Does photography steal the subject's soul?

[john bond]

Vesa, i appreciate your comments. It occurs to me that there may be similar

ideas in western, Judeo- Christian beliefs. One only has two look at the

second commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any

likeness of what is in heaven above or earth beneath or in the water under the

earth...."

 

Yes I have taken this slightly out of context. Obviously, the point is that we

should not worship these various likenesses. On the other hand, how we

regard the likenesses that we create and what we do with them is important

or even, perhaps, sacred and I do not think that is unreasonable for a

person to be concerned about how an image of themselves is regarded and

what is later done with that image.

 

Presently, we hear a lot about privacy. On the one hand, proper legal advice

suggests obtaining a signed release when taking a picture of someone if we

wish to use that image in various ways seemingly dictating that we respect

their privacy. However, we also have a first ammendment which seems to

allow the press, the paparozzi or who knows who else to photograph anything

that they may want regardless of how that image may be later used or

abused. I do not think that it is appropriate to reduce the beliefs of someone

in non western culture to mear superstition. Pesonally, I may not believe that

someone is stealing my soul if they take my picture, but I can certainly

understand that I might not want a perfect stranger from some other culture to

take my picture simply because I am a private person and I wish my privacy

preserved. And as I think about it, I am not so sure that my soul and my

privacy are not very closley related to each other. Doesn't privacy involve

protecting something that is deeply personal and intended only for our own

personal benefit and not for the benefit of someone else? Doesn't a person's

soul represent something that is no less private than anything else that we

may consider private? I realize that the motive of the photographer is

important here, but who is to say just what we take away from a person when

we take their picture and display to others?

[ray robertson]

I suppose any discussion involving the concept of a soul must gravitate towards religion and belief systems. My own view is that, irrespective of matters of reason and logic, the 'facts' of the matter or whether or not something is 'true' by consensus of opinion of one or more particular groups, a 'belief' that something is true can have a powerful effect on any individual who subscribes to that belief.

 

In my own case, I suscribe to the view that taking regular doses of Vitamin C keeps me free of colds and flu, despite the fact that many scientific reports tend to indicate there's no evidence to support this. I'm quite happy to be in error in this respect because my belief in Vitamin C seems to work. I don't care too much whether it's a bio-chemical process stimulated by the intake of ascorbic acid that's keeping me free of colds, or a psycho-biological process resulting from a belief (the placebo effect).

 

In aboriginal culture in Australia there's a ritual of 'bone-pointing' whereby a kangaroo bone is pointed at an enemy and can 'apparently' result in the death of the recipient through a process of gradual disintegration. There appear to be recorded incidents of this process occurring, defying all medical explanations. On the other hand, there are skeptics and the truth of the matter is always difficult to reach. People always like to elaborate and embellish matters for dramatic effect.

 

My first confrontation with this belief that a photograph can 'steal one's soul' (or belief to that effect, however it may be described) was as a young man visiting Turkey. I was in Istanbul, photographing everything because it was different. On one occasion, I saw an old man tottering down a steep, narrow lane carrying an enormous load of furniture. I marvelled at how he could carry all that. I thought to myself, 'I'll wait until he gets a bit closer then I'll jump out in front of him and take a shot". I did. Boy! Was he angry! He came charging after me with this heavy load on his back. I quickly got out of his way and disappeared down another alley.

 

I was certainly surprised, a bit ashamed of myself for antagonising one of the locals, but arrogant enough to dismiss the old man's concerns as pure foolishness. A bit insensitive of me, but that's youth I guess.

[beeman458]

I guess nobody, in real terms, wants to be thought of as an anomaly worthy of being photographed.

[Mary Doo]

"I have no idea what these people are thinking. Can someone explain?"

 

Just curious: How many here enjoy having their images taken by strangers? I surely don't. That explains it.

[david_fields1]

"....stealing the subject's(one's) soul"

Translation: Violating the "sublects"(one's) boundries.

[ray robertson]

...I guess nobody, in real terms, wants to be thought of as an anomaly worthy of being photographed.".....

 

I don't understand that comment at all, Thomas. Nobody? People in the West are continually striving to be different, to be innovative, unusual, noteworthy. Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!

[mike dixon]

<I>I guess nobody, in real terms, wants to be thought of as an anomaly worthy of being photographed.</i><P>

Why would a person have to be an anomaly to be worth photographing?

[beeman458]

"People in the West are continually striving to be different, to be innovative, unusual, noteworthy. Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!"

 

We were originally talking about the third world here, not Hollywood.

 

That aside, who among us want to be known as a "freak/anomaly," worthy of being photographed as such?

 

Anomaly: (Dictionary.com)

 

"One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify:"

 

----------------------------

 

Mike.

 

"Why would a person have to be an anomaly to be worth photographing?"

 

Gee Mike, I haven't a clue.

 

Have we forgotten Lisette Model

 

http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/lisettemodel.htm

 

and Diane Arbus's efforts so soon?

 

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa110600a.htm

 

There are those who put themselves out there intentionally to be noticed (photographed) and there's those who don't wish to be noticed. And you'll find the answer to your question quite easily in the middle.

[ben conover]

Firstly, there is no soul, there is only life and death, photography steals nothing. People who believe otherwise are mistaken and that is their problem not mine. Taking photos of people without consent will always make for problems whatever or wherever. People who have beleif in the soul are simply mistaken. I once told a psychologist neighbour friend that I had no soul, despite his intelligence he was visibly shaken, he is daft.

