" Half of the results of a good intentions are evil; half the results of an evil intention are good. - Mark Twain "

<p>Which kind of intentions do we have when we make a photograph ?<br>

And how far from our intentions is the final result ?</p>

<p>I think it's safe to say that Twain's real point, here, is something along the lines of "One's actions frequently have unintended consequences."<br /><br />I suppose that photography, being a form of communication/expression, is a vector through which one's purposes can be potentially misconstrued. Which is equally true of talking too casually at cocktail parties. There's definitely good and evil in the world, but we don't run into a lot of evil photography or photographers, per se. And likely not <em>half </em>of them, anyway. Well, not counting HDR Cat Photo specialists and Holga Wedding Artists.</p>

<p> This is Twain's equivalent of Newton's sum-zero dictum "for every action there's an equal but opposite reaction."</p>

<p> I don't know how applicable the good and evil thing is in photography, except for spies, private eyes, surveillance, etc. The difference between what one intends/expects, or what the eye and brain see and the electro-mechanical means records is often surprising. I was watching an exquisitely made Bruce Weber film last night, and during a close-up with a young man who was talking, suddenly you can hear Weber say "<em>look</em> at me", and that directive changed the image from an introspective one to one being shared with the fourth wall, and bared Weber's intent, and his awareness that it wasn't happening. The result of the introspective part was beautiful, just different.</p>

<p> The results can either match, outstrip or fall below our expectations, most often the last one, of course. Photography often involves a mathematically large number of variables, most of which are out of our control, be they puppies, a sitter, landscape, etc. Our intent, with all the connotations the word carries, is but a well-laid plan, the territory is something else entirely. Some deal with it by clamping down, which works to a point, but the truth will never be enslaved, others by dancing with it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The other day, someone requested a critique of a photo of a guy in motion, gesturing strongly by pointing with a foreground and distorted finger toward the viewer . . . serious face behind a full page of Final Call, a newspaper with a headline about racists stirring up hate against Obama, a small picture of the publisher, Louis Farrakhan, in the corner, and a couple of people just standing in the street nearby. The newspaper page was the majority of the photo.</p>

<p>One gentleman's "critique" was, "Farakhan, consider the source." That was all he said.</p>

<p>I came by and talked about the significance of the message, regardless of the source and also talked about photographic aspects of it, composition, etc., and how those things emphasized the strength of the message, regardless of the message.</p>

<p>The photographer responded that he intended no political message, wasn't trying to convey either negative or positive feelings regarding the content, and took it as a neutral documentary shot.</p>

<p>The first gentleman came back and went on a rant about my stupid comment and the stupidity of the photographer. I believe Hitler got brought up.</p>

<p>The photographer deleted his photo and apologized to both of us by email saying he didn't want to anger us or cause controversy.</p>

<p>I told him he owed me no apology and that I loved the photo.</p>

<p>The power of a photograph and the variety of the way intentions were felt and projected.</p>

<p>Projection by viewers about a photographer's intentions will happen. I've felt it myself. And there's the naiveté of a supposed documentarian expecting that this photo wouldn't get charged reactions precisely because of the controversial political content. Which doesn't mean that the photographer didn't, as he claimed, have a neutral stance. But wouldn't the expectation be that reactions could be non-neutral and strong? I was surprised and disappointed when he deleted it because he didn't want to make anyone angry.</p>

<p>In some of my own photographs, I've risked at least making people uncomfortable. Sometimes, honestly, that's my intention. Sometimes, it's more an acknowledged by-product of the kind of photo I might make.</p>

<p>I don't think "to make someone uncomfortable" is a bad intention. To stir the pot can be a good thing. For many photographers, expressing personal truths or even just their view of the world has a darker or negative side to it. "Evil" lurks in many of our psyches, which are sometimes opened up to the light in photographs. And "evil" lives in the world, waiting to be exposed. There can be evil intentions in manipulating certain seemingly-documentary photos into falsifying situations which is, of course, not what happened in the case I'm describing.</p>

<p>It might be impossible for any photographer to draw a clear line between his intentions and the results of his photos. That's one of the risks of making public something you've created and envisioned. It's also a great reward to know that you've moved people.</p>

<p>It requires a thick skin to allow people to experience their own personal strong feelings by empathizing with your photo or even projecting what they're feeling onto you, yourself, as photographer. That's part of the dance, I think, that Luis referred to.</p>

<p>I am not suggesting that photography is amoral, but I do not think that most photography relates to Twain's comment. Essentially a non-issue. To be equally belligerant this morning (it is hard to sleep well when it is so warm), I would say that Luis' comment regarding Newton is also malfounded, as Newton is speaking of a dynamic equilibrium and not "unintended consequences" as Matt has portrayed Twain's comment.</p>

