to buy it, I think this would lead to more appreciation of the work and the artist. Just a thought.
What you are saying, perhaps without meaning to, is photography of people, places and things is a total waste of time and money. I have said this to this group before that myself and my family would love to have a photograph of my great grandfather who died in the early 1880s. The only pictures of me and loved ones that I give a tinker's dam about are the ones that we leave to our family. I totally agree that all others are probably worthless as I would imagine most of yours are but family pictures are different as they are, by far, the most important pictures we can take. I cherish the pictures of my grandfathers, neither of whom I ever met, a grandmother who I never met also. The photographers who took their pictures were not photo-conserverters (pardon the spelling), they just did what they had been taught to-do, make pictures that would outlive them and they have and will certainly out-live me. In other words, I think you are looking for a solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist..........Regards!Preservation and archiving is a common topic of photographers. The thousand year print, the permanent digital storage, backup strategies, and leaving a legacy in photographs are all aimed at the idea that permanence through time is a virtue. But is it always a virtue? Is there a case to be made that destruction of images, perhaps upon death, can also be a virtue?
A photograph is a double edged sword. While it purports to preserve history, it can also be preserving an unfair or unjust version of history. For example, in one's life of say, eighty-odd years, suppose the only photograph in existence captures a moment of fear, grief, anger, or depression? Is that 1/250th of a second a reasonable history of a life that otherwise was fearless, happy, content and joyous? Does the photo do a grave injustice to that person because photographs carry such weight as informal proof? Photographic subjects often have no formal say about this treatment, and surely no practical recourse.
Photographs, as stand-ins for truth, reality and history, can also become anchors and severely retard progress: "Here's how it was. Here's how it has always been. Here's how it should be now." An analogy that comes to mind is the "rehabilitated convict" who must carry the records around his virtual neck for pretty much the rest of his life. "Once a criminal always a criminal." As such, photographic records can so burden a society that it freezes them in time.
Consume some war photographs and you may get horrified at the prospect of war. Consume enough of them and you very well might get de-sensitized to the same horrors. "The world is always at war. War is normal."
Photographs of places, or objects in places are certainly no substitute for the place or object, of course. I saw my first picture of Mount Rushmore when I was around 8 years old. I saw dozens (hundreds?) more through life, and just a year ago at age 69, I went to Mount Rushmore and looked at it. I was so underwhelmed I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. It wasn't simply a case of being unimpressed with a physical thing, it was a case of comparing the perceptions derived from photographs to the perceptions of the object as itself. The disconnect was enormous. Although the photographs I had seen were miniature in scale to the object, upon viewing, the reverse impression took hold - the object seemed tiny compared to the impression gained from the images. I tried, but could not conjure an impression that did not include my previous exposure to the photographs.
Photographs, with their countless useful purposes, might also contain a seed of destruction by tying all of humanity to a heavy, permanent, and often false history. Although this might also be said of painting, there's no comparison whatsoever of the number of paintings to the number of photographs.
There is no practical implementation to starting a history fresh with no photographic weight, but it can perhaps become a personal virtue (in the sense that prayer or meditation is considered a virtue) to "will your photographs to the same disposition as your physical presence." One metaphor would be, "leave no trace," which is a kind of hiker's anthem.
What you are saying, perhaps without meaning to, is photography of people, places and things is a total waste of time and money.
I'd be afraid of "losing the past". From the cave paintings of Lascaux, through ancient cultures on every continent, much of what we know is due to the art we've uncovered and deciphered. Our humanity, for better or worse, stems from theirs, and discarding it would be disposing of a little bit of ourselves.I for one am not afraid in the least of "losing the past" as far as the global history and art is concerned. Perhaps a fresh start will save humanity.
Just to clarify, my comment wasnt meant to be nasty or anything. Have only been doing the photography thing for the last couple of years and come across a few people who seem to be waiting discovery, maybe Im just reading it wrong, need to go back and hide in the darkroom......If the destruction of a photographer's work upon death were a common and widely known practice, and the only way to save some of that work was to buy it, I think this would lead to more appreciation of the work and the artist. Just a thought.
I'd be afraid of "losing the past". From the cave paintings of Lascaux, through ancient cultures on every continent, much of what we know is due to the art we've uncovered and deciphered. Our humanity, for better or worse, stems from theirs, and discarding it would be disposing of a little bit of ourselves.
Just to clarify, my comment wasnt meant to be nasty or anything. Have only been doing the photography thing for the last couple of years and come across a few people who seem to be waiting discovery, maybe Im just reading it wrong, need to go back and hide in the darkroom......
very true,I'd be afraid of "losing the past". From the cave paintings of Lascaux, through ancient cultures on every continent, much of what we know is due to the art we've uncovered and deciphered. Our humanity, for better or worse, stems from theirs, and discarding it would be disposing of a little bit of ourselves.
We're not done yet, though I'd agree we need to up our game to avoid self destruction.It seems to me that having all that old art and old history hasn't helped us, hasn't prevented us from self destruction. I don't think it has been beneficial on balance. But, I fully understand that modern culture is obsessed with preservation of the past, and there has been no meaningful questioning if that premise.
So how does this attitude fit in with your belief that the essence of photography is the power to change minds?It seems to me that having all that old art and old history hasn't helped us, hasn't prevented us from self destruction. I don't think it has been beneficial on balance. But, I fully understand that modern culture is obsessed with preservation of the past, and there has been no meaningful questioning if that premise.
So how does this attitude fit in with your belief that the essence of photography is the power to change minds?
I disagree. YMMV.The same way the rest of my life does. When I am alive, such as now, I use whatever comms are available to me - photos, writing, verbal discussions, actions. When I am dead, all purpose and intent dies too. The dead have lost connection with the world, so leaving something behind to "change minds" has no purpose, and any such purpose is just an extension of my being. No being, no purpose.
But if you burn them, you eliminate the possibility of connecting to even one person in the future.
It sure seems like it on some level. But my challenge to it is: "If so, why are we self-destructing?" The old way of saying it was, "the proof is in the pudding." If our cultural literacy was meaningful, it should bear fruit, and it clearly isn't. What could possibly be more important than avoiding self-destruction?Cultural literacy is important. Are we not better off having seen the work of DaVinci, Monet, Shakespeare, Weston?
Right. It's not knowable. Partly because what we think we know about the past is probably trivial.Who is to say we wouldn’t have self destructed ages ago, if not for our understanding of our past?
Who is to say we wouldn’t have self destructed ages ago, if not for our understanding of our past?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?