[d. light]

"Firstly, there is no soul, there is only life and death, photography steals nothing. People who believe otherwise are mistaken and that is their problem not mine."

 

..... this is a truely inspiring comment. Amazingly creative and deep. Thanks so much for sharing your brilliant insights.

[ben conover]

I understand your sarcasm, however I did answer the question accurately, and with a degree of creativity and insight.

 

If 88% of Americans beleive in God and only 12% in Darwin, then it is no wonder that G.W. Bush can Justify his greed for oil because 'God told him to do it'. He killed 300,000 'souls' for oil.

 

The facts are simple and I believe in stating what I believe.

I would also like to add that I love to take photos of people

and if they require me to pay them I will, if they complain their soul is being taken I will not take a shot. Of course it makes no difference, because there is no soul, but if people must believe in all that, let them. They have no wish to understand the camera, then let them remain ignorant. Cheers.

[beeman458]

"Of course it makes no difference, because there is no soul,..."

 

And your proof of this point is?

 

"...photography steals nothing."

 

So nobody has been sued, successfully, many, many times, for invading a person's privacy? Could privacy be the "soul" that folks are worried about having stolen?

[ben conover]

Privacy is not a soul, Thomas. I was merely trying to simplify the meaning of the word soul, and since I believe in no such thing I made my position clear. However privacy is of course a real subject which people as you rightly pointed out, often disregard.

 

Cheers.

[d. light]

Since this is the philosophy forum, kindly tolerate: I cant help myself but have to say that people honestly stating there is only life and death must be caught in utter stupidity. This is not a religious question. Even a pure materialist has to agree that life and death can not be experienced as such without a third party being involved. Otherwise, life would forget about itself in its own existance and death would not have its name.

[mubeen_mughal]

In the context of this thread, could we take "soul" to mean 'dignity' or 'respect'?

 

Or shall we just percieve the old woman to be a dumb-brute because of her "primitive" beliefs?

 

Especially because she is being reactive rather than pro-active?

[ben conover]

I tolerate your views of course as you tolerate mine. Does Bush tolerate? Do you vote for that idiot? Do you seriously believe that there is anything else responsible for depressing a shutter realse other than your neurons? There is quite simply no soul, it is fact.

Soul is merely a word, as is God in all it's many terrible guises.

 

''Caught in utter stupidity'' Not me pal, sorry.

 

''Even a pure materialist has to agree''.... with what? with you?

 

''Third party''....? are you kidding? there is me, my camera, and yes, my lens! Me is one party, the whole shebang, the gestalt, call it what you like, I am a human, same as you pal!

 

Perhaps if Emre asked the proverbial 'old lady of the village' what she thought her soul was we'd know what she thought, and?

 

Cheers.

[ben conover]

I think the wise old lady of the village should explain that one, it is not possible to know what she considers her soul to be otherwise, all else seems speculative and disrespectful to said old lady.

[ben conover]

''would a painting also be taboo?''

 

Well I guess painting has been around since we lived in caves so maybe not, but you never know. Perhaps if your painting was not to the subjects liking you would receive a swift blow to the head, or perhaps conversely if you made the subject very happy with your painting you could end up married to the tribe.

 

I guess using a stealthy rangefinder might help, then work from the print with the paints, offer your work and see what they say....

[d. light]

Ben, maybe you like to cool down a bit now, wont you?

Why this fixation on Bush?

You said: "Soul is merely a word". Yet it is a word, but it is quite a haunting one, isn't it? Even if it doesn't exist, as you said, then let us cheer the fellow who put this rumour into the world, for I would like to thank him a millon times to take away that intense boredom that conventional, wordly wisdom is pervading.

[ben conover]

Loved that one! but I disagree and I 'believe' that digital cameras are the work of Satan and most likely will lead your 'soul' to eternal damnation, if not worse.....digital backs are even worse....

 

Only with the purity of film does the soul survive....

[ben conover]

Bernd, I'm cool. I have no fixations, however I believe that words have been used to keep people in power for far too long. Peace.

[d. light]

"In the context of this thread, could we take "soul" to mean 'dignity' or 'respect'?"

 

.. that is a very good definition and quite more meaningful than it appears on first sight. But again the question was concerning the believ that the soul as an entity is harmed by a photograph.

[Allen Herbert]

And i sold my soul to the company store.

 

That's where most end up if they are lucky...otherwise they starve to death...one every few seconds so i'm led to believe.

 

Of course there's always the lucky.

[d. light]

Now without soul?

[beeman458]

I wrote:

 

"Could privacy be the "soul" that folks are worried about having stolen?"

 

---------------------------------

 

Ben wrote:

 

"Privacy is not a soul, Thomas. I was merely trying to simplify the meaning of the word soul, and since I believe in no such thing I made my position clear."

 

A-N-A-L-O-G-Y:)

 

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

 

-----------------------

 

Ben? Should I consider you in the same light as you consider those who believe being as you have no proof and it's your belief? Would that be nice? You also made it clear that "The facts are simple and I believe in stating what I believe." See how that works:) Your belief system is no more valid then any other as it's "...what I BELIEVE."

 

Either which way, the person's privacy is being invaded and it seems that some, rightfully, don't like it. Seems that it's the photographers who are the ones doing the stumbling around here.

 

My images are sans people for a reason and this unwillingness to violate people's space is the reason. If a person is going to be the subject of a image, then their permission should be given, prior to the image being captured. But that's only "my opinion."

 

I'll let you hash out the morals of newsworthy photography.