Does photography steal the subject's soul?

[beeman458]

Sans permission, if it's not yours, then you're stealing.

 

I think there's an answer somewhere in that comment. A thought to ponder: In some folks zeal to "get the money shot" (paparazzi?) a certain insensitivity has generally risen it's ugly specter and this uglyness of insensitivity has spread to all forms of societal behavior, including getting the shot when the person in question doesn't feel comfortable with this action.

 

Emre, I'm not including you in my above as clearly in your statement you stated that you "...have no interest in taking pictures of people against their will,..."

 

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

 

Maybe a little bit of retaliation is in order on the part of the invaded and we'll see how well the photographer likes the consequenses of their uninvited action:) Hmmmmmmm!

 

As an example of the victim's thought process:

 

Take my pic without my permission and I get free reign to beat the living stuffings out of the photographer, with impunity.

 

Would that help teach the photographers to respect the individual's non-existant soul?

 

"Can someone explain?"

 

I think, in real terms, it's considered a form of personal space invasion and we need to rely more on our eyes (camera) and brain (storage/film) to make and keep some of our memories.

[janet cull]

Interesting and timely subject for me. I just returned from shooting in Guatemala. I spoke

with a young woman from Costa Rica last week. She said that in some of these countries

the people believe what you've said, about "stealing their soul".

 

After our discussion I was working on this print. One of our friends took along a Polaroid

camera to the medical clinics and photographed whomever wanted, then gave them the

image. It was great fun seeing the children enjoy that. I'm sure most of them had never

seen a picture of themselves. Mostly they were

delighted. But I snapped a picture of these women looking at their own images and their

expressions really made me wonder what they were thinking.

 

You know how it is when you've listened to someone's voice, maybe on the radio, and

pictured them in your mind? Then you see them and haven't you often been surprised? I

wondered what these women thought when they saw their own photographs.

 

My husband has a way of always making me feel really beautiful when I'm with him. I used

to hate seeing images of me. Now I just don't believe what I see in them, because he has

made me know that I *actually am* a beautiful woman. ;o)

 

But I wondered if seeing their images and comparing them to how they felt, or comparing

them to other women's images...well, if that somehow

didn't steal something from them? It made me wonder about the vanity of

"appearances".

 

Of course, they each have their own beauty as we all do. Learning to find and appreciate

that can take time, can't it? Just thinking about the complexities of who we are?

[janet cull]

Oops...forgot the picture.

[ray robertson]

Well, this is rather refreshing, to be able to have a vigorous debate which includes contentious subjects such as religion. On the Luminous Landscape, conversation there strives to be as civil as a group of photographers around a dinner table who know nothing about anything except photography.

 

Concepts such as the 'soul' and 'God' are really endlessly fascinating because there's not a scrap of solid evidence that they exist, yet millions of people appear to believe they do exist. This is surely a recipe for disaster in the affairs of humanity when people act and even stake their lives on the reality of such chimera.

 

On the other hand, I have to admit that my own fascination with photography has been boosted by the digital darkroom as a result of the facility of programs like Photoshop to manipulate 'reality'.

 

People have a tendency to believe what they see. Photoshop can demonstrate that what you see is an illusion, which strikes a chord within me. The old-fashioned notion that the camera never lies is proved to be total bunkum. In any case, long before the digital era, some photographers used 'trick' processes to demonstrate there really are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

 

The 'stealing the soul' and 'invasion of privacy' issue, whichever way you want to look at it, surely results from the fact that we all tend to develop a persona which we present to the world; a type of mask or protective coating or shield, which we hide behind.

 

Candid shots can be the most infuriating (for the subject) because the shields are often down. People do not want to be caught picking their nose, for example, unless they are Holywood actors, of course. There are always exceptions.

[ben conover]

Well said Raymond, I didn't want to spell it out so thanks for doing that. Thomas, please understand one thing only: there is no soul, that is my opinion, and I am entitled to that. Do not personalize this any further. Thankyou. I know that getting involved in these debates is useless since 88% of American users here beieve in God, and the soul, how sad.

 

To answer Emre's question, those people afraid of a camera stealing their soul are actually just totally ignorant, that is what they are thinking, and I think you know that too. Bye.

[beeman458]

"Thomas, please understand one thing only: there is no soul, that is my opinion, and I am entitled to that. Do not personalize this any further. Thankyou. I know that getting involved in these debates is useless since 88% of American users here beieve in God, and the soul, how sad."

 

Ben. That's a thoughtful request as you continue to personalize it by calling belivers, "sad" or "daft."