<p>Arthur, in my opinion, as photography is a very active practice, this implies an intention at some point.</p>

<p>I agree that the terms of good or bad in themselves don't mean anything, but good intentions and bad intentions relating to the active person, I think we can make the difference.</p>

<p>I don't have much time, but just one example : a war photographer who witnessed massacres, but was not able to make the photogrph of what he saw, decides to "re-enact" the scene with figurants, with the intention of showing the world the attrocities he witnessed, and which are therefore real. We may speak about "good intention" from this photographer. But as soon as the "setup" is known, the outcome becomes the opposite of what he intended.</p>

<p>( A bit more as soon as I can )</p>

<p>Arthur, Am I understanding you to take Twain's quote as suggesting that morality is a non-issue regarding photography? (Naturally, Twain wasn't speaking directly of photography.) But is that what you're extrapolating?</p>

<p>Can you expound a bit? There is so much to me in photography and all the arts that is about political, social, and moral issues. I might agree that aesthetic issues <em>per se</em>, issues of "beauty," etc. might be morally neutral, but aesthetic issues are often inseparable from moral, political, and social issues (and I don't see a separation between politics, social issues, and morality).</p>

<p>Dorothea Lange's photographs, to name just one example. Moral component? Importance of intentions? Relationship of intentions to her results?</p>

<p>Leni Riefenstahl's films. Intentions? Results? Product? Art? Beauty?</p>

<p>Street photography? The morality of shooting homeless people, both personal and public morality? Having good intentions but winding up exploiting instead. The morality of being stopped from shooting on the street due to "terrorism concerns"?</p>

<p>Nude photography? The risk of objectifying subjects. The desire to objectify subjects and acceptance of that in many cases. Having filters to screen out nudes in a photography web site.</p>

<p>Journalism and morality? Skewed perspectives, false impressions.</p>

<p>Fred, glad you brought up Leni's work... beat me to it. But you've waxed Socratic... all you did was ask more questions.<br>

And the esteemed Mr. Twain, brought up in the same river culture that my great grandfather lived, worked and moved in, is probably not easily pegged (that for the original poster). Twain is so much like Groucho Marx, and yet so much more than a humorist.</p>

<p>Thomas, Thanks. In this case, I had already posted previously, above, where I offered some of my own thoughts on the matter and gave a fairly concrete example. Because I honestly was not sure what Arthur was getting at, I was purposely in a questioning mode only because I didn't want to make assumptions about what he meant and was really interested to hear more from him. Interesting you bring up Socrates. Some think he was merely ironic in his questioning and was feigning his ignorance. Some think he was much more genuine about it. I think it was a combination of both, though a good case could be made for either being exclusively the case. Though I posed some of the stuff in the form of questions, I hope my opinions in at least some of the cases are implied. My guess is, as the thread continues, and as Arthur and others respond, I'll have more to offer. Appreciate your thoughts.</p>

<p>Socrates was also a warrior... he saved the life of Alciabades during the battle of Potideae (sp?) during the Peloponnesian War. It's not something I would have guessed about him. Key insights from men like Twain and Socrates and Groucho Marx who have come up the hard way, and yet gained a lot of perspective... I'm not sure they would be able to tell you whether they were being ironic or not.<br>

Interesting having you in this discussion, Fred, as always. I don't necessarily agree with your outlook, but I do value the insights. I was kinda bustin' your chops regaring 'questions' in the earlier post.<br>

Yes, I think this is a neat topic, even if a bit muddled.<br>

Leni? Divorced from content and intent, wonderful work. But then, the devil always offers nice looking work. It's part of the ploy.</p>

<p><strong>Thomas</strong>, I'm not sure I would divorce Leni's stuff from content and intent even in assessing it as wonderful work. I know I would divorce it from something! But, to me, part of the brilliance of Triumph of the Will is precisely how effective a piece of propoganda it was. Take Hitler out of it, and it doesn't really have the same moving power. It's kind of the combination of the politics and the cinema that actually makes it what it is. You wouldn't make that same film about panda bears or even about Roosevelt or Churchill, the same fearsome, iconic images, the same uber-sensibility which comes almost as second nature to her. Even Oympiad -- which is more easily abstracted from a political stance if we just want to study the beautiful bodies, the amazing rhythms and movements, the athleticism, etc. -- still has the juice of the super race splashed all over itself, and seeing and knowing that adds a little to the breathlessness of it while also making it all the more horrifying. Perhaps the answer is distance. Aesthetic distance? Now, it's maybe a little easier from a historical distance to sit back and recognize not only its formal cinematic elegance but even the political muscle behind it, recognizing its cinematic power which includes its politics and simultaneously recognizing the moral terribleness of it all. None of it stops me from hating and regretting the woman herself and what she stood for. There was an attempt, in The Wonderful Horrible Life, to gain sympathy or at least understanding for her. Unpersuasive to me. Aesthetically, she's a beguiling study.</p>

