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

[inoneeye]

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

<p>With the quote i think in terms of a larger picture than i. I think of new solutions creating new problems, sometimes intended for good and then used for evil. Action Reaction. I think i consider myself, my photography too insignificant to connect well to this quote.<br /> But i can relate to the questions that Laurent poses.</p>

<p>Laurent I began to wonder how directly you relate the questions to the quote. ? I have never regarded my intent as evil.. and i have considered the question. I cannot relate to any photograph i have encountered as evil. Until i involve the intent of the photographer or the use of the image. Then i can judge. At that point i can begin to question my perspective and the perspective of the photographer and the presentation surrounding the image(s). As for half the intentions not hitting the intended mark I have to consider that controversy involves more than one perspective that most often our intent sways no one.<br /> It nearly always reinforces our own viewpoint(s).<br /> Without an intentional effort to remain unbiased, we tend to see it through our own filters. The same image will support both sides (or more) of a coin. I see evil or injustice, someone else sees justice. I find my perspective supported, as do they.</p>

<p>There are some evils, injustices that there is more universal agreement on. Child abuse, poverty, illness, fanaticism.... And some well intended who tackle these evils are often perceived as bad for the way they choose to address it or for bringing up the topic at all.. We see some well intended photographers taking flak for the subject they choose to photograph simply because of the viewers reaction to the subject or even the proliferation of images about the subject. Many times it is as much about the viewer and times as it is about the photograph, photographer or subject. Action Reaction.</p>

<p> </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3917330"><em>Laurent-Paul Robert</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 21, 2009; 05:01 a.m.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Which kind of intentions do we have when we make a photograph ?<br />And how far from our intentions is the final result ?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Laurent-Paul, I wasn't aware that I was supposed to have an intention when I create a photo. I enjoy getting out there and photographing the truth of what I see. I'm kinda like Andy Warhol when he said.....<br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>If you want to know all about Andy Warhol , just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There's nothing behind it.</em></strong><br>

<em> </em><br>

Beyond that, I'm at a loss. I never get into that art gallery patter about "What was the artist feeling at the time". I'd rather be out enjoying life !</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[laurent-paul]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 23, 2009; 06:14 a.m.</p>

<p>I wasn't aware that I was supposed to have an intention when I create a photo. I enjoy getting out there and photographing the truth of what I see</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, just a very quick one : I believe the simple fact to take our camera with us when we go out is an intention. Every morning I check if I have my camera in my pocket : there is definitely the intention of using it if the oportunity of an interesting photograph arise, even if there are many days when I don't shoot.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>John, I take it you are aware of Edward S. Curtis ? : </p>

<p>Intention :</p>

<p>" Curtis' goal was not just to photograph, but to document, as much American Indian (Native American) traditional life as possible before that way of life disappeared. He wrote in the introduction to his first volume in 1907: "The information that is to be gathered ... respecting the mode of life of one of the great races of mankind, must be collected at once or the opportunity will be lost." Curtis made over 10,000 wax cylinder recordings of Indian language and music. He took over 40,000 photographic images from over 80 tribes. He recorded tribal lore and history, and he described traditional foods, housing, garments, recreation, ceremonies, and funeral customs. He wrote biographical sketches of tribal leaders, and his material, in most cases, is the only recorded history."</p>

<p>Possible perceived outcome :</p>

<p>"Curtis has been praised as a gifted photographer but also criticized by professional ethnologists for manipulating his images. Curtis' photographs have been charged with misrepresenting Native American people and cultures by portraying them in the popular notions and stereotypes of the times."</p>

<p>I saw an exhibition of his photographs in Paris once. The aura surrounding the little prints was nothing but captivating, whatever his intentions might have been.<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Curtis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Curtis</a></p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3917330"><em>Laurent-Paul Robert</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 23, 2009; 07:39 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill, just a very quick one : I believe the simple fact to take our camera with us when we go out is an intention.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Laurent-Paul, I agree, now that you explain it that way. Beyond that, I let life put the shots in front of me, I just grab 'em and go.<br>

.....and today I left my camera home. Of course I came across five Chinese musicians playing traditional music on traditional Chinese instruments. Breathtaking !</p>

<p>Will I ever learn ?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[jtk]

