Does photography steal the subject's soul?

[ray robertson]

John Bond wrote:-

 

..."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."...

 

There seems to be a fundamental flaw in Nihilism which presents an insurmountable difficulty. If there are no moral or ethical standards, no absolute truths etc., then there are also no philosophical tenets such as Nihilism (that are true).

 

However, I don't have the same difficulty with the view that nothing exists outside of the mind or imagination. A photograph consists of a bunch of chemicals and inkjet dots. It has no meaning other than what we (I, you, anyone, any creature) confer upon it.

 

I recall a conversation I had years ago with an American hippie, a temporary companion whilst travelling through India. He started off with the proposition that nothing exists outside the mind, a novel idea for me at the time. After a bit of resistance and argumentation on my part, he conceded that 'matter' as a bunch of atoms and molecules does exist independently of the mind and that it's just our interpretation of the material shapes and forms we perceive that exists only in the mind. Now that seems to me a rather complicated way of stating the obvious. An interpretation of a photograph as just a bunch of chemicals is an interpretation that exists in the mind. An atom doesn't know that it's an atom. A statement that nothing exists outside the mind could be true.

[byronlawrence]

first.

 

the original question was not 'does a soul exist'. the question asked what the people who thought that photos steal their soul think.

 

this take in at least one assumptions; that a soul exists. whether or not it does in reality makes NO difference, because the subject of the question beleives in the soul.

 

Every one knows that many people have plain beliefs. nothing crazy nothing complicated. they just believe. so if they think that photography will steal the soul then that is what they think, and if you disagree, or try to empathize, you are the ignorant one if you cannot see their point of view. you are then left with two choices if they say no: first take the picture, and second, don't.

 

if you are the kind to say "OH, look at the ignorant anomaly! I want to take the picture, I will do so anyway because they are dumb and don't know better", and you take the picture,, whatever your reasons; you are then the ignorant problem that makes this world a pain to live in. you lack respect. somebody should take your picture.

 

if you say " Ok, I will not take the picture, they have their beliefs." then you made the decision to respect their wishes.. whether you believe in the reasoning or not... again maybe somebody should take your picture.

 

NOW.

 

since the debate on whether a soul 'exists' or not had arisen. I feel I MUST take part... like good dancing or a great party.. you just gotta have fun. it is a spiritual experience :)

 

To simply state that a soul doesn't exist is the utmost in ignorance. you cannot prove that a spiritual soul exists any more than you can prove that it doesn't. Most science for that matter has not been 'proved'. but before you even start to debate what a soul is and whether it exists you first have to define it. you simply can't say 'as soul doesn't exist', without defining what you mean by soul, or else it is like saying 'it doesn't exist'... yea sure sounds good, you can't be wrong.. but you also can't be right.

 

For the sake of argument/debate lets take the definition offered from dictionary.com 

 

soul (s l)

n.

 

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

 

With this definition I would say no. a camera doesn?t steal the soul, or else the camera would kill. One could argue that the camera does however capture an essence of this.

 

2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

 

With this definition? same as above I would also say not I don?t think the camera steals the soul. Because.. it is inseparable. As argued above this is a noble belief in the soul. Some cultures believe this essence is separable from the body even in life. These people can probably view the camera as a tool of implementation of this belief.

 

3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human.

Well only dead people have this so the camera probably cannot capture this. Really this definition seems to be an extension of the previous.

 

4. A human: ?the homes of some nine hundred souls? (Garrison Keillor).

 

Who knows? Can a camera capture a soul? If you make on big enough I think it can.

 

5. The central or integral part; the vital core: ?It saddens me that this network... may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news? (Marvin Kalb).

 

I would interpret this statement as the character of being, being compared to a christian soul. In lying you commit a sin, and this damns you to hell. In essence you loose your soul to the devil?.. I feel a camera can be a tool in implementing this loss but not the capturing device. Like a PI taking pictures of an unfaithful spouse. but you could bring up the tree in the woods argument with this. If a spouse cheats but doesn?t get caught is it cheating?

 

6. A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion.

 

The character of a being, is my interpretation. This is a self-defined character and in my view cannot be stolen by a camera. But maybe interpreted.

 

7. A person's emotional or moral nature: ?An actor is... often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not? (Alec Guinness).

 

A character of a being. I feel a camera can help define this; a good photo can help capture the essence of being in this case. For example the photo of Kennedy looking out the window in the white house, could have been said to capture the pensive soul of JFK. This captured pensive look is now immortal in a sense, too. However with this definition a soul cannot be stolen, just interpreted.

 

8. A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music.

 

This can be viewed and captured with a camera. Stolen even maybe. But a camera will not take all of such a thing, since it is a self defining characteristic. Like the sun. you can capture and view the light but it has plenty to go around.