<p>Fred, I meant looking at Leni's work from a technical execution standpoint. No, no more than 'the grizzly man' would function without bears would TotW be the same minus its content/subject and intent. Perhaps I should have been more clear (or was I even clear to myself until challenged?).<br>

At any rate, it's a hot night, the power has gone out and just come back on, and I'm enjoying ice cream because, well - it's my birthday and the ice cream wouldn't have survived a long power outage, and now that I'm started on it... cheers!</p>

 

<p>Thomas, we overlapped in this writing. I deleted what I at first said here because I realize now we were pretty much on the same page. Forget Leni, at least for the night, and enjoy the ice cream! Happy Birthday.</p>

<p> At the risk of steering this thread further into the emotionally charged issue of Leni Riefenstahl...</p>

<p> It's impossible to take the historical timespace coordinates out a work. I don't see LR as The Devil or hate her in any way. To me, her intent stemmed from being a superb talent, blinded by ambition, caught up in the times. She <em>did</em> make the same fearsome, iconic images, with "the same uber-sensibility which comes almost as second nature to her" when she did the pictures of the Nuba. Even the underwater fish pics have more than a hint of that. Her work is remarkably consistent throughout her life, perhaps too much so.</p>

<p>The Aryan super-race thing was tribal thinking taken to its ultimate expression. In retrospect, it seems easy to figure out that the Perfect Race wasn't going to coexist well with the Chosen People. Tribalism of the "There can only be One" variety seldom results in consistent happy endings, but then, what does?</p>

<p> I think if Leni R. had been around at the right time, I have a feeling she would have made similar films for (and sucked up to) any political powerhouse wherever she happened to be.</p>

<p>[Happy Birthday, Thomas!]</p>

<p>Luis--</p>

<p>You bring up a thoughtful point about Riefenstahl. I think, along with expressiveness being dictated to whatever degree by content, what you're talking about may be the importance of the development of an overriding style to one photographer or artist. Likely, both personal style and individual expressive concerns which are dependent upon content are both at play. One reaction I have is that she may have chosen the kinds of subjects that best suited her style and, in that, we see similarities. </p>

<p>But moving onto more troubled waters:</p>

<p>"In retrospect, it seems easy to figure out that the Perfect Race wasn't going to coexist well with the Chosen People. Tribalism of the "There can only be One" variety seldom results in consistent happy endings, but then, what does?"</p>

<p>Huh? I really think this statement warrants a further and very clear explanation. It's been about an hour since I first read it and I'm still reeling. Seeing the Perfect Race and the Chosen People referred to in the same sentence like that and seemingly put on an equal moral footing in "tribalistic" terms has me breathless. I tend sometimes in these forums to draw conclusions without the benefit of more information and tone of voice. So, though I'm upset by how I'm perceiving your words, I'd rather have you fill in what gaps you care to before further solidifying the conclusions that immediately struck me upon reading this. I hope you clarify your meaning in precise terms. </p>

<p>Whoa... No, Fred, <strong>no equal moral footing</strong> , for God's sake. I simply meant that in retrospect, it seems clear that the "Perfect Race" wasn't going to be able to tolerate <em>anyone </em> else for long, other than as slaves, let alone those claiming to be God's Chosen People. This is not to say that the horrific way they acted was predictable, or even imaginable.</p>

<p>The three Abrahamic religions <em>are </em> tribal by origin. The (false) Aryan concept was tribal by design, but that does <em>not</em> make them all four the same.</p>

<p>And just in case, I want to make it scintillatingly clear that I am not a Nazi sympathizer, and in no way meant to equate them with their victims. Nor do I hold Leni R. in any kind of cultic adoration. For the record, I am of partial Jewish (Sephardic) ancestry.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Risk of steering..." ooops. Ran right off and hit the curb there!<br>

I look at Leni's life and work and just sadly shake my head at what I perceive to be a tremendous waste of talent. A lot of might-have-beens.<br>

I have a hard time weighing the OP's quote against where the topic has foundered. I don't see a lot of reclaimable 'good' in TotW.<br>

And for the record, I am an all-American mutt, of Scottish, French and German ancestry (my great grandfather fled Germany during the mid-19th century for New Orleans).</p>

