Crime, punishment & ethics, Fatali & fires at Delicate Arch affect all nature photographers

I take David Henderson's point that it's not appropriate for me or anyone else to impose a particular approach. However, Michael Fatali publishes his own definition of truth in nature. Visit the "nature's light" section of the Fatali website: http://www.fatali.com Here's his own statement: "No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used as tools in the creation of my photographs. I work exclusively with the natural light of nature...." Artificial logs in metal pans seem to me sort of, uh, artifical.

http://www.sltrib.com/05082001/utah/95597.htm

 

 

 

 

If you go to the above internet address you will find a current article that talks about Michael's Sprindale gallery being the site of Government types serving a Search Warrant. I still hold to my original written opinion that we have to wait to see what these government types will do. They and the 'Criminal' justice system are starting to move on this. I fear we will see playing out a twisted dance of Federal 'authority' pushing their system rather than just working out an equitable agreement to have Michael pay for the damage that happened.

But, read it and get as up to date as we can on the discussion and decisions as they happen.

Again, I belive Michael made a mistake & see where the 'Criminal' types are in line to make even bigger ones.

Have we all never broken a law in pursuit of a photograph, to allow us to be so self-righteous? (Hint: if you've taken a photo on public land in Los Angeles or New York, made money off it, and didn't have a permit, you've broken the law.) I see an act that should have been harmless, if illegal, compounded by a brief lapse of thought, and genuine contrition. Certainly he should be made to make restitution plus some penalty for the consequences of his actions, but this doesn't prove him the soulless evil being he's being painted as!

An update on the legal front. The Salt Lake Tribune today printed a story of Michael Fatali appearing in Court and pleading guilty to all counts. He faces possible fines and incarceration both.

He has never denied lighting the arch with firelight & when he first heard that there was damage he made contact with the National Park Service & said he would pay for any and all damage. It will be expensive but he has taken responsibility.

Yes, it was wrong and we all know it. Now if the Park Service employees who have held weenie & marshmallow roasts in the sand area below the arch would come forward & 'fess up, we can all move on. That is the sand area where Michael built a wood fire, the same area that has been used for wood fires, apparently for hundreds of years.

It remains to be seen what sentencing will produce. Since the prosecuting attorney apparently doesn't like Michaels 'attitude', he seems to be going for all he can. We will wait to see what the judge hands down at the sentencing hearing.

http://www.sltrib.com/12082001/utah/156120.htm

 

 

The above is the internet address of the story in the Salt Lake Tribune for those who would like to read it.

In today's Salt Lake Tribune there is an article reporting Michael Fatali has been placed on two years probation and has been banned from Arches and Canyonlands National Parks for two years as a result of his pleading guilty to various charges relate to setting fires to light natural landscapes for night photography.

For those who are interested, the

<A HREF="http://www.sltrib.com/2002/feb/02022002/utah/172833.htm"> Salt Lake Tribute article</A> can be found in the link as of today, 2nd February 2002. I am not sure for how long this link will be good though.

<P>

Having said (or actually written) that, haven't we spent enough bandwidth on the Fatali/Delicate Arch incident already?

I have felt guilty at times when photographing at Delicate Arch when frustrated that tourists didn't seem to realize that there was the usual "army" of amateur photographers trying to get a shot and would not get out of the way when the light was right, but I have to stop and realize that they are as entitled to this public place as I am. So doing something as off-base as setting an illegal fire seems more than just a "screw-up" as Fatali calls it. It took quite a bit of effort to do that. It's not like you just kept your foot on the pedal a little too long and got that speeding ticket. This incident grows out of Fatali's trademark arrogance.

 

The time I had a brief chat with him in Page, he seemed nice enough. But, I'm also reminded of the time I tried to get his input about my web site and he responded with what seemed a "canned" email that just went on about his on work and didn't ackowledge that I had invited him to view mine. So, that's the impression I have, along with the scornful comments of other photographers that I've picked up here and there down through the years while shooting various spots in the Southwest.

 

I'm also reminded of the insistance on his web site and in his gallery that his prints are not manipulated, when his primary printer has told me that EXTREME manipulation occurs on the final product.

