It bugged me and made me think

jovo · Feb 24, 2006

Maris said:
The ancient original worshipers are gone from many places in the world, not just most of Australia, but where they survive their priority should be respected. If the spirits of a place survive or accumulate power on the basis that someone pays homage to them then photographers must be preserving a lot of earth-magic.

Interesting, and thoughtful post.

matt miller · Feb 24, 2006

The beautiful places on this earth are here for everyone to enjoy. If I want to express my fascination and wonderment by photographing them, that is my business and no one elses; as long as I do no harm. I will always try to respect the wishes and cultural beliefs of others, but sometimes that is not possible.

Using someone's property in a photograph to make money is another matter entirely.

haris · Feb 24, 2006

matt miller said:
The beautiful places on this earth are here for everyone to enjoy. If I want to express my fascination and wonderment by photographing them, that is my business and no one elses; as long as I do no harm. I will always try to respect the wishes and cultural beliefs of others, but sometimes that is not possible.

Using someone's property in a photograph to make money is another matter entirely.

Beautifull places on Earth are not here for everyone to enjoy, how else do you explain private property of beautifull places on Earth? Or protected parks of nature and you must get licence from authorities of particular country to enter them. Or, even existing of states, and states can reject access some people to reach some beautifull places. For example, I want to see and photograph Colorado river Canyon, and USA government don't give me visas to enter into USA (or any other state for places into those states)

What do you mean with respecting wishes and cultural belifs of others sometimes is not possible?

You want to photograph for some religion sacret place and people who worship that religion find photographing of that place unapropriate. Is it not possibile not to photograph? You just not photograph.

Expressing you fascination of beautifull places by photographing them is your business and nobody elses...

Well, as human body is also material product of nature (or God for religious people) can I express fascination of beautifull nature work, in this case of human body, maybe yours wife or your daughter by photographing them nude, and that is to be only my business and nobody elses? After all body of those women is not product of your work, it is product of natures work, so it is not your business. And I will do no harm, not touch them, just photograph them.

Yes, what I said above is maybe unapropriate, I just wanted to tell that statement "it is my business and no one elses" is unapropriate too.

ouyang · Feb 24, 2006

anyone seriously interested in discussions on this topic would find himself enriched by reading the book I mentioned in one of the first posts of this thread. It let's peoples from within the cultures themselve describe some of the problems they have with photography, or being photographed. Some are photographers, others discover the wealth of information that photos taken, even without the consent of the photographed, provides them with, others would rather see all photos destroyed. Another fun book to read is written by the famous balloonrider and entrepreneur photographer Nadar writes about Balzacs' problems with being photographed. And that's France

But seriously, if someone has a problem with something being photographed, for a sincere reason like religious reasons, then it's a matter of weighing the necessity of your shot against the harm you inflict. Beauty is found in a good many places, especially if you look well (as should every photographer), so going to the next place could be a logical step..

I will admit that my attitude towards this issue has changed a lot over the years (even though I'm young, yes). Traveling in Muslim African countries, and extenstively through China at first I always felt I should take the shot. I mean "what harm would it do". But as I looked more and more at photos (in general), of all kinds of subjecst, the power of the image became clearer to me. And with that (though a bit later) it dawned upon me that with this power the right to a certain degree (determined by your own sense of right and wrong) of the photographed to say yae or nae to being photographed became clear to me..

cheers,

Onno

Aggie · Feb 24, 2006

The Navajo Nation/reservation is like a seperate country overseen by the federal gov. We should respect their laws like any other laws. We should respect their relgious beliefs.

Mark did a marvelous article on photographing on the Navajo reservation. Very good information about it and who to contact. It would be wise for anyone to read this so they can better understand. This is not some ancient land that is no longer populated by those who hold it sacred. It is actively populated with those who find things we do as intrusive and demeaning. Respect them and it will be much easier for you and your photography.

matt miller · Feb 24, 2006

haris said:
What do you mean with respecting wishes and cultural belifs of others sometimes is not possible?

You're right haris "sometimes that is not possible" was a bad choice of words. It is always an option to not make the photograph. What I mean is that there may be circumstances in which I am unaware of the wishes of others. I have, in the past, photographed private property without the owner's consent. I have not knowingly done so against the owner's wishes. I do not ignore "no trespassing" signs, but if the gate is open and there is no one to ask, I will enter and photograph. That's all I'm saying. No harm done. I did not mean to sound so arrogant.