 

9. A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an artist.

 

One Hopes one can capture this and convey it when taking photographs.

 

10. Soul music.

 

Music on film. That is easy. But maybe the soul of soul music can be captured with images like that of , say Nat King Cole.

 

Now

 

some will debate the existence of the Spiritual Soul. This is an inarguable point so why argue about it? I don?t believe in God. But I do believe that a large percentage of this world does. Because of that belief, one could argue that god does exist in that belief.. after all if you look at God?s definition of himself you can?t argue that He/She doesn?t exist. I also don?t believe that the belief in any thing of this nature (ie something the nature of which cannot be validated or disproved) is ignorant.

[john bond]

Byron, how do think the woman in question would define the soul that she

fears might be stolen?

[mubeen_mughal]

Quote: "It happened to me recently in the Caribbean island of Bequia, when an old woman covered her face long before I had any idea of taking her picture, and waved me away".

 

We don't know whether she's worried about her soul being stolen, or not. Emre "thinks" that she is worried about her soul being stolen, but perhaps she just wants the photographer to get out of her hair. Unless we interview her about her personal beliefs, we cannot know. In the interim, we can only "project" our own thinking onto her.

 

"Against her will..." is the key phrase. She doesn't want to have her photograph taken (for whatever reason, or motivation) and that should be respected.

 

But then again, sensationalist papers do it all the time.

[byronlawrence]

there, what Mubeen said.

[emre]

My mistake... she mentioned the stealing the soul bit after waving me away.

[byronlawrence]

maybe the old lady thought Emre was a handsome fellow and wanted attention. seeing the camera. she thought, if I say no, certainly he will ask why, and I can have a conversation. and then He can take my picture. OR, maybe she worked for the CIA.

 

Personally I think some photography can steal one's soul. or capture it. whatever you call it. I don't think it takes all of it. just some projected portreyal of it. as I mentioned before.. like sunlight. we have plenty to go around. and not all photography does, just some. and to address an earlier post. I think BW film in a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens does the best.

[ben conover]

Raymond, very interesting that thought 'nothing outside the mind exists'. However I think it is the other way around. We seem to be a colection of genes and part of those genes is environmental. So, perhaps nothing exists in the mind, but what we experience and are able to experience....We may be as we wish, perhaps.

 

I love the poem and I have found this thread very interesting. I want to appologise to Thomas and others I may have offended with my naiive and quick judgements, I am not here to judge, sorry.

 

Perhaps taking photos of people without their willing consent is very normal in today's world. Even long ago French female photography students came to Ireland with their large format cameras. They took photos of the Irish people, when the world had never seen Ireland. I guess the Irish were then quite alarmed to be photographed, but hopefully enjoyed the experience.

 

I saw some photos for sale in an Irish church turned restaurant yesterday. Maybe things are a changin' here but it is really slow.

To enjoy the church as a venue for lunch seems wonderful.

 

Perhaps the proverbial old woman of the town or village is changing too. In ancient times and still in Ireland, the old woman was the library, the unwritten word a powerful tool. Knowledge passed down through the various old women has filtered back now, this time it is the old women who can learn, but do they have the capacity or need to do so? Perhaps this is a kind of soul, the person who is simply who they are, shy, powerful, gossiping, whatever, the person is a soul unto themselves.

[beeman458]

Nice series of finishing comments.

 

Wow! :)

[ray robertson]

I travelled quite widely in my youth, mainly in Eastern countries, but I recall only the one incident of an old man in Turkey carrying a load on his back, whose obvious fury at my taking his picture could have been attributed to a belief that I was stealing his soul. But who knows! I didn't stick around to discuss the matter with him and it's very unlikely he would have spoken any English in any case.

 

I've taken similar shots in Nepal, of bare-footed people carrying enormous loads of timber, roof iron and general building material on their backs, along the mountain tracks, as well as shots of family groups of villagers, but I don't recall any annoyance or resistance, apart from the occasional shy person who simply didn't want to be photographed.

 

I really don't think this is a problem.

[mg]

Animists do believe that a picture, indeed, stills souls. I personally believe it informs us about souls - i.e. essences of our subject.

[ben conover]

I agree with Marc G.

 

I saw a series of photos by Reza in National Geo. 1999 where Reza had taken photos of old women from old cultures, they smiled and were at ease with him, because he is and was Reza.

 

However I was reading my old medium format book by Roger Hicks last night, and I saw a photo he took of a group of Indian folks in front of a huge temple, sun setting etc. The lady covering her face whilst the men stood about.

 

Conclusion: it makes a difference who the photographer is, and if you are familiar with the people and the culture you are 'shooting'.