 

Arrogance got you where you are with this incident, Michael. You can no longer be remembered as a talented photographer, but as the guy who set fire to the Arch. That's the nature of being in the public eye. It's not fair. I truly believe that a portion of the scorn you receive from other photographers is a bit of jealousy of your success.

 

But we all want a level playing field. Part of success as an artist is not sinking to the level of the weasel-like Enron executive and stretching the truth to fit your needs or behaving like your the only photographer in the solar system.

 

The sentence would have only had true meaning if you had been banned from Zion and Vermillion Cliffs as well. Your judge is not familiar enough with your work to know that Arches and Canyonlands are not your prime stomping grounds, but only good for the occassional workshop buck.

The Fatali incident was a topic on NPR's <a href="http://www.loe.org/ETS/organizations.php3?action=printNewestContentItem&orgid=33&typeID=3&templateID=10&User_Session=21ce3cd677689a156b3f6ccbf2bc9c7d">Living on Earth</a> piece on Nature Photography this past weekend. There's also a photo of the damage.

I'm glad to see that Michael Fatali peacefully stood his ground while this whole thread was talking about him. I personally believe in his side of the story. Anyone can make a horrible mistake, even Fatali!

 

I've visited with Fatali in his gallery a few times in springdale and I was born in Utah. The photography of this man is very astounding in my views. I've seen the photographs in the gallery up close and personal. They communicate to my heart and my dreams.

 

People will envy him. Despite a few attacks on this thread, I think some people need to realize that saying; "Let he who is without SIN cast the FIRST STONE."

 

 

 

Nate

Why are we brining up this topic again? As most of us know, at the end Fatali pleated guilty to all charges.

Pleaded guilty, yes. Taken responsibility, yes. But he probably still uses his own

brand of 'natural' light whenever he can get away with it. He has never admitted

that his use of the 'manufactured logs' is OBVIOUSLY not natural light, any more

than burning gas in an internal combustion engine is 'natural' energy.

 

I don't think very many people will be willing to forgive him unless his 'statement'

on the Web about his exclusive use of natural light is removed or corrected. To this

day the statement remains, and it does not engender respect from anyone who

reads it and knows of his vandalism.

Natural light...

O.K. people ... I've read all of your statements ...

Here's the deal... I known Michael Fatali both professionally and

personally for the last seven years. Based upon that, I can say

CATAGORICALLY that there was no concievable way that the incident

at Delicate Arch was either malicious or deliberate. At the very worst, it was an action with un-anticipated consequences.

For any of you that have another point of view... I will respect that. But all one has to do is go to his website ( fatali@fatali.com)

and appraise his work. Michael Fatali's respect and appreciation for the beauty of nature should be quite obvious to even jaded observers.

The readers of this statement need to ask themselves if they have ever done anything that they later regreted. Have YOU ever done that?

If so, then Michael, as well as the rest of us , need forgivness.

 

Chris Christiansen

His pretense remains, and he still hasn't corrected his obviously false statement about only

using natural light.

 

This hasn't anything to do with regret. It has to do with responsibility. If he regrets his

vandalism, he'd apologize for it, and then change his web site. He probably still gives the

same tired lecture about natural light to all the suckers visiting his galleries, or has his

understudies do it for him.

Think of this... The American Government desecrated Glen Canyon when they created Lake Powell. When they damned the Colorado river, in many TRUE aspects, they were "vandalizing" the canyon... Sorry people, I just don't believe in a pristine wilderness. Michael Fatali made a mistake, but the arch has been there for millions of years, and the elements will continue to erode the arch away, until it callapses. It is a beautiful place that needs protection, but at the same time, there is an illusion in popular culture, that somehow the wilderness is untouched, untamed, and pristine. The fact is, humans have been dwelling in this part of the world for eons.

 

Again, look at Michael's mistake. Then look at what the government does with our so-called "public lands.' Then, think about your own perception of this. How do you define what is wilderness!

Considering there are but a few websites that mention anything about this while most other sites praise him for his work and his place in the world of art, this story should be taken with a grain of salt.

No wilderness is pristine. Of course. But I do not see any reason to make it less pristine.