<p>"Good intentions" are irrelevant if a person is willfully ignorant... a person who's had the opportunity to be enlightened or eductated, but doesn't pursue it.</p>

<p>Self-satisfaction, refraining from learning about one's ever-expanding circles of community leads directly to evil. </p>

<p>"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Johnson may not have originated this, but he popularized it. <a href="http://www.samueljohnson.com/road.html">http://www.samueljohnson.com/road.html</a></p>

<p>Hitler and Stalin undoubtedly had "good intentions."</p>

<p>In the end (of whatever) we aren't individually the best judges of good or evil, and our "intentions" aren't enough. If we reject someone else's appraisal of good/evil, rather than considering it, we may be ignorantly reinforcing evil.</p>

<p>Continual and merciless review of my values is the only way I know of to value the "goodness" or "evil" in photographs or anything else. That some unquestioningly believe "street" or "nature" or any generic form of photography is inherently innocent and above hardest criticism is itself wilfull ignorance, not to mention ridiculous. </p>

<p>That "nice" and "popular" are equated to "good" is the ultimate joke.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.samueljohnson.com/road.html"></a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred G; August 21st:<br>

"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>Hi Fred. No, not at all. I did not suggest that photography is amoral, but I do not think that most photography relates to Twain's comment. Essentially, I feel his comment is a non-issue in photography, at least within my limited experience.</p>

<p>Samuel Clements said: "Half of the results of a good intention are evil; half the results of an evil intention are good." </p>

<p>If one has evil intentions in photography, they are usually qute visible. Similarly, if one has good intentions, those too normally come across fairly clearly. </p>

<p>Half of either rarely end up in the contrary state.</p>

<p>If you have some examples of that, I would be glad to know of them. Usually the product is more than 50% correlated to the intention of the initiative.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>"If one has evil intentions in photography, they are usually qute visible"</p>

<p>Or, given that photography is mostly used and practiced as a medium to directly show / communicate that what is actually photographed, then if one truly had "evil" intentions it would be in wanting to reveal or add something that the original photograph didn't showed and so ideally those intentions wouldn't be visible at all and would ideally go unnoticed for the viewer, as if the altered image was in fact a direct reflection of a moment in reality. Stalin's image manipulation in the Soviet Union for example.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>As an undergrad, I worked in a graduate technical library as a library assistant - night shift. Among my duties besides shelving books was updating some publications (large perioidical section) and a rather singular update process that routinely took place with the "Great Soviet Encyclopaedia", which the library kept an up-to-date set of. As a matter of routine we would receive 'updated pages' that were supposed to be taped in replacing the existing page at that point. And while sometimes it was new and expanded information, sometimes it was someone no longer in favor being exised from existence, and even included photos which were crudely airbrushed to remove someone who no longer existed.<br>

At the head librarian's direction, we dutifully filed the additions so they would be available but did not cut the book. It was a great source of amusement in the quiet hours of the night to read about someone who ceased to exist in the book. And yes, the changing of information for political ends was evil. Facts do not cease to exist just because someone doesn't like them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks for the clarification, Arthur. The "half" part doesn't work so well for me either, but the gist of the quote still applies sometimes.</p>

<p>I've given several examples of situations where intentions didn't match results or perceived results.</p>

<p>We discussed a while back the Abu Ghraib photos, the significance of the photos themselves, as result, and the relationship between that result and the intent of the cell-phone photographer(s) who took them.</p>

<p>(Another thread could be started if anyone wants to discuss Abu Ghraib specifically and in detail. I didn't bring it up here to distract us from the rest of the thread, but just to exemplify the viability of Twain's quote.)<br /> <br />John, I don't think "the road to hell . . . " is the full story about intentions.</p>

<p>In our justice system, for example, we consider whether a murder was premeditated or not. The guy who's dead is dead in either case. But the intent of the murderer matters for our judgment and punishment.</p>

<p>I give the intent of street shooters sway in addition to the context of the shot, what the shot seems to capture and convey, what I might know about the scene photographed or the effect the shot has, etc.</p>

<p>I've seen "exploitive" (in my opinion) photos of homeless people where it's clear from the photo or even made explicit by accompanying text that conversations between photographer and subject took place. And I've seen moving and morally worthy photos of homeless people where no direct relationship seems indicated, having been taken in an obviously fleeting moment. I am willing to judge, but on a case by case basis. I've seen too many snaps of homeless people that I do think are exploitive. I don't use a single criterion in judging. There's no bottom line for me.</p>