<p>Moses led 12 tribes according to the Bible. Ethiopian Jews are presumably another, as are Chinese Jews and even New Mexico's hidden Hispanic Jews.<br>

<a href="http://www.haruth.com/JewsChina1907.html">http://www.haruth.com/JewsChina1907.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/12/ferry.htm">http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/12/ferry.htm</a></p>

<p>It's an urban legend that there are "three Abrahamic religions"...many more existed centuries ago as do today . One of the oldest Abrahmic religions, practiced routinely in temple, always carefully tolerated, is athiesm.</p>

<p>Hitler's enthusiasts adopted "aryan" for their own intellectually lazy purposes, ignorant even today of the origin of the term.</p>

<p>"Aryan" refers most accurately to a purported race that is thought to have moved to India from the Middle East or Eastern Europe... one disputed theory is that because they may have been "white" and were more organized militarily, they became India's ruling caste (but India's top caste is as often very black-skinned today). The Nazi affection for human stereotypes and intellectual laziness was enabled by the aspirations of academics, who avoided learning the fundamentals of tribal identitiy (Carl Jung was an exception). </p>

<p>Here's a thorough, well-written discussion of tribal identity. <a href="http://www.hiiraan.com/2005/july/op/Abdishakur_Jawhar_PartFive.htm">http://www.hiiraan.com/2005/july/op/Abdishakur_Jawhar_PartFive.htm</a></p>

<p>Regarding "war," that author generalizes the hideous Somali experience to his theory about tribal nature in general. Unfortunately his idea is unresearched: tribes in many unrelated cultures (eg American Indian, Melanisian, Polynesian) fought symbolic wars, as often for glory or kidnapping as for revenge..and they typically insulted or wounded, rarely if ever doing mass killings. American Plains Indians mostly "counted coup" by brazenly touching an enemy with a "coup stick" or by other non-deadly physical insult...Taking of women and children has always been a primary goal of warfare (horses later on). <br>

New Zealand's Maori famously do combat by making faces, insulting and striking fear rather than killing...after making faces they get physical. <br>

<a href="

Football (footie) is a near-perfect analogy to tribal warfare...by extreme contrast, modern military warfare has been fastidiously de-tribalized, encouraging Somali-style atrocities:<br>

<a href="http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/813820.html">http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/813820.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Tribalism of the "There can only be One" variety seldom results in consistent happy endings, but then, what does?""</p>

<p>Among the Rhwanda tribal groups, Hutsi and Tutsi, an estimated 1 million people were killed within a three month period. If it had continued it would have taken it's place, if it does not already, with the worst of the wars of Nations..</p>

<p>As I've pointed out before, bad English usage, the conflation of tribal identity with shallow notions of "tribalism" ("ism"=belief) highlights the root alibi for oppression and destruction of tribal societies globally. Custer, not unlike some of us, thought the people he hoped to slaughter were just people like himself, but "bad versions" who held to certain "isms" that should be wiped out.</p>

<p>That in Rwanda two groups identified by the media (ours and theirs) as "tribes" seems used on this thread to suggest their destruction. "Kill em', they ain't enlightened monoculture hillbillies like we-ums!" But are they really tribes, or have they long ago degenerated into groups that entirely lack tribal values? Maybe they have no more tribal identity than do soccer mobs.</p>

<p>Calley's recent Kiwanis Club statement might be a reminder of what happens when bland ignorance, like that of the media about Rwanda, like Custer's, and like that of Calley's masters (he was a scapegoat for two watching colonels) presumes to destroy tribal people on the vile theory that their identity is just an "ism," no more profound than a belief system.</p>

<p>Some will always be preoccupied with Leni R because of continuing Nazi fandom: It regularly recurs in fashion, movies and pop music, not to mention the everpresent theme of bikers and in gay bars.</p>

<p>“But are they really tribes, or have they long ago degenerated into groups that entirely lack tribal values? Maybe they have no more tribal identity than do soccer mobs.”</p>

<p>So, what are those tribal values/ tribal identity which turn the tribe into friendly helpful folk who just tap each other with sticks when they have a bit of a disagreement?</p>

<p>I would submit that the Native American tribes seldom came into conflict with each other in a meaningful way as they as they had rich natural resources. In addition they rarely or if ever had to mingle with each other and for the most lived separate existences, However, our knowledge of these tribes is very limited as there is little recorded history from Pre European conquest. I would suspect tribal conflict, look as the history of S. American tribes, would have been as bloody as anywhere else when empire building or resources were involved.</p>