 

Cheers.

[mubeen_mughal]

I want to think that this phenomenon we are discussing, came about as a consequence of the colonizers who came to colonize with the aid of fire-sticks (guns). Maybe, then, the camera is seen as a kind of gun, just perhaps?

[Allen Herbert]

I was only 76 years of age living a peaceful life in a local brothel,however, on September the 7th 2001 it all ended...my eternal soul was stolen at 5pm in the morning.

 

Her name was Mabel Smith she promised me eternal love to the end of time...seemed rather a long time to me but at 76 you can't be too fussy.

 

Well,she met a butcher mamed Eric, he offered her fresh meat everyday, he was only 62.

 

Well, i lost my eternal soul of love for a pound of fresh meat every day....

 

I just don't think i can carry on anymore.

[ray robertson]

I have a semi-tame wallaby who sits on my verandah, close to the front door, every morning, waiting for me to feed her sunflower seeds.

 

However, when I raise a camera to photograph her, she takes off.

 

SHE knows about soul stealing.

 

(Okay! I know there are other explanations.)

[ldarnell.com]

<p>Well, I have known about cultures who believe this.<br>

Until I worked in television, where people in front of the camera seem to be soul-less, I didn't give it a second thought.<br>

I think it's true, like radiation tags measuring your collective radiation exposure, the more you sit in front of the camera, the more you end up soul-less. Walter Cronkite may be the exception.</p>

<p> </p>

[ldarnell.com]

<p>my work has attracted so few, as i review my interactions and ratings - i've decided to cut the cord and no longer list here. <br /> <br /> i've sold any number of images at fineartamerica.com and had a lot more comments without paying for my space... <br /> <br /> adieu mes amis</p>

[mubeen_mughal]

<p>Cultural relativity: It is all cultural relativity. A century and a half ago, the father of Rabindranath Tagore, Prince Dwarkanath, when he was staying in one of the best suite apartments in one of the best hotels in Paris, was sought out by the most celebrated Orientalist of the Nineteenth century, Fredrich Max Muller. Dwarkanath and Muiller discussed their shared taste for European Music, and Max Muller asked Dwarkanath if he could hear a specimen of authentic Indian music. When finally Dwarkanath played a piece on the piano, and sang, Max Muller could find in the music neither melody, nor rhythm, nor harmony, and told Dwarkanath who replied: "You are all alike; if anything seems strange to you and does not please you at once, you turn away; When I first heard Italian music, it was no music to me at all; but I went on and on, till I began to like it, or what you call understand it; It is the same with everything else. You may say our religion is no religion, and our poetry is no poetry, our philosophy is no philosophy. We try to understand what Europe has produced, but do not imagine that therefore we despise what India has produced. If you studied our music as we do yours, you would find that there is melody, rhythm, and harmony in it, quite as much as in yours. And if you would study our poetry, our religion, and our philosophy, you would find that we are not what you call heathens or miscreants, but know as much of the Unknowable as you do, and have seen perhaps even deeper into it than you have" As for the eternal soul being stolen (courtesy of Allen Herbert), I read that piece or something like it in "Poems After the Attack: A collection of poems responding to 9/11", some of which can be found here: http://poetry.about.com/od/ourpoemcollections/a/poemsafterattac.htm</p>

[bmm]

<p>This overall conversation makes me sad. I re-read the original post, and I get stuck on the closing phrase "<em>I have no idea what these people are thinking</em>".</p>

<p>My own answer is that its not your place or your right to find some rationale for their wishes and to make your own assessment of them. Especially if you are in their country, on their land. But even in closer-to-home situations, if you are wanting to take someone's images you have to have some measure of their consent to do so, and the humility to not question their beliefs if they say "no". Whether or not you believe in souls, in soul-stealing or whatever is <strong>totally</strong> irrelevent.</p>

<p>Perhaps one way to examine this issue is to reverse it back to us... lets say I choose an American flag with which to clean my toilet. I imagine a number of you might be offended at the thought of this. I could say (like many of you have said above to the 'soul' issue) that its nonsense, its just a piece of coloured cloth, and it doesn't have anything to do with my culture or tradition, and its not hurting anyone, so why the upset so I'm just going to keep right on cleaning with it.</p>

<p>But the better course of action would be for me to understand that the issue is important to someone, and even if I don't fully comprehend why, then its better to err on the side of respect. We have to constantly appreciate that all people of all cultures hold to things that are symbolic and important to us despite them probably being quite silly and irrational if viewed from a totally different perspective and context.</p>

<p>Anyway bottom line is that to me it has nothing to do with the battle of beliefs. Its much more simple than that. Its about basic respect.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> In my experience, the first soul the camera steals is the photographer's.</p>

