Can Destruction of Photographs Be As Virtuous As Archiving?

[removed account4]

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

i don't think it is trivial at all.
one doesn't need 3 billion photographs saved a day to know the history of humans.
architecture ( structures ) art and trash give us a pretty good idea that nothing much has changed in 36,000 years.
and some humans are very interested in leaving their mark and others couldn't care less.

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.

evolution takes a long time, yet the trogs and aliens are with us ...

 

[jtk]

Most of my book-reading shifted heavily toward history, years ago, with Lincoln, Team of Rivals (Goodwin) and Will in the World (Greenblatt).

Saw people reading both of those two in hotel lobbies and airports when they first came out.

Currently reading history related to people in my immediate world: Anazasi/Pueblo as well as Navajo and Apache people. Most archaeological work is reasonably well photographed, not the social these days because anthropologists wore out their own welcome, same way they did in India.

It's a mistake to think that tribal people are essentially the same as non-tribal people. You can verify that in New Mexico or anywhere else tribes survive. I can also recommend The Man Who Killed The Deer, a dramatic novel that addresses tribal issues at Taos Pueblo in relatively recent times. https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Killed-Deer-Pueblo/dp/0804001944

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Whatever we have photographed is part of our children's legacy. It is up to them whether or not they cherish them.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

the history of humans.

The history of humans is unknowable. The history of SOME humans, might be a little bit knowable, but only superficially, such as on August first 1967 Joe got married.

one doesn't need 3 billion photographs saved a day to know the history of humans.

And yet, 3 billion photos won't scratch the surface of the history of "a human."

This business of "history" is just a belief system built on stacked cards. It's nothing but intellectual gymnastics. The invention of recording history seems to have been the need to rationalize the actions of those whose actions are either most devastating, like generals, or those whose actions were most benevolent, like "saints." I'm not saying that lists of dates and names and places isn't legitimate as a chronology, I'm saying it doesn't convey meaning past that bookkeeping act.

If one reads a history of slavery, it will not possibly capture and review the incalculable human horrors of masses of people who are not masses really, but individuals with vast rooms of human emotion and experience and joy and pain. You can't collect that, and you can't distribute that to others for them to "understand" it's impact. Instead, we catalog the names of ships, their ports of call, their cargo in numbers, some of the names of captains or auctioneers and purchasers, and some anecdotes from the few slaves who had some opportunity to say something that was recorded. That's what we call history, and that's why it is impotent and ineffective as anything but intellectual fodder. That's why we can't learn from it, because it is an empty, highly decorated vessel. In much the same way, a photograph of a house, doesn't begin to tell the history of the house.

 

[removed account4]

The history of humans is unknowable. The history of SOME humans, might be a little bit knowable, but only superficially, such as on August first 1967 Joe got married.

And yet, 3 billion photos won't scratch the surface of the history of "a human."

This business of "history" is just a belief system built on stacked cards. It's nothing but intellectual gymnastics. The invention of recording history seems to have been the need to rationalize the actions of those whose actions are either most devastating, like generals, or those whose actions were most benevolent, like "saints." I'm not saying that lists of dates and names and places isn't legitimate as a chronology, I'm saying it doesn't convey meaning past that bookkeeping act.

If one reads a history of slavery, it will not possibly capture and review the incalculable human horrors of masses of people who are not masses really, but individuals with vast rooms of human emotion and experience and joy and pain. You can't collect that, and you can't distribute that to others for them to "understand" it's impact. Instead, we catalog the names of ships, their ports of call, their cargo in numbers, some of the names of captains or auctioneers and purchasers, and some anecdotes from the few slaves who had some opportunity to say something that was recorded. That's what we call history, and that's why it is impotent and ineffective as anything but intellectual fodder. That's why we can't learn from it, because it is an empty, highly decorated vessel. In much the same way, a photograph of a house, doesn't begin to tell the history of the house.

maybe the rest is filler and in the grand scheme of things isn't really that important ...
not everyting that has happened to every person since the beginning of time
needs to be memorialized ...

 

[ReginaldSMith]

maybe the rest is filler and in the grand scheme of things isn't really that important ...
not everyting that has happened to every person since the beginning of time
needs to be memorialized ...

So, if the question was, "is history useful?" Then the evidence for "no" is our sad state of humanity today. If the question is just, "is history interesting?" then I can agree with the filler argument. It would slow the story to a crawl. History, like photography, is just "something to do." And that's coming from a person who has read a lot of history with a decent amount of enjoyment.

As practiced, life is mostly about learning how to avoid it with useful distractions.

 

[removed account4]

So, if the question was, "is history useful?" Then the evidence for "no" is our sad state of humanity today. If the question is just, "is history interesting?" then I can agree with the filler argument. It would slow the story to a crawl. History, like photography, is just "something to do." And that's coming from a person who has read a lot of history with a decent amount of enjoyment.

As practiced, life is mostly about learning how to avoid it with useful distractions.

i never said history wasn't important i suggested not every second of every day of every person on the planet needs to be memorialized ...
there is a difference
but as we see from the bloated cloud that gets bigger and bigger and bigger i am obviously wrong

 

[blockend]

As for questioning the preservation of the past, I think the Islamic State may be one of the few organizations in agreement with you.

The English Reformation, Mao's Year Zero, the Taliban's destruction of 1700 year old Buddhist statues, along with some of the earliest pieces of art known to man. All of them were editing in their own way. Iconoclasts cannot abide old ideas shaming their brand new ones.

 

[eddie]

The English Reformation, Mao's Year Zero, the Taliban's destruction of 1700 year old Buddhist statues, along with some of the earliest pieces of art known to man. All of them were editing in their own way. Iconoclasts cannot abide old ideas shaming their brand new ones.

It’s always the groups most susceptible to freedom of thought and education who want to erase the past. That sort of thinking has reared its head again, which is all the more reason to remember the past.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Every second spent in the past is a second not spent in the present - the only place life happens. I wonder if we could get all the energy wasted on looking backwards, and apply it to looking forward, how much better off we would be? Most of civilization is trying to move forward by aid of the rear view mirror. It isn't working. Human life on earth could be gone in a few hundred, or a few thousand years.

 

[eddie]

Most people are capable of living in the present, looking towards the future, and remembering the past, all at the same time. The human brain is quite a remarkable organ, able to multitask.

 

[jtk]

Seems to me that nihilism is a sort of suicide. If we want things to look bad, all we have to do is focus on bad things. If we're in couple relationships all we have to do to destroy them is to focus on the bad stuff. If we twist ourselves to see only the ugly in life, that will be reflected in our life experiences. If we photograph mostly the ugly and kinky, that's where we'll live. If, photographically we dwell on the ugliest people, something about them will live inside us.

Lets return to the OT:
Can Destruction of Photographs Be As Virtuous As Archiving?

I think nihilists (many on this thread) work hard to deny the implications of virtue, therefore have not attempted to address the OT (have not tried to answer the question)..

I responded earlier that it's sometimes USEFUL to destroy photographs because that may offer the opportunity to start anew. And I explained that I feel an obligation to save MY family's photographs for the future, distributing organized albums (both print and digital) to them. I'm reminding them about the greatness of their history by showing them that they have for some reason done and commissioned fine photography for nearly a century. I choose to honor them. Words like "fine" greatness" and "honor" are easy for me to use because I've not fallen into the nihilist trap.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Nihilism? Um, I think you went off the rails on that one. That post has left the ball park, the city, and earth well into the rear view mirror.

The question in the O/P is a moral question. It invites the examination of our responsibilities to others in several ways. Others who we may burden, others whom may find an injustice in various photos of themselves existing "forever" possibly against their will or permission. Maybe it could be vastly simplified to this: When you die are you going to leave a lot of burdens on others who might not have agreed to accept them? In another thread on "clouds" the complexities and costs and administration of storing media shows that it is not as simply any more as "passing on a shoe box."

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Here's a hypothetical situation. Joe and Mary are married 20 years. Mary is a prolific photographer with thousands of images, prints files and the like around the house. She treasures her photographs and has everyone she ever took. She spends lot of time with maintaining them so Joe knows full well the importance. Mary is killed suddenly in a crash leaving no will, no instructions about her photographs.

Joe lugs the photography collection about for several years, but eventually with time, he wants to remarry. He discovers that the many pictures of Mary create a feeling of guilt at wanting to move on. He becomes very conflicted over what to do with all these photos. He meets a new mate, they want to get married. Now, Joe is even more conflicted. Surely his new wife doesn't want to be surrounded by Mary in photographs (even they are not displayed). Joe would like to move on to a fresh start, but is horribly conflicted over what to do with Mary's photographs, which have become a physical and psychological burden. He feels imprisoned by them. Yes, he has lots of solutions like tossing them or handing them off. But every solution feels like a betrayal and Joe suffers for all this. Mary has inadvertently created suffering with her departure over and above her death.

 

[Saganich]

Joe hasn't recovered from the shock of Mary's death and is lugging around guilt, remorse, and a hefty amount of blame and anger in those boxes. There is no indication any of that would disappear with the destruction of the photo's but would likely just transfer to the new Mary. Destroying the past may seem therapeutic but it won't help making old familiar patterns less desirable even with new people.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Joe hasn't recovered from the shock of Mary's death and is lugging around guilt, remorse, and a hefty amount of blame and anger in those boxes. There is no indication any of that would disappear with the destruction of the photo's but just transfer to the new Mary.

