Is it okay to show Nazi items here on APUG

[Markus Albertz]

No, I shall not wander from the root meanings of the word, for to do so is to create a false sense of import or urgency. I have made a great study of the NDSAP as well as countless other governments and regimes. You see, I am a professional, political sociologist and have been paid obscene sums of money to create and spin propaganda for the demogogues we think represent our interests.....

I have not read your study, obviously. Was it published in a peer-reviewed, internationally recognized scientific journal in the framework of an independent research project? If it was sponsored by some individual or interest group, I would certainly not take it at face value. As a scientist, you will be well aware that data interpretation can be highly subjective when one tries to relate cause and effect, particularly in the social sciences. You may or may not know how subtle Nazi propaganda in Germany has been and continues to the present day.

Anyway, I said what needed to be said. Ultimately, it is up to Sean to decide whether he wants something on his site that could be interpreted as Nazi propaganda and therefore potentially harmful to the community here. I for one am glad that the issue was attended to promptly.

Regards, Markus

 

[Aggie]

Isn't this thread more about overreaction than anything else? Greg did not mean his simple little still life to be interpreted this way. He is a pilot and collects air/transport/pilot like stuff. He had a Lecia camera he wanted to use in that still life, plus he had many years ago purchased memorabilia that albeit from a time period and group that was agreivious. If he had purchased 2000 year old memorbilia that carried those same symbols would we have reacted the same way? Remember the eagle and the swaistka (Hell I can't spell) were symbols of ancient Rome as well. If those symbols had been used with a chalice robes and paint brushes from that time period would we be having this debate? I feel sorry for Greg through all of this. He didn't intend to offend anyone. Sean bless his heart is doing his best. Those two have taken the brunt of this nonsense. It offended some, and it was removed. To start this poll and take this debate to the extremes it did was what was over the line. The two members who left, would not have left if this poll had not been created and debated. If anything should have been deleted it is this thread! It has done nothing but hurt people's feelings.

 

[donbga]

To start this poll and take this debate to the extremes it did was what was over the line. The two members who left, would not have left if this poll had not been created and debated. If anything should have been deleted it is this thread! It has done nothing but hurt people's feelings.

Oh please!

 

[Buster6X6]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18219136@N00/281887104/For anyone who would like to see the image.

Thanks Sean

Greg

 

[Jim Chinn]

I guess I just don't understand why folks would get so upset about the image to the point of wanting it removed. I bet the same people who were opposed to this image decried the violent protests by Muslims to have the political cartoons removed from newpapers and magazines in Europe this past spring.

I don't fault Sean in the least. He and the moderators (if you look at the names, not a bunch of knee jerk radicals) have set parameters and guidelines to maintain the viability and integrity of this site. Anyone who has spent anytime on the net understands that to make this site a free fire zone would destroy it.

However, in light of the growth and numbers of members on the site I think Sean and the moderators could adjust the threshold number of complainers needed to remove content upwards.

 

[AZLF]

I did not see the image in question. But I doubt I would have had much reaction to it other than viewing its photographic merits technically speaking.

Sean, I am a relative newby to the forum and was quite happy to have found it. A forum devoted to film based photo arts. However I wonder at your criteria for removal of an image. 10 or even 100 negative pm's within a 16,000 plus membership is not a consensus. I can well understand why some would not want to view such an image. What I don't like is the ability of a vocal few (a very few) to limit the ability of thousands of others to view it.

Personally I don't want to see homo-erotic (of either sex) images or images of American soldiers dead or wounded or...any number of other images I find distasteful.Most of the images by some very well known and respected photographers I have no use for at all. Diane Arbus comes to mind. But all I have to do is use my mouse and they are gone.

 

[davetravis]

Sean,
you practiced what the Nazi's preached, and did the wrong thing.
Either clearly define what the "rules" are, or put the picture back.
Even if you had 100's who found it offensive, so what.
They don't have to look at it anymore.
By allowing such imagery, you take a stand on artistic freedom.
By denying it, you sided with the political censors.
This is the slippery slope.
DT

 

[Markus Albertz]

(...) Sean, I am a relative newby to the forum and was quite happy to have found it. A forum devoted to film based photo arts. However I wonder at your criteria for removal of an image. 10 or even 100 negative pm's within a 16,000 plus membership is not a consensus. (...).

That logic is flawed. Based on what do you assume that the remaining 16,000 members have seen AND approved the image?