 

My photography reflects both my belief in a soul and a higher being, "God." These beliefs steer my photographic vision in a way that a secularist or Progressive-Humanist might never be able to understand. Should I eliminate this inspiration from my photography and my philosophical conversation to satisfy another for their convenience? I don't think that's right of anybody to ask just as I would never make this request of you nor would I think of calling your thought process either "daft" or "sad." There was no personalization as you made a statement and I only asked you to back it up. Seems fair enough.

 

You're welcome to believe folks are daft or sad but don't act surprised if these personalized comments to the negative, engender a reasonable response for as believers, we're neither "daft" nor "sad."

 

It's called respect which is what this thread is about, respecting a person's request, "not" to be photographed, for what ever reason and this seems to be a hard concept for some folks to wrap their think around. If a person says "No!", you respect their privacy. You don't go about denigrating them by calling them names and continue "taking" picture or getting "captures."

 

Think about the terms used for photography, maybe there's a bit of truth to the comment as in "taking" the shot without permission, it's clearly an invasionary behavior as we all have the right to our unguarded moments. But there are some who think this invasionary behavior is fair game when it's clearly unappreciated. Hence the need to sneek around while acting out this need to thieve an image. If it was a legitimate form, then there would be no threat to the person, should they be discovered acting out this "Peeping Tom" behavior. When the act of being discovered might cause one to "fear" for their safety, then should give one a clue as to the violation they're perpetrating. Not very hard to understand.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4156233

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/evans/evans_subway2.html

 

I would hope folks would think about these things and the unintended or intended consequenses, photographically speaking, a bit more then making it just about themselves, (egocentricity,) and what it is that they want the next time they go out to make "people" photographs.

[ben conover]

I am entitled to believe that there is no soul, prove me wrong.

[mubeen_mughal]

Ben, because 'you' do not "believe" in the existence of a soul, should that belief allow you to be insensitive towards those who do believe in a soul?

 

As for the proof, neither position can be proved or disproved, that's why both propositions rely on faith, and that is what a belief is.

 

So I suppose this thread has a 'soul' of it's own.

[ramiro]

Main Entry: soul

Pronunciation: 'sOl

Function: noun

 

Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English sAwol;

akin to Old High German sEula soul

 

1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating

cause of an individual life

 

2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all

rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b

 

3 : a person's total self

 

4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : LEADER

 

5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings

b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment

c : spiritual or moral force : FERVOR

 

6 : PERSON

 

7 : EXEMPLIFICATION, PERSONIFICATION <she is the soul of integrity>

 

8 a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and

emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American

performers

 

b : NEGRITUDE c : SOUL MUSIC d : SOUL FOOD e : SOUL BROTHER

[ramiro]

the above is ... from merriam-webster online

[ben conover]

It seems useless to explain this simple matter to people who are in themselves unable to change, to see the fallacy they create. Throw your dictionaries and bibles at each other, burn a nations oil and then tell me there is a soul. American definitions of olde Englishe words are not my interest. I like photography, not dictionaries.

 

Did Steve Mc Curry steal the soul of the Afghan girl? No, but it made him famous, and it gave her an iris identification test some years later.

[beeman458]

"I am entitled to believe that there is no soul, prove me wrong."

 

And so are those who see the light of day different then you and we'll let you reciprocate in kind.

 

Wishing you well with your "beliefs" and your photographic experiences and the respecting of one's privacy in regard to photographically stealing their soul.

[smedly64]

This may be a bit off the line of the question, but I generaly believe that messing with the subject is a no no. We may not steal the soul but we may have a resposibility to capture the real moment.

I think many times we rig the picture to our view. ergo we recreate the soul in our oun image. Not so much thief as remakeing the soul in our oun image.

[ray robertson]

..."I am entitled to believe that there is no soul, prove me wrong."...

 

Ben,

Although I can sympathise with the atheistic leanings of a kindred spirit, you must be careful not to fall into the same trap as some religious folk, ie. asserting the truth of matters that cannot possibly be known.

 

The atheist is sometimes described as a fool because he/she cannot possibly 'know' that an entity (such as a soul) does not exist. This is a vast universe.

 

I feel uncomfortable with the view that atheism is a belief system, so I therefore make a distinction between 'not believing' and 'and believing it is not so'. I do not believe that 'something' is true if I think the evidence is not sufficient to support it, but I do not therefore, as a consequence of the lack of sound evidence, believe it is not true. To put it another way, I prefer my beliefs (whatever they are) to be based on evidence, not lack of it.