<p>"Craft" can be one of those criteria. It often will effect the perception of the subject and a well-crafted image often shows more "care." I appreciate John's bringing up the moral component of good craft. (I think that's worthy of a thread in itself and hope someone can articulate a good opening statement for what would be a fascinating discussion.)</p>

<p>I also agree with John in not assuming that any genre of photography is innocent. For me, I can't think of any genre, style, or subject that's inherently guilty or evil either, but I wonder if there might be some?</p>

[laurent-paul]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred : "I've seen "exploitive" (in my opinion) photos of homeless people where it's clear from the photo or even made explicit by accompanying text that conversations between photographer and subject took place"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, do you really think that the simple fact of speaking with a homeless person before, during or after taking a portrait makes that photo "exploitive" ?<br /> I would think the opposite : in my opinion it is much more important to speak with a homeless person, even if that doesn't imply a portrait beeing taken. And most time, for me a photo of a homeless person taken without any direct contact, is much more exploitive.</p>

<p>A photos of a homeless person who obvioulsy looks miserable and deprived, is in my eyes "exploitive", but a portrait of a homeless person, when we can't really see if she/he is homeless, is a portrait of a human beeing, and that's it.</p>

<p>And perhpas here, again we are speaking about intentions.</p>

<p>Edit : And not speaking about photography, many people would be surprised to know that sometimes, homeless can spend days without having anybody speaking to them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No, not at all, Laurent!</p>

<p>I was responding to John. He seemed to be drawing a line that not speaking to homeless people and not engaging them directly leads to exploitive photos.</p>

<p>I was merely countering what I think he was saying. I've seen some photos of homeless people that were still exploitive (in my view) even though conversations and engagement had taken place. In other words, having a conversation does not mean that your photo is not going to be exploitive. Just like NOT having a conversation doesn't mean your photo WILL be exploitive. Like I said, I've seen many quick street grabs that are very caring and moving.</p>

<p>What I'm saying is that I judge each photo on what I see, what I feel, what I know about the situation, what the photo conveys to me. I don't judge it based on whether I think the photographer did or didn't have a conversation with the homeless person. I really don't think it's about whether or not a photographer speaks to a homeless person or not. I think it's most importantly about the photographer's vision and how he translates that to the photo. It's also about his level of caring and what he is trying to express, capture, or convey. Not engaging the person directly may, in fact, help some photographers realize their visions and may allow them to express a kind of immediate and deep sense of caring or truth that directly engaging the person might prevent, for them. For other photographers, direct engagement might absolutely be the key to a non-exploitive photo. I agree with you, and with John if this is more what he means, that it is likely more often the case that engaging someone will get a better photo and will increase chances for a non-exploitive photo. I'm just being careful to say that it's not always the case and to recognize that non-engagement can sometimes be very effective, both on the street and elsewhere.</p>

<p>Like I said, it depends on the particular situation. I don't think there are many helpful generalizations to be made in this kind of matter.</p>

[jtk]

<p>If "good" and "evil" are useful notions, then we are stuck with the necessity to make personal judgement calls...if we deny that we have the right to make personal judgement calls, we lubricate the slippery slope, facilitate evil. The odds are 2:3 that we facilitate evil, per "good Germans" and "silent majority."</p>

<p><em><strong>"...the changing of information for political ends was evil. Facts do not cease to exist just because someone doesn't like them."</strong></em> <br />Interesting hypothesis. It would follow that PR people, not to mention historians, are inherently in the evil biz. Little that has gone before is a "fact. "</p>

<p>That our justice system values "intent" is not a simple matter of morals, it's popular concensus. Sometimes the populace is evil.</p>

<p>Popular concensus in Paris sent 400,000 Jewish Frenchmen to death camps. American popular concensus encouraged invasion of Vietnam and Iraq, in both cases partially for the openly religious reasons of Presidents and popular concensus of Middle America.</p>

<p>If we're to discuss "good" and "evil" we might first figure out what the hell we mean by the terms.</p>

<p>"Good intentions" are inherently suspect. We need to be educated to a high level of literacy, to think for ourselves, to obtain various well-informed perspectives, and of course to ignore "opinion" (talk-show/P.N popular opinion).</p>

<p>If we don't doubt our own intentions, not to mention our theories and "opinions" we are effectively amoral, non-players.</p>

<p>Davy Crockett's motto was supposedly "Be sure you're right, then go ahead." Nice coonskin hat Davy, but who are all those dead Indians and Mexicans? And wouldn't it have been "good" for everybody if Texas had stayed with Mexico?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"If 'good' and 'evil' are useful notions, then we are stuck with the necessity to make personal judgement calls...if we deny that we have the right to make personal judgement calls, we lubricate the slippery slope, facilitate evil."</p>

<p>I agree. And I'm appreciative and mindful that no one here has suggested that we don't have the right to make personal judgment calls.</p>

<p>"That our justice system values 'intent' is not a simple matter of morals, it's popular concensus." </p>

<p>Being specific, do you think it's an evil that our justice system distinguishes between premeditated and non-premeditated murder? Another example where intent is considered beyond the act itself is hate crimes. Are we evil if consider hate crimes as a category?</p>

<p>"Sometimes the populace is evil."</p>

<p>I agree. And an important word here is "sometimes."</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Actually, the question about the justice system, premeditated murder, and hate crimes strays a bit far from the photographic "intent" of this thread. Sorry. Would probably be more appropriately discussed via email. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>I've been lurking, holding my nose for obvious reasons, but...pardon me, but does anyone know where the BS snorkel cabinet is? It's getting deeper and deeper in here. My favorites so far are the pseudo-Papal edicts on the permissible range of the behavior of others; the obsessive halo-polishing & who is inherently evil and who (usually found at self-serve pump) is not.</p>

<p>Postscript: I rarely quote The Book, as it burns my cloven hooves when I touch it, but here's Matthew 7:3...</p>

<p>"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?</p>

<p> Soon, I'll need a bathysphere.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"I'm appreciative and mindful that no one here has suggested that we don't have the right to make personal judgment calls."</em></p>

<p>That's true if one thinks online abuse isn't intended to crush expression of unpopular ideas. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis--</p>

<p>Stop holding your nose and go look at what you just finished writing on the off topic forum, your final post at the bottom of the thread. You weren't so hesitant to make and applaud judgments and judgmental reactions to things we see and hear. There, it was newspaper articles. Here, it's photographs.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00UHmC</p>

<p>You talked a lot about evidence in that other thread. What some of us are talking about here is evidence as well. What evidence we see of how people are being treated and portrayed in photographs. Whether that evidence can lead to assumptions about intent and whether intent matters in weighing that evidence. Is there really something wrong with openly discussing the morality of photographs? Do you think people do not have motivations for taking some photographs and that some are not, in fact,good and some malicious? I disagree strongly with some of what's been said here. I'm sure others disagree with me. Moral discussions go that way, if you've ever bothered to have one. The fact is, people go beyond your supposedly beloved objective evidence all the time. Some of us even see through your mask of objectivity, knowing there are built-in prejudices we can't escape, even YOU. So it's worth discussing, if only to elevate our own moral thinking and actions.</p>

<p>It's well and good to come screaming into a room preaching your own brand of superiority, but you better first understand what's going on and then look yourself in the mirror a while before opening your big trap.</p>

<p>You're talking to an entire roomful of people here, who've expressed all different kinds of things in a variety of different kinds of ways, with a lot of different tones of voice, resulting in many different opinions and conclusions. Either get specific or be gone with you, before someone drops a house on <em>your</em> head.</p>

<p>I'm tired of your introducing your posts with "I've been holding my nose, but" or "I'm sorry for this rant, but" as if you sit perched, waiting for our collective stupidity to move you.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John--</p>

<p>If you're talking about Luis's current post, I agree, but that came after I wrote what I wrote.</p>

<p>Otherwise, you'd need to be specific. I can't think of any such evidence of such abuse in this thread. I can think of abusive behavior in recent threads. I'm worried that you're confusing what you call "crushing the expression of unpopular ideas" with crushing inappropriate ways of expressing those unpopular ideas.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I know I have controversial attitudes and ways myself. I think I've tried, especially tenaciously in recent months, to keep these Philosophy of Photography discussions on track and away from personality races. I have tried to and succeeded often recently in not taking the bait, and really tried to initiate and continue some worthwhile discussions on a variety of topics. </p>