If the poll at the beginning of this thread is somewhat representative, it appears that ca. 25% of those who caught interest in the issue (regardless of whether they have actually seen the image in question or not) take issue - a far greater percentage than what you imply. I do appreciate that this is not the majority, though, but does it need to be?

 

[Markus Albertz]

Sean,
you practiced what the Nazi's preached, and did the wrong thing.
Either clearly define what the "rules" are, or put the picture back.
Even if you had 100's who found it offensive, so what.
They don't have to look at it anymore.
By allowing such imagery, you take a stand on artistic freedom.
By denying it, you sided with the political censors.
This is the slippery slope.
DT

I totally disagree with this unqualified and in fact accusatory statement. Sean did not practice, "preach", or promote Nazi ideologies and propaganda, etc. but addressed an issue over which a number of individuals were deeply concerned. I suggest that you read this thread from beginning to end as your posting suggests incomplete understanding of the matter.

 

[Claire Senft]

Sensitivity to the viewpoints of others is a good thing and it may be for some a hard thing to come by. I would think that it is possible to make a stillife, meant to be innocous, of many types that would be offensive to many depending upon who the veiwers are.

This photo obviously created a strong and vocal reaction from some members..that is unfortunate. I am uncertain that a rational examination of the motivation of the photographer will show an intent to offend. But offend it did.

I guess it comes down to who the members are of a given forum that would depend upon how objectional a photo is perceived to be as much or more so than the actual content.

I wonder how much objection there might be if the items shown were WWII Japanese artifacts. Certainly an equally bad behaving group and it could certainly stir the feeling of those involved in the fight against Japan or who were enslaved and killed.

What objections might arise from a photo depicting artifacts of slavery would again depend upon the sensitivity of the photographs' viewers.

The same could be said about religious or political depictions whatever their
stripe.

So, Sean is in a tough spot. This site is his bread and butter. He is doing what he feels is best.

Perhaps we could all be helpful by being both more sensitive and more tolerant and less judgemental of the motives of others when posting or viewing a photo.

 

[Papa Tango]

Quid Pro Quo...

The writer who observed that the intended scope and best purpose of APUG concerned our craft was quite correct. Although we have "The Lounge", "Soapbox", and a so-called photographic ethics board, our purpose is photography, and the dissemination of information about that. It seems we fail horribly in attempting to have a dialog concerning greater issues; many posters are too sensitive, too polarized, or are ruled by raw emotion. I have seen the photo in question. Rather than discussing its merits as photography, we have dredged up concern that this espouses and furthers the cause of a movement that ended 60 years ago. And no, those disenfranchised and alienated individuals who suffer from some sort of identity angst and parade around in this regalia are not Nazi's. They are simply pathetic souls attempting to find a voice and social place that allows them to ooze hate and discontent with their own lot in life.

Someone brought up Mel Brooks. Who amongst the adamant here protested "The Producers?" Another suggested that Sean delete this entire thread; removing it from the event horizon that is our safe and sensible conciousness. Perhaps we should delete the Holocaust Museum, and tear down the remaining vestiges of the camps in Europe--then we will not be made uncomfortable by a real truth. We always fear the monster without, but it is the monster within that is most dangerous. If we don't see it, don't think about it, then we are expunged of any responsibility for it. This is just as true today as it was in the 1930s.

The question is symbolism, and what we as a group are willing to define acceptable boundaries for. I for one was patently offended by Serrano's "Piss Christ." Yet it hangs in a gallery and is called art. I found myself angry that the National Endowment for the Arts funded Robert Mapplethorpe to insert a bullwhip in his rectum, and call it art. Could I find harsh judgement for Diane Arbus, and her portrayal of "freaks?". But friends, I am willing now as I was 30 years ago as a young Airman to defend to my death the privilege (not a right, for rights only exist on paper) of speaking and portraying what my heart and mind gives me.

Who amongst us will be recognized as the next Arbus, White, or Steiglitz whom as you recall was so fond of photographing Georgia O'Keefe' abundantly hairy crotch... Yes, we must defend against the patently obscene, but when we define something such as this recent picture by Greg as obscene, we are beginning a path that defines and limits what the very heart of our craft is about--to convey images that stir feelings and give individual meanings to the observer. I see many things I don't like. But to stifle and suppress them because we are uncomfortable with their meanings is the most dangerous form of censorship. It is the censorship of the small minded, the arrogant, and the ignorant. And dear friends, arrogance and ignorance are more dangerous than any regime...