<p> </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<p>What's the situation if you take a photo of someone and they don't know it ?<br>

Is their soul still stolen ?<br>

When do they get to know it, if ever ?<br>

I'm being serious here, this stuff fascinates me.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<p>What's the situation if you take a photo of someone and they don't know it ?<br>

Is their soul still stolen ?<br>

When do they get to know it, if ever ?<br>

I'm being serious here, this stuff fascinates me.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>The best that soul believers can do is to try for a stalemate. That is, they move any particular 'belief argument' to the more general category of belief and hope no one will notice.<br>

Then they say, this is my belief (soul) and that is yours (no soul). Then they say one is no better than the other by virtue of being a mere belief; so (they reckon), in fairness, if you want me to acknowledge your belief, you must also tolerate my unsupported one.<br>

It's as if they forget the whole concept of value. That is to say, we all experience good beliefs and bad ones throughout our lives. A good belief is characterized by sound reasons. A poor belief has no support in fact and so must appeal to some form of authority (believer deflects responsibility to another ... or some authoritative, <em>a priori</em> 'book of truth').<br>

Hitler believed certain Europeans were superior and this justified the murder of over six million (inferior) Jews. Hey, don't frown, it was his BELIEF.<br>

We all acknowledge some kind of valuing when it comes to beliefs ... except (it would seem) when it comes to defending the indefensible.<br>

There is no plausible defense for the physical existence of an immortal soul unless one is willing to undermine the character of their own well-founded beliefs (i.e. throwing away the ever important value distinctions we all tacitly make).<br>

As cognitive science continues to unravel the knot of the animal mind/body, there is nothing left for a soul to do. All the things that a soul is supposed to do in the afterlife are now known to require a physical body. No body, no experience. No experience, no memory. No memory, no personal history (nothing to distinguish one soul from the next, so, no way for souls to reunite in heaven).<br>

No body means, no mouth to communicate with. And without a brain there is no way to read your soul-mate's mind.<br>

It's just magical thinking -- ignorance's last stand.<br>

-----------------<br>

Someone said people don't change, essentially referring to people's beliefs. Do those of you who share this belief believe that your present knowledge is the same as it was when you were first born?<br>

People, as well as the rest of the animals, change every day as they go about experiencing and interacting with others in their environments. And at least one creature we know of actually has institutions devoted to conceptual CHANGE. The brain/body systems that inhabit this planet are essentially ... change machines. Even the basic animal activities of processing information about ones immediate environment will generally result in change.<br>

Surely those of you posting in this forum LEARNED to read and write at some point.<br>

If you've followed any of this, you've changed.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"Anyway bottom line is that to me it has nothing to do with the battle of beliefs. Its much more simple than that. Its about basic respect."</p>

<p>This is pretty good advice in general, but doing philosophy is a different enterprise, it's about examining concepts and beliefs.<br>

So, the philosopher is asking something like this: Given that respecting the beliefs of others is often the best thing to do in some social situations, what do we do when conflicting beliefs is causing us to suffer? Isn't there a point at which we must set 'respect for respect's sake' aside and deal with the troubling belief systems instead?</p>

[lightwait]

<p>There is a scene in "Oh Brother Where Art Though" when a hitch-hiking guitarist is given a ride and a religious conversation ensues.<br>

<br /> HITCHHIKER<br /> Thank you fuh the lif', suh. M'names <br /> Tommy. Tommy Johnson.<br /> <br /> Delmar is genuinely friendly:<br /> <br /> DELMAR<br /> How ya doin', Tommy. I haven't seen <br /> a house in miles. What're you doin' <br /> out in the middle of nowhere?<br /> <br /> Tommy is matter-of-fact:<br /> <br /> TOMMY<br /> I had to be at that crossroads las' <br /> midnight to sell mah soul to the <br /> devil.<br /> <br /> EVERETT<br /> Well ain't it a small world, <br /> spiritually speakin'! Pete and Delmar <br /> just been baptized and saved! I guess <br /> I'm the only one here who remains <br /> unaffiliated!<br /> <br /> DELMAR<br /> This ain't no laughin' matter, <br /> Everett.<br /> <br /> EVERETT<br /> What'd the devil give you for your <br /> soul, Tommy?<br /> <br /> TOMMY<br /> He taught me to play this guitar <br /> real good.<br /> <br /> Delmar is horrified:<br /> <br /> DELMAR<br /> Oh, son! For that you traded your <br /> everlastin' soul?!<br /> <br /> Tommy shrugs.<br /> <br /> TOMMY<br /> I wudden usin' it.</p>

<p>Ironically, Tommy had more soul than anyone as his (real) guitar playing more than made clear.</p>