Good story on photography and death

<p>A riveting story on a moral dillema faced by a pj/documentary photographer from the Washington Post: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith/2012/05/31/gJQA3fRP5U_story.html?hpid=z1">http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-i-watched-a-snake-handling-pastor-die-for-his-faith/2012/05/31/gJQA3fRP5U_story.html?hpid=z1</a> </p>

<p>It's an interesting essay, and cathartic for the author/photographer, I suppose. But the circumstances involved are such a waste. Inevitable, for people so marinated in their mysticism, and that's the <em>real</em> waste. The maddening thing is that for some people in his circles, this will perversely reinforce their urge to follow his example (as he did his father's ... someone who died exactly the same way). Ugh. <br /><br />The photographer has nothing to feel guilty about (something he seems to have hesitantly concluded on his own, eventually). His initial decision to get to know and study this guy and his sect up close is when he really made that deal with himself.<br /><br />I've spent many, many hours out photographing in situations where both my subjects and I are quite literally risking our lives in order to do and celebrate something that speaks to us. Our faith, as it were, is placed in the hands of the people around us who are using shotguns as they train and test bird dogs in the field. I've heard clouds of #6 birdshot go whistling two feet over my head ... all so I could get a better angle, or the right light on a scene, or a better view of a pheasant breaking out of the cover in front of a beautiful dog on a staunch point. <br /><br />But that "faith" (in the gunners, their skill, and their judgement) is roughly analagous to trusting your fellow drivers on the road. Every photographer driving to a location or event is risking their lives to go make photographs. We all take such calculated risks, every day. But handling rattlesnakes to prove your faith in being magically protected from them strikes me as a poor calculatiaon indeed. And the author/photographer clearly thought so, too.<br /><br />But he stayed and shot, and watched the guy die, because he had long ago - whether he admits it out loud or not - decided he'd be, as a journalist - OK with that, if it happened. I sense no moral dillema here, since he had already taken the prospect of this turn of events into account, and already run it past his personal moral framework, comparing it to his value system. The event caused him to re-evealute his value system (ultimately, leaving it as-is), not his decision to stay, shoot, and publish.</p>

<p>Sorry, but that's not faith. It's pathology.</p>

<p>I might photograph if it if I came across it. But I wouldn't actively seek it out because I wouldn't want that sort of energy in my life if I could avoid it.</p>

<p>All kinds of lunatics co-opt what they claim is faith, from the Reverend Ted Phelps going around to military funerals preaching hate to the sick murderer who claims God told him to do it. We don't have to call that faith, any more than we have to call an adult's opinion who still believes in the tooth fairy simply an alternative view.</p>

<p>Is the serpent the devil or messenger of God ?</p>

<p>I can understand the story of the photographer, and the doubts, the conclusion as to what to do with a series of photos like this one. It remains a good question to raise, I think, on journalism and the ethical choices you can come across when you are involved in this work.</p>

<p>I can't understand people who think the bible should be taken very literal. Somehow it always seems to cause problems.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but that's not faith. It's pathology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, isn't there a very fine line between the two?</p>

<p><<<<em>Fred, isn't there a very fine line between the two?</em>>>></p>

<p>Mark, I don't think there has to be. There are vastly many sane iterations of faith.</p>

<p>Pathology isn't quite the word I think to use myself, but it does seem apt in a more reserved way than I would use.</p>

<p>I didn't initially consider this 'essay' as journalism, so I put a link earlier today to the story in the casual photo conversations, and didn't think of looking here.</p>

<p>When I photographed a <a href="http://www.well.com/%7Erhenley/twyant.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">rattle snake handler</a> years ago, his intent was to show that snake handling could be done safely. In this case it's unstated, but it would seem right off this was an intentional test of faith, largely based on an inherited stupidity.</p>

<p>I have to wonder if the mere presence of the main-stream Washington Post photographer over the years lead all of them in that dwindling church to think that they could defy gravity. Or whether he, like his father, would still have died an anonymous death without her pictures anyway.</p>

<p>While I think most of us will succomb in some way or the other to the hand we play out with our lives; not everyone will die from a snake bite. By mixing in a 'faith' component so they all felt that they had an upper hand, their rules were of an older order.</p>

<p>I wonder too how many more males in that family will succumb to snakes before their madness ends. And if the photographer has any better images that she could not bring herself to publish, because otherwise I can't understand why this became her project from what I've seen and read so far.</p>

<p>I guess everyone involved expected their faith to help them live beyond the frailty of a mortal life. But their history so far hasn't proven this to be the case. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wish she had called the paramedics and let the paramedics deal with the bite victim and his family. The bite victim's state of mind was part of that medical emergency, just another obstacle for medical people to overcome.</p>

<p>I think that there <em>is</em> a fine line between faith and pathology, just as there is a fine line between genius and crazy. The difference is whether or not your society accepts it, and whether or not you or your society has seen anything that could be considered 'proof.'</p>

<p>As far as Archimedes' comment goes, the snake is usually seen by Christians as a symbol of the Devil. The pastor believed that his faith as a man of God was strong enough to beat the Devil. If you're a Christian, that sort of makes sense.</p>

<p>But as Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a snake is just a plain ol' snake, and it doesn't care about, or even know about, God. But if that snake truly were the Devil, Wolford would have scared the crap out of it.</p>

<p>I could never photograph that. I could shoot a carny handling snakes, because they know that a snake is a snake. But even if I didn't think there would be a problem, I still feel that photographing someone doing something unsafe makes me part of the problem. This isn't like Matt's shooting of seasoned gunmen: this is someone that 'shouldn't try this at home' doing just that.</p>

