Does photography steal the subject's soul?

[byronlawrence]

I was going to write something similar to that.

[emre]

Yes, maybe Marc had the best answer: "I hope so!"

 

Allen: Bequia is an island belonging to the state of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Rather secluded, even in the context of Caribbean islands. I will post some pictures in due time.

 

Ilkka & Mubeen: I am trying to look at it from their perspective. Assuming that a soul exists, how can it be captured with a camera? Am I to believe that their soul has migrated to the camera, or is it a duplication? Is the capturing result binary, or is it a matter of degree; e.g., does fine grain film capture the soul better? What if you misjudge the exposure and do not clearly record the person being captured? What if you take a picture of only a part of their body? What do they do about surveillance cameras? Even when I start from their assumptions, I can not reach their conclusion. Their position seems to be inconsistent.

[h._p.]

Yes, Emre, people who believe in souls *do* tend to have inconsistent positions.

[mubeen_mughal]

Emre, ok. I see where you are coming from. I think it's about "belief" and "consent". Because they believe that they have a soul, and that it can be stolen by capuring, entrapping, and stealing it, by photographing it, thus they will not consent.

[mubeen_mughal]

H.P. does that mean that people who do not believe in souls believe that they are consistent?

[byronlawrence]

I never thought of whether or not I have a soul. I have a spirit, you know, the idea of existence. but a soul is a different thing ,, maybe the character of a being. (these are my definitions).

 

anyway I believe I am consistent in my being. but I don't believe a photo will steal my soul or spirit. I think a photo will preserve my spirit, and maybe a good photo will capture my soul, but that doesn't mean I will not still have more soul left. then of course maybe photography does steal your soul because .. say look at models.. are they souless? some would say yes. :).

 

of course this all changes when you change your definitions.. that is semantics for you.

 

you could say a soul and spirit are one and the same and that it is a spiritual thing that you loose when you die (loss of these at death is something that fits my previously stated definition). if you use this definition, then no, you don't steal persons soul when you photograph them.

 

it all really depends on your definition of soul or spirit.

 

really though it all boils down to whether you have consent or not. they say no, and you respect that, then it is all good. why they say no really doesn't make a difference.

 

how about that for some mumbo jumbo (a word that doesn't change it's meaning much)

[byronlawrence]

another thing.

 

the reason you cannot reach their conclusion is because you understand in your mind 'what' a camera does, and how it works. for people who beleive in magic and souls and other things like that, the idea that the relected light from them bent through glass to strike and cause chemical/physical reactions which are then recorded and processed to make an image is usually beyond their knowledge base. it is then left to you to respect that or if you feel you need, educate the subject. Ask them if you wonder that much. you may end up converting to their beliefs. BTW. I have posted a link to another system of beliefs.

 

http://www.venganza.org/

[mubeen_mughal]

Bryon wrote - "...you may end up converting to their beliefs...", I really like that line.

[d. light]

I thought this is the virture of an artist: to recognise a glimpse of the soul, to sense the divine spark in the mechanical stream of life.

 

But believing the camera is able to 'catch' the soul documents that people dont think very noble about their own soul or whatever they may call soul.

It is intellectual, religious dogma and the vital that tries to shape the immortal in its own way and as a consequence of this, makes it disposable to outer forces, be it as harmless as a camera or other more powerful forces.

[mubeen_mughal]

Bernd - Its all cultural.

 

You "believe" that "the virture of an artist: to recognise a glimpse of the soul, to sense the divine spark in the mechanical stream of life", yet artists in different cultures believe differently and thus were/are motivated differently.

[d. light]

Yes and no, they gave it different names and faces, but the driving force inside was always heading toward the same question- who am I? -I as an individual, or I as someone who identifies with a broader reality.

[byronlawrence]

FSM?

 

what is 'the immortal',, the soul? if so may I boil your sentence down to, 'the soul may be affected by outer forces, however small, even cameras, because of intellectual and religious dogma and the vital'?, that last sentence is very hard to follow, what is 'the vital'. you need (I think) to define what your definitions are so that we (or at least I) can understand your statement, or else it will remain an excellent display of profoundly vague logorrheic semantics. (dat dar is my college edumakashun)

 

I think a good artist should have the viture of capturing and portreying a part of a soul/spirit/moment in time that is interesting, for others to veiw, not just have the ability to glimpse it. Many people I feel can glimpse this, it is a part of recognizing art,, MAYBE.

[byronlawrence]

also your statement "But believing the camera is able to 'catch' the soul documents that people dont think very noble about their own soul or whatever they may call soul"... do you beleive your soul stays with you after death, too? and hence 'the immortal'?. there are many cultures that believe there soul can be taken.

 

what religion do you practice?

[d. light]

Byron,

I do believe that the soul as an aspect of the Immortal (God) is beyond the form that it has taken here on earth. It is our mind and vital life nature that tries to define what our soul is. When someone believes that the soul can be caught by a camera, then it shows that this person doesnt have a lot of confidence into the power of the soul. Why? Because this person has fixed his/her ideas about the soul to a very narrow view of reality. In consequence, for this person, the soul becomes vulnerable to outside forces (even a camera).