Helen B · Feb 24, 2006

Much the same sentiment as expressed by Onno, Haris and others: Is photography harmless? Maybe it is in many cultures, but not in others. What is the purpose of taking photographs of sacred places? What is the motive? Does the motive matter? Is the picture so important? There may be no clear-cut, or general, answers to those questions, but they seem worth asking. If you take a picture of a place that is sacred to someone else because you believe that it is your right to do so, would they have the right to act on their belief that it is permissible to hack you to death?

Possession seems important. Deny all access by others. Simple?

The English Heritage project to photograph all their listed building ran into problems because of a prohibition on taking pictures of sacred objects despite the rule that the pictures must be taken legally from public rights of way. The sacred objects were those that showed the presence of children, and car number plates. This might be rationalised and understood by us in our system of beliefs, but could just as easily be considered as a silly superstition that does not need to be respected.

I wish that I could remember who wrote that the aim in documentary photography should be to do no unintentional harm.

Sacred and magic are not the same thing. There are plenty of truly magic places that nobody will mind you taking pictures of, and that will survive or avoid commodification. The pictures of Tom (Thomas Joshua) Cooper come to mind, among others. Theres more magic in revelations than in the dramatic. At a more obvious level, Charles Jenks design for Northumberlandia strikes me as a remarkable way of realising some non-Christian sprit by wrapping it carefully in spectacle, asking to be photographed and assimilated into the prevailing culture. One spiritual culture visits another with the intention of coexisting. (My original reference to Northumberlandia got lost in the mass deletions)

Best,
Helen

Early Riser · Feb 24, 2006

I'm curious did the Navajo ( I thought they preferred to be called Dinay) own Monument Valley when John Ford shot all those westerns there that made the "Indians" look like savages?

blansky · Feb 24, 2006

The term sacred must have a lot to do with what the original inhabitants thought of the place, obviously.

Except in the case of graveyards or burial places, one would suppose that any extraordinary place that we find today would have been considered the same in ancient times by someone.

Your source of food, your source of water, your source or inspiration, strange mountains, places that reflect light etc would have been sacred to some peoples. So it isn't a stretch to think that any incredible beautiful place would be considered sacred to the original inhabitants.

In fact virtually all sacred places are things of beauty, even man made ones. Because since they are sacred, the people beautify them.

So the dilemma is how do we photograph places that are considered sacred to someone. I guess, with respect.

MIchael

firecracker · Feb 24, 2006

Early Riser said:
I'm curious did the Navajo ( I thought they preferred to be called Dinay) own Monument Valley when John Ford shot all those westerns there that made the "Indians" look like savages?

This is a study conducted by a few academics in Visual Communcations in the 70's at Navajo. It might not be what you're looking for, but take a look if you're interested.

Dead Link Removed

mark · Feb 24, 2006

Early Riser,
Yes they owned it meaning it was within the boundries of the Navajo Reservation, and meaning Navajos lived near it on Black mesa and wintered in it. Yes tribal members were dressed up right along side the painted white guys. Often cussing them out in their native tongue. As to what to call them it depends on the person. I have heard more anglos use the term Dine` than Navajos. That is changing though, one of the strange things to watch. A person will give a speech and use the word Dine` throughout the presentation but as soon as it is time to do some question and answer they switch back to the term Navajo. Old habits die hard..

The success of those movies, the subsequent influx of tourists dollars and folks with not so good intentions is what has made things the way they are today. It is a very expensive place to shoot these days. There are also a lot of requirements that production companies have to follow. The tribe sees no difference between a print advertisement being shot and fine art photography. Both seek to make money off images made on Navajo land, so they are held to the same expectations.

I think Blansky is correct. Wherever we shoot, shoot with respect. But I would add that when in doubt ask a local.

I have never seen aggie sugar coat anything, so i don't expect her too, but the info in her post is correct for any photography you intend to sell. Things may have changed for Personal Display Photography but I have not specifically checked on that in a few months since I do not participate in this field of photography.

Early Riser · Feb 24, 2006

My point is that if these are such sacred places to the Dine, then how come it's been ok for them to rent them to movie companies who then produce movies on their sacred land that make them look like mindless blood thirsty savages? Either their land is truly sacred or not. But to rent that land for purposes that hurt their people in the long run and promote an unhealthy stereotype of them seems to suggest their values are for sale.

I have hired Dine guides in monument valley, and they were more than willing to let me crawl all over the place with gear. I could be wrong but I don't think there would be too much of a problem requesting that the guide allow someone, who might have made a presentation to them showing the type of tasteful work they do, to shoot a nude.

RAP · Feb 24, 2006

So the issue seems to be essentially private property rights which the owners have every right to dictate terms. Considering the abomination of a ruling the US Supreme court handed down on eminent domain, those rights are ever more in danger and you would think we should elevate ourselves over the judges in our own court system in showing respect for private property.