<p>Unless your name is Larry Clarke, and you're documenting people ... falling from grace, we'll say, I don't think that it's the photographer's job to document people doing stupid things. That's a job for a photojournalist, and there's yet another fine line between those two.</p>

<p><em>> I have to wonder if the mere presence of the main-stream Washington Post photographer over the years lead all of them in that dwindling church to think that they could defy gravity.</em></p>

<p>Dwindling it ain't. I happen to live in the D.C. area, often go to VA and WV and have seen a lot of services like that over the years. The rural parts of the widely-defined "Appalachian area" are very different from the rest of the US and are often misunderstood/put down/trivialized/etc. just for being different. The story I linked to originally has many dimensions, including attracting our attention to the practice very few urbanites are aware of.</p>

<p>Dwindling is a term I used to describe the specific loss of parishioners at that church as mentioned in the original Nov. photo 'essay' .</p>

<p>I'm aware of this practice more as a perversion of an ancient form of an interconnected life. For instance the Hopi Snake dance, an even more extreme example, doesn't usually lead to this rather crude form of father's passing a pathology onto their sons. Their ritual is actually quite different in any respect beyond the physical 'handling' of the snakes.</p>

<p>In the writing I have been doing, I have found that the mythical image of the snake is mixed up with ancient symbols of transformation and emergence. Limiting that concept to one of good / evil is what gets these clowns in trouble in the first case, so it's got no where else to go but to be a deadly practice of power.</p>

<p>Sanity is a relative term, dependent on the time and place. Faith and chthonic ideas, sacrifices, etc. are no strangers to each other. This is a sad story, and it was the photographer's call as to what, if anything, to do and whether to stay or go. I see it as something similar to people who rock climb without harnesses or ropes, and engage in other high-risk behaviors. Seems suicidal to me, but...</p>

<p>To the people of the distant future we will probably look as stupid and crude as those practicing primitive religious rituals today do to us.</p>

<p>Luis:<br>

"To the people of the distant future we will probably look as stupid and crude as those practicing primitive religious rituals today do to us."<br>

By "us" you mean "you". Not all of us here on photo forum share this view. I strongly disagree with your statement that any religious ritual can be called "stupid". If you do not understand it or you disapprove it - just say so - do not just say it is stupid, crude or primitive, and do not impersonate some larger group of people to add weight to your personal statement.</p>

<p>Calm down, Thomas. In my post it was pretty explicit that I did not think those rituals "stupid", and that I am aware of their history. You're dead wrong with the bit about assuming I think derogatorily about those (and many other rituals) and that my post was "impersonating" others. Not that I expect you to believe me, but that is simply untrue. I personally have participated in ancient rituals involving sacrifice and thought them far from stupid or crude. A few quotes below about ambient attitudes on this forum/thread, and I don't think they're rare exceptions, having heard similar (and far worse) comments in many places.</p>

<p>"But the circumstances involved are such a waste. Inevitable, for people so marinated in their mysticism, and that's the <em>real</em> waste."</p>

<p>"Sorry, but that's not faith. It's pathology."</p>

<p>"...it would seem right off this was an intentional test of faith, largely based on an inherited stupidity."</p>

<p>and from the author of the article...</p>

<p>"The practices of the Signs Following faith remain an enigma to many. How can people be foolish enough to interpret <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A17-18&version=KJV" data-xslt="_http">Mark 16: 17-18</a> so literally: to ingest poison, such as strychnine, which Mack also allegedly did at Sunday’s ceremony; to handle venomous snakes; and, most incomprehensible of all, not to seek medical treatment if bitten?"</p>

<p> Maybe you should correct him, too.</p>

<p>Although I think you are way off the mark, and liberally projected onto me, I appreciate your good intentions and personally taking the time to respond, even if only to "correct" me. The worst part is that if you could only see beyond yourself, you'd realize we're in agreement about rituals.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well your initial language doesn't allow much room for a different initial interpretation here for me either with respect to <em>us</em> suggesting <em>you</em>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To the people of the distant future we will probably look as stupid and crude as those practicing primitive religious rituals today do to us.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And it seems by extracting mine, you missed the point I was intending to make with that reference, although in the need for brevity I felt a need to be rather obtuse about stating it.</p>

<p>It is difficult to write short, clear multifaceted, complex ideas well enough to convey one's primary intent.</p>

<p>IF we had managed to assist the pastor in time, he might be still around to deal with the dissonance between his 'faith' and the actual mortal quality of his life. With respect to your statement, most of us are presently living within a rather crude reflection of a primitive past. My point was that these practitioners are not wholly primitive enough in their ritual vision.</p>

<p>And so it follows rather clearly to me, that they will just be passing their lack of awareness with that struggle onto the next generation in a more difficult way than is necessary. Because it's not going away until they do, which they are apparently working rather diligently out for some unknown reason. Which is why I think the photographer, and her 'essay' failed.</p>

<p>"Which is why I think the photographer, and her 'essay' failed."</p>

<p>I don't know. Maybe the snake handlers are passing or sharing a certain understanding and/or acceptance that disagrees with many, but has its own awareness involved. People in most states have the right to refuse medical care, which this man chose to do. To assist the pastor, hoping that he might deal with the dissonance between his 'faith' and the actual mortal quality of his life (if that is, indeed the case) is an interesting viewpoint. The guy lived his life and lost it as he saw fit. I can see why the photographer stayed, and how it is a not exactly a popular position.</p>

<p>I have zero interest in seeing or photographing snake handlers.</p>