I believe that everything that can be said has been. The sides have been chosen, and there is no persuasion or argument that will change the hearts and minds of those who have taken a stand. Let's lock this thread, and move on. Perhaps we can fleetingly recall this, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Quid Pro Quo...

 

[Gay Larson]

There are several museums in the United States, we have one here in Tulsa, built by the Jewish community with much memorabilia from WWII. I went through the on here in Tulsa and it was very sad. It was geared toward the holocaust and how the Jewish people suffered but there is no way to tell that story and make sure people remember without talking about Nazi Germany and all that goes with it. So what is the difference in creating museums dedicated to keeping the reality of Hitler's Germany alive than showing Nazi artifacts in an image? No doubt it's a hard decision to make and you can't make everyone happy. I appreciate Sean's effort to keep this site's content appropriate.

 

[Les McLean]

I have read this thread through several times and like many contributors I am a strong defender of free speech and the artists freedom to make his/her art without censorship, I have taken action to fight it a number of times in persuit of my own art.

I also lived through WWII and my family lost relations and friends because of it. I certainly do not hold the German nation of 2006 responsible for what happened 60 years ago but do worry about the undercurrent of neo nazism that lives in small pockets in various parts of the Europe including my own country. In this context I firmly believe that images such as Greg's can inflame and help glorify the worst side of nazism in the minds of the misguided individuals who follow the movement. Greg please don't take this as a criticism of you or your photograph as I do understand your intentions for making and posting the image.

Claire made a very good point when she stated that this site is Sean's living and we must all respect that fact. Sadly two people have left because of the issue but it may have been more and that represents income to Sean and his family. He has provided Analogue Photographers worldwide with a means of communicating with like minded people, having work shown and discussed in the comfort of their own home and many other real benefits. Someone has to make these very difficult decisions and I for one have no problems with whatever Sean decides within the confines of APUG, he is an understanding, caring, sensitive and intelligent person so why not support him by returning those qualities in our dealings and attitudes in APUG matters.

 

[JBrunner]

Well said, Les. Time to move on. Lock this sucker.

 

[AZLF]

That logic is flawed. Based on what do you assume that the remaining 16,000 members have seen AND approved the image?

If the poll at the beginning of this thread is somewhat representative, it appears that ca. 25% of those who caught interest in the issue (regardless of whether they have actually seen the image in question or not) take issue - a far greater percentage than what you imply. I do appreciate that this is not the majority, though, but does it need to be?

Your reading is flawed. The poll had nothing to do with my post. I was addressing Sean's post wherein he stated that only a few people pm'd him about the image and THAT was what he based his decision upon.

 

[Papa Tango]

That logic is flawed. Based on what do you assume that the remaining 16,000 members have seen AND approved the image?

If the poll at the beginning of this thread is somewhat representative, it appears that ca. 25% of those who caught interest in the issue (regardless of whether they have actually seen the image in question or not) take issue - a far greater percentage than what you imply. I do appreciate that this is not the majority, though, but does it need to be?

Markus, 72 members of this forum participating in the poll is not statistically significant, and at that number is highly subject to bias; it is not a random sample, and participation is voluntary--this inevitably causes selection bias. We would require nearly 500 responses to ensure that the sample is representative of the population. But if we were to take this number as "gospel" as most that have not taken statistics courses do, then we will find that nearly two-thirds of those responding do not take issue with the content. I don't know where you are located in the world, but here in America, we refer to this as a majority. And if I am not mistaken, in most "free" countries of the world, the majority, whether by republican form in its government, voting rights, or social concensus, rules.

 

[John Bartley]

Ok, so I had a look at the photo and I don't see what all the fuss was about. As far as I'm concerned, it should have been left alone.

But ... there were folks who were offended and they have a right to be heard and understood.

Maybe a simple solution, that satisfies everyone and one that doesn't require any fancy programming is simply to create a gallery similar to the SoapBox forum. Then, the very rare time that a photo offends enough folks, it can simply be moved to that "disputed images" gallery and then we can each make our own adult decision whether or not to look. I prefer to make these decisions for myself and if the images offend me, then I won't look.

What I would never do is restrict another adults right to view images just because I don't think they're appropriate.

cheers

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Your reading is flawed. The poll had nothing to do with my post. I was addressing Sean's post wherein he stated that only a few people pm'd him about the image and THAT was what he based his decision upon.

There's a formula that politicians use to determine the value of communications from their constituents. While I don't have the exact numbers, the proportions I'll use are representative.