<p> To truly understand tribes in this century the African tribes are the models to evaluate. In Europe the tribes now call themselves Nations, and if they are part of a Nation already, they would like to separate and have their own Nation. A classic understanding of this is to look at the break up of Yugoslavia and the bloody conflicts between the tribes who have now called themselves Nations. It has little to do with loosing the values of the tribe and a lot more to do with the racial identity of the tribe.</p>

<p>I tend to have more emotional intentions than I do value-laden intentions, so I don't necessarily think of my intentions as evil or good when making most photographs.</p>

<p>Often, though, my emotions simply go into a photo without my <em>intending</em> anything specific other than just to create or project an image born of those emotions . . . sometimes with the hope that that will move a viewer, though not necessarily move them to the same emotion I was having. The results I'd like are that the viewer feel something. I can't really control what that feeling will be though I can affect it and may visually suggest specifics to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the photo.</p>

<p>Sometimes, I do think about doing "good." When I created a slide show in June '08 of photos I took at San Francisco City Hall on the first day gay marriages were legal in California, I was very much emotionally moved by the events of the day and what I was capturing. But I also was thinking about "good." I thought at the time that what was occurring was a good thing. I intended, to an extent, to convey that. I have used the slide show to try and do some good in the world. I'm sure there are people who look at them and think "bad," not in terms of the quality of the photos but in terms of the message they are perceiving and the morality of it all.</p>

<p>When I used to sneak shots of people on the street, there was a bit of an adrenaline rush, some fear, some naughtiness, and I would think "bad" to myself. But I was and still am to some degree OK with that kind of "bad." I am attracted to the naughtiness of voyeurism sometimes. I got some good results, at least in the context of my very early and somewhat immature work. I'm sure some would find these exploitive in one way or another, especially if they knew they were stolen moments, though I'm not always sure you can tell, and might consider them morally "bad" for that reason.</p>

<p>I'm trying to think of an example where I ever shot something with what I considered a bad intention that I really was not OK with, but did it anyway. A photo that I knew was bad of me to take, like to hurt someone, make someone look particularly silly or put them in a bad light for my own selfish or malicious reasons. I can't right now. I will continue to think about that. Not being a saint, maybe I'll come up with something. I'd love to hear if anyone has done that and what kinds of results you got.</p>

<p>

<p>Hi Fred. In answer to your last paragraph. I can think of times that i took a photo with questionable intent. But that is my own projection, that many would share. I have taken graphic shots of the sex act and some horrible photos of natural body functions. My motivation varied from wanting to arouse to exploration of subject matter that many consider taboo. Sometimes i was motivated by the mere fact it was considered taboo. Is that bad? i did I learn from it. I have also intentionally waited for the moment that i thought was most revealing of a subject from my own skewed perspective. It often led to photos that the subject hated and considered it put them in a bad 'light'. I maybe succeeded in getting what i wanted but would sometimes agree that it made them look bad. It was my interpretation that guided me. It was not my intent to make them look bad. It wasn't. It was my intent to discover, explore and reveal something i saw.</p>

<p>In context of Laurents original questions "Which kind of intentions do we have when we make a photograph ? And how far from our intentions is the final result?" these taboo photos are minor examples of the larger picture. I take photos with the intent of pleasing myself and learning something significant about myself or the world i live in. Sometimes i do succeed. And the rare occasion that i hear someone make an observation about my work that it has either successfully communicated a shared response or inspired a completely unique response, i know that in that moment i have exceeded my selfish intent. My greatest intent, is to discover by using self reflection and instinct and skill to understand more than i bring to the table. The results, the single image, may not always reward but the process rarely fails to give back.</p>

</p>

<p>From my frame of reference, intentional cornball images are "bad." So are technically badly executed photographs, especially when done for others. </p>

<p> My wedding work (4 ) was all "bad" because I couldn't relate to what was going on and therefore didn't respect the B&G as much as they deserved. My ignorance was my evil. Ignorance is inherently evil if one has had the opportunity to be educated. </p>

<p>A photolab did an incredibly bad job with the last wedding: I learned how to scan and inkjet print in a marathon week-long badly done redo. My evil compounded the lab's: I should have sent the film to somebody competent.</p>

<p> In the late Sixties I did some fairly good "Robert Frank" images (I didn't know he existed) on Castro Street in SF...I periodically wonder if they're mere "street" or actually worthwhile. I've temporarily concluded that since I was photographing specific emotional states (sense of "lostness" by old residents) it wasn't bad...but by my current standards it was morally inferior because I didn't talk with the people and didn't give them prints.</p>

<p>Photography is heavily technical. It's not an ephemeral activity, even for photographers who can't print. Because it's technical, a moral value attaches to technical skill.</p>