 

I hope this clarifies the above.

[huntrbll]

Of course a photograph doesn't steal a person's soul...if such a thing even exists. It's just a matter of cultural perspective. "We" tend to look down at such primitive beliefs.

 

But consider for a moment if a truly intelligent being from another planet visited us and first landed in a "modern" US city. They would observe men who scrape the hair off their faces. Men and women who adorn their bodies permanently with "art" (tattoos) of everything from skulls, to names to tribal images. Men and women who poke holes in various parts of their bodies to adorn themselves with shiny bits of metal and rock. Women wearing shoes with four inch heals and most women who "paint" their faces.

 

I think all of mankind still has one foot in the cave, cautiously peering around the stone wall.....

[ken_hughes4]

does poloroid steal your soul instantly? what about 1 hour photo labs or digital?

[Brian]

<P>There's a nice scene in that otherwise banal film "Crocodile Dundee" where the American journalist is trying to take a photo of an Australian aborigine and he says: "You can't take my picture!"</P> <P>She replies: "Oh, do you believe the photo will steal your soul?"</P> <P>And he responds: "No, you still got the lens cap on!"</P>

[mubeen_mughal]

Emre: You originally wrote - "...I have no idea what these people are thinking..."

 

I think it may be that they "feel" the act of photographing them is an intent of (derision) "ridiculing" them and their circumstances.

 

I remember a few years ago, I was on holiday in Mombasa, at the Coast of Kenya, and I was trying to take a shot of a man on the street with a hand-card. He said, no photos please. I asked him why, he said "if they are to laugh at then no, but if the photos are not for laughing at then you can".

 

If I were to walk over towards you (and we are total strangers), and then I said do you mind if I take your photo?, how would "you" react?

[bill_thorlin]

Mubeen - links in pretty closely to what I said.

[john falkenstine]

Ken poses an excellent question about the speed at which a soul can be stolen. This would make excellent material for right wing Christian nutcases. But this I realize, is one reason why Polaroid cameras tend to be so much larger than other normal cameras. They have to have "soul capacity" in much larger volume. It also explains why they cant be found so cheaply in thrift stores and why they stop working far more quicker then other cameras. They are clogged up.

[h._p.]

...hence using a Minox sub-mini permits the theft of only very small fractions of soul and is thus more theologically friendly.

[bill_thorlin]

This thread has become soul-less.

[john bond]

An interesting aside from the concept of a camera stealing someone's soul is

the notion of the evil eye. This, too, persists in a number of cultures and

probably many of the same cultures where there are fears of photographs.

The notion of the evil eye has roots in the misonception that a person's

vision originates from the eye. Rather than light entering the eye, the eye

emits some mysterious force on the object being viewed. The so called evil

eye is s a diseased or malformed eye that may cause bad fortune on

whomever the person with such an eye looks at. It is kind of amusing to me,

and I think somewhat paradoxical, that people in these cultures might view

the physics of a camera in just the opposite way from their eyes. That is, a

camera captures something from the person being photographed rather than

emitting the mysterious force ascribe to vision. I expect that this has a lot to do

with the fact that the result of having a picture taken is a concrete

representation of a person's likeness whereas, there is no similar concrete

representation when a person looks at someone else. But then again, maybe

they are consistent and perhaps their fear is not that something is being taken

away from them, but that the camera is emitting some noxious or offensive

force upon them.

[beeman458]

It's probably simpler then all that in that someone told them to think that way and it's been that way ever since.

 

Life's usually simpler then folks allow it to be cause making things complicated gives them purpose.

[vesam1]

This subject pops up form time to time. This time I wanted to contribute an answer / though and see what sticks...

 

As with terminology it is not always easy to remember that in Caribbean culture the concept of soul can be quite different from the one coming form christian western background. (As some times you can read suggestions how to prove that they are wrong by taking a photo: "here you see it did not go away" or "now as I have it I'll take few more photos"). Thus forcing that sort of belief in to more familiar framework does not neccessarily exlain much. (Well, maybe this did not explain it either but hpefully the next thought).

 

Maybe the soul stealing superstitions build up in a similar that we some times relate to photos in extreme cases. For example being afraid that a child molester takes a photo of a child in school concert: him having the photo does not actually hurt the subject but the thought is still very unpleasant. (Naturally it can be reassoned that the photo can lead to something more serious later on, which I don't deny at all, but the first emotional response is not connected to that logic).

 

Perhaps there wold be a better and less disturbing example: if my co worker would take a photo of me and use it as a darts target I would not be too happy. If I would not know he does so it would not hurt me at all. Hearing whats going on with my photo and darts would make me feel very uneasy even though its not at least physical threat to me (working with him would propably not be a bliss after that though).

 

So, I'm not saying these people are afraid that you would use their photos to play darts, but thats an example on how in western cultures we (or maybe just I?) sometimes feel that a photo can give some sort of control over a person, even when not publicized.