 

--- JDR

It seems to me as I look back at the unehicak acts that Fatali did,

will only hurt the rest of the photographers. I was recently

traveling in the east coast and was taking some lessons from

famed photographer Timothy Wolcott. I ran in to him by accident

and he was nice enough to share with me what he was waiting

for, since I saw him in the same spot for hours. He was telling

me how he was waiting for the shadow of the tree and the lack of

wind to create the colors he was waiting for, that day the wind

was the real problem. Finally about 2:20 pm the wind slow and

within 15 minutes the color comes out. He finally got the shot

and I got to see how the best photographer in the country

worked. During that time a park official comes around and

asked him if he was a profession. Which he said well I'm

shooting this for my portfolio and said the officer I payed my

money to get in and it shouldn't matter what size camera I have

but that I have my reciept for the entry fee. He then said to the

officer It did not say anything about profession images or usage

at the gate. The park officer said and mentioned by name Fatali

how they want special fees to shoot there for pro's. Tim polited

said I'm not that idiot Fatali and qouted some references from he

could call. Tim also said he was not willing to accept that one

bad apple should ruin it for the rest of us. So yes it does affect

everyone and if we could get rid of the liberal judges who give

everyone more and more chances to be law abiding citizens.

You no it was wrong so you should have been treated that way.

After all this was your second offense. You know its wrong to

created cibachrome prints since they fade quickly and they are

very damaging to the earth. But liberals can't live with them can't

shoot them. For you that have not seen the best check tim's

work out . Galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com thanks John

Thompson

I can't believe anyone will defend him. Making mistakes, sorry

doesn't cut it for me. You know the difference from right and

wrong when your a kid.

 

What he did should be jail time and huge fines. He odviously

doesn't care about the enviroment, cibachromes are highly toxic

as John wrote about. Thats how you stop stupid people from

doing stupid things. Yes the goverment has and will always do

stupid things but individuals, there is only one person to blame.

I hope you are banned forever in the photo trade. I will help

anyway I can. There is no excuse!!!!!! Jack Forester

I cant believe this is still going on. Have you ever seen Michaels work. It is phenominal. However, the issue with the forest service is not just Fatali related It goes way beyond his mistake. I have encounterd problems befor during and after this event, just because I have a large format camera. What the service doesn't realize is that with the age of digital photography many more people with 35mm 12-16 megapixel cameras can do the same work. So are they going to have all the pro shooters with hi res cameras check them at the gate. Get off Michaels case. I suppose you have never done anything stupid in your life. Put your energies toward the problem of americans not being allowed to photograph in the parks they pay taxes to support whether they get paid for their pictures or not.

"What the service doesn't realize is that with the age of digital photography many more

people with 35mm 12-16 megapixel cameras can do the same work. So are they going to

have all the pro shooters with hi res cameras check them at the gate. Get off Michaels

case. I suppose you have never done anything stupid in your life. Put your energies toward

the problem of americans not being allowed to photograph in the parks they pay taxes to

support whether they get paid for their pictures or not."

 

It's not so much the mistake, it's the fact that he comes off as a pompous ass for making

up the stories on his web site about using natural light even today.

 

He should just admit that he puts artifically created substances into an artificially created

aluminum pan and artificially lights the scene with artificial fire.

I have known Michael since 1986 when his work was published in Arizona Highway.

He does excellent work and very original.

As you all know it is tough making a living as a nature photographer. Michael is not alone and is doing his best.

Michael has a problem which I have noticed over the years. He is not a forward looking guy and human element is missing in him.

He gets carried away in making an extra buck and using others and he does not realize the consequences of his actions.

The action of photographing a rock (Delicate arch in this case)in fire lit environment is not what the nature photographers do. Once you lit a fire whether legal or illegal, and photograph a rock, you have, Michael, kicked yourself out of domain of nature photographers.

Now live with the consequences, Michael. Loss of respect is the biggest you have suffered.

<p>I really have never seen such a display of self righteous pomposity. What a sad spectacle. Aside from the mistake that happened, to the people wanting to crucify Mr Fatali for daring to want to light the rock with his own source, get a life and understand the value of freedom of artistic expression!<br>

It was an unfortunate incident that I'm sure has brought Mr Fatali much suffering and regret, but you only have to look at his work to see the love he has for nature. Get off your high horses, we all make misjudgements.</p>

<p>Rod, thank you many times over for your post. I cannot agree more. Cheers!</p>