 

Ramiro's short list of definitions gives a clue as to the nature of the problem. Words like 'soul' are simply not scientific words. They are metaphors for something nebulous. They are so broad and imprecise you could have almost as many definitions as there are people.

 

Take my use of the word 'spirit' in my first sentence, ..'atheistic leanings of a kindred spirit'.. Is that an oxymoron? I think so. But you understand what I mean, don't you.

[john bond]

I think that we should stop beating up on Ben and simply all agree that he

does not have a soul. But, lets give him some credit. At least he is not a true

nihilist. He does acknowledge similarly intangible concepts such as privacy

and upon looking at his long list of contributions to the various forums, would

seem to assert notions of aesthetics in photography, also similarly intangible.

And, even if it has nothing to do with photography, he seems quite passionate

about the president and the war in Iraq- perhaps proving that he does, in fact

have a soul after all.

 

But, I am waiting for a true nihilist to enter the discussion. That is, someone

who not only denies the existence of a soul, but goes on to deny the

existence of privacy or any moral or ethical standards that pertain to

photography. No vulgarity, no obscenity, no pornography. Someone who

also would claim that aesthetics do not exist, but are simply imaginary

notions in the eye of the beholder. Nothing ugly, nothing plain or boring or

uninteresting. And likewise, nothing of beauty and certainly absent a soul or

spirit, nothing inspring. Nothing.

 

After all, in the same way that there is only life and death as Ben says, such a

nihilist would consider a photograph only a piece of paper with silver or

pigment on its surface, nothing more, nothing less. And if someone were to

say that a photograph is something to fear or something to value or is

beautiful or ugly or offensive in some way, they are just as daft as if they

believed in a soul. If such a nihilist is out there, please, stand up and let us

hear what you have to say. If not, then maybe, we can agree that we are all a

little irrational in our beliefs and not be so arrogant to insult someone whose

beliefs are different.

[bill_thorlin]

Agnosticism anyone ?

[beeman458]

"After all, in the same way that there is only life and death as Ben says, such a nihilist would consider a photograph only a piece of paper with silver or pigment on its surface, nothing more, nothing less."

 

Sensing the bias in your comments ("... as Ben says",...) only if you call off the moderator and the expectation of intellectual maturity to prevail can such an open discussion, as you propose, be forth coming.

 

It seems that the point of the thread, "In fact, I have no idea what these people are thinking. Can someone explain?"; the respecting of one's beliefs has been lost.

 

Has anyone taken the time to talk to the folks who hold these feelings of having their "soul" stolen and why they think the way they do? It seems at this point, their feelings on the matter are not being considered cause some consider them "daft." Arrogance? I'm sure if folks took the time to ask and understand, both parties would be able to move forward in a positive manner. But sans taking the "victim's" feelings into consideration, you'll only have ignorance on the part of the photographer and and rightfully, an uncooperative subject matter.

 

What a concept, considering others, other then yourself.

[ben conover]

Ok Thomas, just for you here is an example of capacity for emapthic and respectful thought towards the photographic subject. I ask my step-father to pose for me so I can try out my new Rolleicord 5, he starts an anti German spiel about the fancy writing on the front of my camera, muttering Zeiss Shzcmeisssss etc... I am shocked. I use the situation to diffuse his tense feeling by siding with him tempoarirly. He smiles, I get the shot....

So I did not steal his soul but I stole his smile, since it was otherwise not to be forthcoming! I have asked to photograph the local people here in Ireland, they are very religious and old fashioned. I managed to grab a few shots because I smiled and was polite, that was enough for them, and for me. However, when photographing people of forgotten tribes in forests deep in the Amazon, I would (love to) be more careful not to steal their souls, since that is their belief system.

 

Thomas, I may respect a people greatly but I still retain the right to use the term 'daft', considering it to be of an affectionate nature anyway. My pet dog looks daft but he is adorable, since you love your dictionary logic. My girlfriend looks daft but she is beautiful. Oh and by the way, when considering others and one's self, consider this: the correct spelling is 'than'.

 

John Andrews, I agree with you about messing with the subject. I feel that Steve Mc Curry and many National Geographic photographers have done that. In one case the lost 'soul' of a dead elephant was laid bare when a photographer posed native African hunters with a trophy tusk, their spiritual reward for living with nature. Unfortunately for the photographer and National Geo. one very clever reader sent a letter in pointing out rightly that the elephant tusk was indeed not a trophy or fair reward, and that the photo was a hoax. Proof being the museum's serial number stamped on the tusk.....