If someone sends an email to their office, it represents the feelings of ten people on an issue. If someone calls, it represents fifty. If someone writes a letter and mails it, it represents five hundred. Someone who comes from their district and makes an appointment in their office in Washington, that's a thousand people who feel the same way.

I think that Sean had to take that kind of mental calculus into consideration when making the decision. And note, he said that one person left because he was pulling it, and someone else left because they thought he was keeping it. If he got over a dozen emails objecting vociferously, that could well translate into over a thousand folks who are part of the "silent majority" who would find it offensive but just not say anything, and perhaps just let their subscriptions lapse instead of cancelling and/or demanding money back and making a stink.

Having gone through this brou-ha-ha, I daresay the original poster of the image will now think more thoroughly before posting images of Nazi memorabilia. As he has stated, it was an error in judgement on his part, and not a willful intent to offend or to glorify the offensive. It should have been his judgement call to keep it or leave it. He should have been able to justify his posting of the image in the first place, and take the heat for his posting.

 

[davetravis]

I totally disagree with this unqualified and in fact accusatory statement. Sean did not practice, "preach", or promote Nazi ideologies and propaganda, etc. but addressed an issue over which a number of individuals were deeply concerned. I suggest that you read this thread from beginning to end as your posting suggests incomplete understanding of the matter.

I disagree.
If the motivation was political, and it was censorship, then it was doing what the Nazi's did. Sean didn't promote it, he only mimiced it.
It reminds me of the American left.
They do things in the interest of "equality," and favor that over freedom.
In a membership of 16,776, I don't care if a very small number are offended.
Put the picture back.
DT

 

[Markus Albertz]

Markus, 72 members of this forum participating in the poll is not statistically significant, and at that number is highly subject to bias; it is not a random sample, and participation is voluntary--this inevitably causes selection bias. We would require nearly 500 responses to ensure that the sample is representative of the population. But if we were to take this number as "gospel" as most that have not taken statistics courses do, then we will find that nearly two-thirds of those responding do not take issue with the content. I don't know where you are located in the world, but here in America, we refer to this as a majority. And if I am not mistaken, in most "free" countries of the world, the majority, whether by republican form in its government, voting rights, or social concensus, rules.

Patrick, I understand that the statistics are biased. I will not claim that the number I gave was statistically significant. The point was to pose a "what if... " question to illustrate that in all likelyhood, the number of those taking issue would be much larger than implied when relating ~ 10 individuals to a much larger population of ~ 16,000 (of which the majority will not even know about the image and the subsequent poll/thread). The number of those who wrote to Sean is merely a minimum.

Here in Canada, majority rules as well, but I have mixed feelings as to whether this should be the case in regard to the issue discussed here. In general, I also stand up for freedom of speech, but under certain circumstances, I take the view that certain limits need to be applied. I spent a great chunk of my life in Germany and understand there are vast cultural differences between that part of Europe and North America - no worries, I will not trigger another escalating discussion - and ultimately, this to me explains why some individuals take great pride in collecting Nazi items and others are disgusted by simply seeing images showing them. The point being also, that it is a criminal offense in Germany to publicly show such things as they are reminescent of the kind of propaganda that was and at times still is practiced there.

At long last, the two things that really needed clarification are the following:

(1) be aware that the display of Nazi items can be understood as propaganda

and

(2) censorship in this context does not equate to practicing Nazi ideologies.

I would appreciate if that would be given some thought.

Frankly, the discussion has evolved to a point where it no longer advances to anyone's benefit. So, I am out of this thread...

Regards,

Markus

 

[sanderx1]

"We will never forget" has become a 9-11 motto to most Americans.
Apparently the image in question (unseen by me) provoked an "I don't want to remember" response from, what, 6-10 people?

What you have to understand is that the display of nazi memorablia - especially in a context that can be considered glorifying - is to a lot of people the same as glorifying the actions of people who commited the terrorist acts on 9/11. Last I checked, there is a arrest warrant out there for an american who did that over Al-Quaida channels for treason. What the nazis did was incomparably more horrible than 9/11, indeed they commited far worse horrors every single day from 1940 to 1944. And we are certainly not forgetting third reich.

An officers hat, gloves and camera is a rather direct reference to the "gentelman officer", in this case a nazi gentelman officer... so yes, obviously people can find it disturbing.

 

[Sean]

The gallery is going to be modified soon which will make this a non-issue so I'm going to close the thread. Details on the gallery modifications can be found here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)