What puzzles me is why not work in areas that are public land? Is the topography of the Navajo reservation that unique? Or is it just the mystic of photographing naked bodies in a sacred tribal location?

avandesande · Feb 24, 2006

In most cases no. There are millions of acres of blm, federal and state lands here that cost nothing to shoot on with some amazing landscapes.

RAP said:
Is the topography of the Navajo reservation that unique? Or is it just the mystic of photographing naked bodies in a sacred tribal location?

MurrayMinchin · Feb 24, 2006

Early Riser said:
My point is that if these are such sacred places to the Dine, then how come it's been ok for them to rent them to movie companies who then produce movies on their sacred land that make them look like mindless blood thirsty savages? Either their land is truly sacred or not. But to rent that land for purposes that hurt their people in the long run and promote an unhealthy stereotype of them seems to suggest their values are for sale.

Sometimes it's good to look at things in an historical context. It was the early 30's when John Ford (from your earlier example) was there and a lot has changed since then, even in our own society. I don't know the history of the Navajo, but 75% of the Native people on BC's coast died of Euopean diseases after contact, and it's taken them a while to get their cultural legs under themselves again. Choices made while only 3 or 4 generations after the shattering impact of European contact probably wouldn't be made today.

Murray

mark · Feb 24, 2006

Early Riser said:
My point is that if these are such sacred places to the Dine, then how come it's been ok for them to rent them to movie companies who then produce movies on their sacred land that make them look like mindless blood thirsty savages? Either their land is truly sacred or not. But to rent that land for purposes that hurt their people in the long run and promote an unhealthy stereotype of them seems to suggest their values are for sale.

You have to realize some things. 1-When these movies were made Indigenous Peoples were treated as far less than equal. 2-Movie companies meant jobs that were otherwise unavailable. 3-No one cared what the Native Americans thought about how they were portrayed.

Times have changed. Those images you talk about are the reason for such strict regulations now.

blansky · Feb 24, 2006

Slightly off topic but growing up with all the westerns of John Wayne types etc. and there were literally hundreds. I still recall the first movie I saw that showed the Indian (native American) in a very postive and victim-like light. That movie was Soldier Blue.(1970)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066390/#comment

Michael

WarEaglemtn · Feb 24, 2006

"The Navajo Nation/reservation is like a seperate country overseen by the federal gov. We should respect their laws like any other laws. We should respect their relgious beliefs. "

What makes you think 'all' the Navajo people have the same religious beliefs?

mark · Feb 25, 2006

They don't. But they all live under the same rules and regulations set forth by their elected officials. These rules and regulations govern what kind of photography can be done on their lands and by whom.

Gustavo_Castilla · Mar 7, 2006

Your the record
I did not know we where contemplating going back to the Germany of the 30's
I am sure the artist when trough the proper channel in order to produce the work
and if you find the work not to your liking THE DO NOT LOOK AT IT
simple as that I find the many Images get tons of Views and no CREATIVE comments or critiques why I do not no and can only wonder .
AND attacking an artist one because you do not agree with the content
That IS B.S. lets all boycott Mona or Luve or Prado the show things I may not like and find Interesting or rewarding .
Does that make sense to you?

Aggie · Mar 7, 2006

Gustavo, it was not about the images themselves, they were done well and I liked them. What was at the cruxt of this was that a Law was broken blatantly. Tribal law which on the reservation is the law of the land and backed by federal law says no nudes on their land ever. It is their land and their values as a people. There are many other places to have shot with that same background. Places that it would not have been violating cultural taboos and laws. We as photographers often forget in our zeal to take an image that we may if on private land be disrespectful of those who allow others onto that property. It may take a small amount of time to find out about the laws, in this case through Marks marvelous article, but it is easily accessed. I doubt any of us would go to the Vatican City and do nude photography in St. Peters square without permission or knowing the laws.

Gustavo_Castilla · Mar 7, 2006

How do you know that ?

Gustavo_Castilla · Mar 7, 2006

yes and the Palisin bomers are freedom fighters and not terrorist right?

Gustavo_Castilla · Mar 7, 2006

the hole thing is just to much
at this rate we may be avil to shoot in our back yards with big brothers parmissinon may be

It bugged me and made me think

jovo

Membership Council

matt miller

haris

ouyang

Aggie

matt miller

Helen B

Early Riser

blansky

firecracker

mark

Early Riser

RAP

avandesande

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

mark

blansky

WarEaglemtn

mark

Gustavo_Castilla

Aggie

Gustavo_Castilla

Gustavo_Castilla

Gustavo_Castilla

It bugged me and made me think

Membership Council

haris

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency