Can Destruction of Photographs Be As Virtuous As Archiving?

[Theo Sulphate]

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.

 

[awty]

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 if nobody really cares?
I know we all like to think we are special, but what if we're not.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

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.

An important point, for sure. I have often argued that there is too much art in the world. As a thing becomes too common it's value sinks both economically and culturally. The Louvre is jam packed to the rafters in art that is of such another time that it no longer has the desired effect of art - that of holding as mirror to the world around us. I feel very strongly that the world would improve if we embraced composting of art, and give some breathing room to artists who are alive and working today. I know of no other way to make art more precious than to lose about 97% of it. I think there is a farming metaphor in here somewhere about tilling the soil? Well, maybe not.

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.

 

[Arklatexian]

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 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!

 

[ReginaldSMith]

What you are saying, perhaps without meaning to, is photography of people, places and things is a total waste of time and money.

I'm really glad this has come up, because I don't at all think of it as a waste of time or money. I think the enjoyment of it is worth every minute and every penny. As we all wait on this earth for death to arrive, we like to stay busy. It keeps our mind off mortality. And as a way of keeping busy, photography is a doozey. I enjoy so many aspects of the planning, the making, and the later viewing. In particular, I love having the print in my hand and looking at it. In the past, I have also had some enjoyment exhibiting pictures, sharing with friends and the like. So, the temporal pursuit is what I value. But when I am gone, that temporal joy is also gone, and now the photos transmogrify into a possible burden for others, and possible faulty evidence, and injustice to others because the damn photos don't die. So at death, I have an opportunity to wipe the slate clean. People who have been involuntarily wronged by my photos will be freed of the evidence.

 

[eddie]

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.

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.

 

[awty]

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.

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......

 

[ReginaldSMith]

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.

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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......

Please don't hide! No, I did not take your remarks to be nasty at all.

I'd actually replied, but deleted it because I was not happy with my wording and needed to think. Simply put, yes, you are correct: the vast majority of us do not produce any special works in our lifetime (however, based on what I and others here have seen, your work actually is worthy ).

This is an interesting thread that raises questions.

 

[blockend]

For the first few years of photography I tried to make art. The rest were just photos. Fortunately my photo to art ratio was high, and the banal and derivative images I considered artistic at the time were outnumbered by the images of people and places myself and others now find interesting. The truth is we have no idea how posterity will judge our photographs, if they don't end up as landfill first. So no, I won't be selecting the sheep from the goats of my own stuff anytime soon.

 

[railwayman3]

It's almost impossible to know what might become of interest in the future. I have read of at least one tv news station which keeps every inch of film or video, whether used or not in programming, simply because of unexpected possible future value.

(I watched a "B" crime movie the other evening, filmed in London in 1962......fairly average story, but the main interest was the period street scenes, fashions and vehicles in the background, and some of the "bit-part" actors who later moved on to being famous ! Probably not foreseen by the film-makers.)

 

[removed account4]

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.

very true,
but with 10,000,000 images being uploaded a day to facebook and other places
i don't think any of our history will be lost.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

We all want to live a life of meaning. None of us want to die without making a mark. While photos are important to leave, especially family shots, I think our relationship with family and friends is where we make our most important contribution to life. That's more spiritual and mental rather than physical.

 

[eddie]

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.

We're not done yet, though I'd agree we need to up our game to avoid self destruction.
As for questioning the preservation of the past, I think the Islamic State may be one of the few organizations in agreement with you.

 

[faberryman]

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?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Preservation is mighty expensive to society. The needs of today are often ignored while capital is splurged on preservation of the past. Ironically, in the field of personal development, both spiritually and psychologically, "letting go of the past" is almost a mantra. Living in the "now" is almost universally regarded as good life advice.

The West's preoccupation with preservation doesn't seem to come with a useful purpose. When asked why we do it, the answers are often just circular - 'we preserve our past to understand our progress', and other meaningless tautologies. Are we better off for it? How? Again, the answer has to be plotted against our actual condition, which is dire. I have a feeling that we are trained towards a sentimentality. There is some kind of built-in bias regarding preservation as a sacred duty, but it's hard to find the concrete benefits of preservation that goes beyond pure utility. For example, re-using and retrofitting an old building might be more economical than knocking it down to build a new one. That's utility, and that kind of preservation at least has a solid benefit.

As individuals struggle to find ways of preserving their images - backups, clouds, archival materials and so on, imagine then how institutions are going to cope with a world filled to the brim with "images". The creation rate on new images must surely be in the billions per day.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

So how does this attitude fit in with your belief that the essence of photography is the power to change minds?

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

I disagree. YMMV.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have seen a few "small collections of a photographer's life's work" in rummage sales and second-hand shops. For the twenty or thirty dollars I am willing to spend, I can usually pick up a few prints from a collection that has come in. I have gotten a lot of pleasure holding the works of "kindrid spirits".

I know it's a grim idea, to think one day your boxes of paper might turn up in dusty shop, picked over by someone like me.

But if you burn them, you eliminate the possibility of connecting to even one person in the future.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

But if you burn them, you eliminate the possibility of connecting to even one person in the future.

This is a very common proposition - the desire for the living to connect with the dead, and vice versa. It is based on immortality themes, such as 'life after death.' If I said in conversation, "I've always admired George Washington," the listener may gain something from that, but how does a long dead George Washington gain anything? Well the answer is that he smiles from his new life obtained after this one gave up the ghost. I don't think that's how the universe unfolds. For starters, it's always a one way street. Our messages get to George, but his don't come to us? If you go around saying George Washington is talking to you, they put you on anti-psychotic medications. (Rather ironic for a society that largely believes in life after death.)

If I'm not mistaken, a common feature of ancient cultures was to bury one's possessions right along with the rotting corpse. At least this had the logic that if there is another life, you'd have your junk to play with. But the other possible feature of the practice was to make sure the physical reminders and remnants of that person were also gone, giving the new lives a place to breathe.

I will assume that after I'm gone, others will take up photography. By removing my crap and clutter, I am helping that person to use their fresh, unburdened, unspoiled, imagination to explore the universe with fresh eyes with no cynicism from the past.

P.S. I also have a modest collection of old photos from strangers I don't know. And I readily admit to some fascination with them. But, I have no thoughts that I am either "connecting with" or in any way communing with the photographer or the subjects. Once more, this is just an activity based on "biding my time" in life.

 

[eddie]

Cultural literacy is important. Are we not better off having seen the work of DaVinci, Monet, Shakespeare, Weston?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Cultural literacy is important. Are we not better off having seen the work of DaVinci, Monet, Shakespeare, Weston?

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?

It feels to me like we have all been trained to "appreciate our cultural heritage" but without any sensible goals attached or purpose. When put in the box, people might say something like, "we want to avoid the mistakes of the past." But again, we never do avoid such mistakes. So, that can't really be the reason.

 

[eddie]

Who is to say we wouldn’t have self destructed ages ago, if not for our understanding of our past?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Who is to say we wouldn’t have self destructed ages ago, if not for our understanding of our past?

Right. It's not knowable. Partly because what we think we know about the past is probably trivial.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Who is to say we wouldn’t have self destructed ages ago, if not for our understanding of our past?

Another answer might be: They did self destruct. Not all of humanity, but major civilizations. That answer would be supported by works like "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Diamond.