Let me ask you then. If Mary had directed her photos to be destroyed at death and explained why, and Joe had followed the wishes sincerely, might he not have avoided years of anguish regarding the photos themselves? That is to say, irrespective of his grief of loss, which he eventually overcomes when he decides to remarry.

 

[Saganich]

Your saying that the anguish is caused by the photographs. I don't agree. If final wishes were carried out there is no reason to believe Joe would have avoided years of anguish. Likely he would have suffered anyway...perhaps worse.

 

[Saganich]

Now that the time has come to move on the decision has to be made and "burn the lot" is one way to move on. No arguments there. I'd keep a few choice pieces and get rid of the rest. I have done this and with family after 15 years those few mementos help my kids understand their/my past. That's a virtuous experience.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here's a hypothetical situation. Joe and Mary are married 20 years. Mary is a prolific photographer with thousands of images, prints files and the like around the house. She treasures her photographs and has everyone she ever took. She spends lot of time with maintaining them so Joe knows full well the importance. Mary is killed suddenly in a crash leaving no will, no instructions about her photographs.

Joe lugs the photography collection about for several years, but eventually with time, he wants to remarry. He discovers that the many pictures of Mary create a feeling of guilt at wanting to move on. He becomes very conflicted over what to do with all these photos. He meets a new mate, they want to get married. Now, Joe is even more conflicted. Surely his new wife doesn't want to be surrounded by Mary in photographs (even they are not displayed). Joe would like to move on to a fresh start, but is horribly conflicted over what to do with Mary's photographs, which have become a physical and psychological burden. He feels imprisoned by them. Yes, he has lots of solutions like tossing them or handing them off. But every solution feels like a betrayal and Joe suffers for all this. Mary has inadvertently created suffering with her departure over and above her death.

Joe needs grief counseling and still needs to take more time off for working through his loss before he starts dating again. It would be better to put this thesis before a psychologists' website than Photrio.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Your saying that the anguish is caused by the photographs. I don't agree. If final wishes were carried out there is no reason to believe Joe would have avoided years of anguish. Likely he would have suffered anyway...perhaps worse.

Interesting answer. Nearly everyone I've known who was divorced or widowed struggled with what to do with the possessions left behind by the partner who is now gone.

 

[removed account4]

seems like the thing to do with the photographs is pretty straight forward.
scan them all just the way they are saved
go to flickr and upload them all and then there would be no need to lug all the images around
the bloated-cloud doesn't care what the images are, it is like a vacuum cleaner and loves images
and they will be there always taken care of, like a perpetual care memorial.
one more drop of water in the rain machine

 

[jtk]

Nihilism? Um, I think you went off the rails on that one. That post has left the ball park, the city, and earth well into the rear view mirror.

The question in the O/P is a moral question. It invites the examination of our responsibilities to others in several ways. Others who we may burden, others whom may find an injustice in various photos of themselves existing "forever" possibly against their will or permission. Maybe it could be vastly simplified to this: When you die are you going to leave a lot of burdens on others who might not have agreed to accept them? In another thread on "clouds" the complexities and costs and administration of storing media shows that it is not as simply any more as "passing on a shoe box."

Reggie, oddly, for a talk talk talk type, you don't understand words. You flounder around your own definitions but deny both common usage and Oxford/Webster et al.

I'd suggest Elements of Style if I thought you were a reader.

https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Sty...=1530820108&sr=8-2&keywords=elements+of+style

 

[jtk]

seems like the thing to do with the photographs is pretty straight forward.
scan them all just the way they are saved
go to flickr and upload them all and then there would be no need to lug all the images around
the bloated-cloud doesn't care what the images are, it is like a vacuum cleaner and loves images
and they will be there always taken care of, like a perpetual care memorial.
one more drop of water in the rain machine

Great start to an epic poem. Both terrifying and funny, like Joyce (you mentioned him somewhere).

You're de man!

Flickr is dandy...but for various reasons it doesn't serve many professional photographers... confirm that via their webpages.

There are better cloud archive resources, and better neo-Flickrs....Zenfolio among them. .

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You ought to enlarge and print the better ones, frame them, and give them now to friends and family for them to enjoy and give you their thanks and smiles while you're still alive. After you're dead, you wife's new husband will throw them all out.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Reggie, oddly, for a talk talk talk type, you don't understand words. You flounder around your own definitions but deny both common usage and Oxford/Webster et al.

I'd suggest Elements of Style if I thought you were a reader.

https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Sty...=1530820108&sr=8-2&keywords=elements+of+style

Oh, the irony......