 

Raymond Robertson, I understand and agree with you. Einstein was not a fool, nor is/was? Bobby Fischer, yet they both believed in God....I totaly agree that there is much metaphor and that can often seem nebulous. Yep, I understand your oxymoron. I think it is a very good example too.

 

Thanks John Bond, I understand some of our irrational beliefs....

[beeman458]

1. Mad; crazy.

2. Foolish; stupid.

3. Scots. Frolicsome.

 

Yes, considering either of the first two categories of general usage is not always a way to endear one and show respect towards another's feelings, one might consider the meaning before the usage. I'm sure your girlfriend won't mind you publically calling her daft. Have you shown her this missive of your's where you call her both beautiful yet looking (stupid) daft? I submit, one should consider the consequences of this sort of written behavior:)

 

"Oh and by the way, when considering others and one's self, consider this: the correct spelling is 'than'."

 

I love it when someone goes anal on me for the purpose of a public dig as I find it to be a backhanded compliment in that the only thing they can write in frustration, glaringly highlighting their inner thoughts in the process, is a usage correction.

 

Just for the record, the spelling of "then" was correct, it was the usage which was in error:) Thanks for the ironic laughLOL

[mubeen_mughal]

I suppose the Nihilist is 'as' entitled to his/her views as much as anyone else is.

 

We take refuge in the "isms" that we feel comforted by, yet we are all the same even after having enlisted the support of our respective "ism".

[nicola_herbertson]

What if "they" are right and photography does steal the subject's soul?

 

20 odd years ago whilst backpacking overland to Tibet, I travelled with a couple who had a camera with a lens that enabled them to take photographs of subjects who were positioned at right angles to the direction that the lens was pointing in. One of the two would "pose" for a picture in a position that enabled the photographer to take a "sensitive" photo of onlookers, who were none the wiser (or so the couple thought) that they in fact were the subjects of the picture.

 

I am sure that they did get some fantastic pictures but I couldnt help feeling distinctly uneasy that this was stealing and disrespectful. I have never forgotten this, nor the look I got when I caught the eye of one such "unsuspecting" onlooker.

 

Coincidently, I have just written a poem for a workshop about this incident, in which I try to write from the perspective of the subject and try to explore why they feel the way they do...

 

Blue poppies of Tibet

 

You thought I had not noticed:

Your quick angles and mirrors,

Deceitful accomplices of the shutter,

Snatched at my soul

Greedily engorging

Keepsakes of your superiority.

 

I see through your lens, flash pheasant:

Clucking at your ingenuity,

You crow about sensitivity

Oblivious to my spirit

Flapping, like a bewildered prayer flag,

On this hollow leather bound plateau

 

I gaze reproachfully from your paper prison:

Beyond the mourning sky

The bearded vulture melts, famished,

Into the mountain glaciers

As blue poppies on the higher plain

Are trampled into the dust

[beeman458]

"What if "they" are right and photography does steal the subject's soul?"

 

You can be sure that they won't do the right thing and release that what doesn't belong to them.

 

Nice poem and observations.

[ray robertson]

..."What if "they" are right and photography does steal the subject's soul?"....

 

Well, Nicola, in that case you might have left a trail of dying, dead or zombie-like creatures on your travels in the East.

 

If we use the first definition of 'soul' on Ramiro's list, (ie. the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life) then I'm afraid you are in deep trouble. I don't see how anyone can continue to live if his/her animating principle and actuating cause of life has been stolen.

 

But you seem such a nice, sensitive person, I don't want you to worry too much about this. I have photographed Tibetan monks in Nepal who seemed to be thrilled to bits to have their photo taken.

[nicola_herbertson]

Thomas, an interesting point - if one believes, or accepts, that a photograph could capture the soul, or part of it (through a process which may or may not be consensual) , can it be released by destroying the image or is the soul lost or changed forever?

 

Raymond, as someone who seems to subscribe to the deterministic view of the world, what evidence do you have that it is not possible to live without a soul or part of it?

I have come across some rather soulless people from time to time and I certainly look with admiration at people who survive in spite seemingly irreparable damage to their animating principle/actuating cause of life, not least their environment - and that was one of the points I was trying to make in the poem.

 

I am touched by your final paragraph and I will heed your wise advice not to worry about all this soul stealing stuff too much.

[ray robertson]

..."Raymond, as someone who seems to subscribe to the deterministic view of the world, what evidence do you have that it is not possible to live without a soul or part of it?"....

 

None whatsoever, Nicola. Relax! I was just trying to be humorous.