<p>It's become unbearable. And I know I am to blame as much as the other guy in some cases. So, I leave these forums and will stick to posting my photos and discussing the photos of others, on the critique pages only. These discussions have become untenable for me.</p>

<p>Thanks to all who've enlightened me with some great ideas. I've gotten a lot out of many of these discussions but, ultimately, it comes at too high a price.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, you expressed an opinion, be happy. <br>

Post sequence was accidental. You responded to Luis, I didn't.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, re: Curtis. Beautiful work. He deserves more praise than he gets as a photographer. He was more than respectful of his subjects. <br>

He had real relationships with the people and they seem to have had fun helping him make his romantic scenes. The only tribe I know much about is Navajo, and I think they'd have had a ball with Curtis.</p>

<p>Purists complain about Curtis's relative "inauthenticity," but Indians themselves have always traded with each other, often at very long distances...they've loved each other's interesting clothing, told jokes, battled, had the usual human joys and sufferings. </p>

<p>In recent times we (whites) have come up with handy-dandy "progressive" belief systems for them, and some seem happy to buy in... belief systems are easier to acquire than identity, and identity can be lost. Some abandon their identities entirely or try to find them by burrowing deeper into whatever survives (Sun Dances or Native American Church, for example). Takes all kinds.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>"...and really tried to initiate and continue some worthwhile discussions on a variety of topics."</p>

<p>Fred. You have, and many thanks for that. I haven't read all this post and the full details of others you have strongly participated in, so am not speaking from specifics, but it is a shame that some of your colleagues cannot consider philosophy without getting hot under the collar or simply end up contributing on the basis of a desire to score quick points.</p>

<p>I am sure that you and a number of others have made efforts to encourage meaningful discussions. That is what is important. I am sure that several of us look forward to your return to these discussions. There are few right answers or postulates in philosophy. Like te practice of photography itself, it is the journey or effort in getting there that is rewarding.</p>

<p>John, from what I have see of his (Curtis') work with the northern indigenous peoples, I am not sure his contribution is pure enough in approach and substance to be of longlasting value. I would like to be convinced otherwise. Was his intention good? Perhaps it was neither good or evil, simply theatrical. We have already had enough of that stuff with popular Hollywood cinema of the mid to late twentieth century.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> <strong></strong><br>

<strong> </strong> I made what I thought to be an openly satirical comment. It was a plea for the thread to get back on track, made after reading Fred's own comment on the matter. It certainly was not intended (there's that word again) as a serious indictment of the entire forum, its mission, and all its participants. FWIW, I really don't have cloven hooves, and no, my Bible doesn't burn when I touch it (just in case someone thought that was serious, too).</p>

<p>The thread Fred cross-referenced to use against me is 1) Out of the Philosophy Forum context, and 2) In deadly earnest, save for the quip about black holes. You see, I haven't just <em>read</em> about guys like Mr. Duke from the safety and comfort of my armchair, on the Web, or You tube.</p>

<p> I have, at my own expense, attended (and photographed) KKK meetings in the real world, talked with DD, shaken his hand, looked him in the eye, seen his audience, talked with them, all back when Mr. Duke was relatively unknown, almost 25 or so years ago, to personally witness his (and other's) hateful diatribes first hand, but Fred saw my post as a judgmental, holier-than-thou thing. Not much to say but thank you for the well-intentioned feedback.</p>

<p>I realize I made a grave mistake posting what I did over there. I hope the moderator will delete it for me.</p>

<p>[Fred] "Moral discussions go that way, if you've ever bothered to have one."</p>

<p> [LG] Deliberate insult, spite and injury, neatly gift-wrapped wrapped in a needle-sharp, rainbow-colored poison dart. Was that good or evil intent inside <em>your</em> heart, Fred? You are embarrassing both of us here and in what follows, but since you made it public, not private, so must my response be.</p>

<p>I've <em>never</em> thought of the members of this forum in the terms you unfairly accuse me of. Specially when it comes to stupidity or collective thought. I see nothing here but a fine collection of individuals, without exception (that includes John Kelly, even if at times he can be more irritating than jock itch, and a little further back!). You might be surprised to know the "stupid" thing has <em>not crossed my mind. </em> Not once. Some of your presumptions/Mind Theories are <strong>way</strong> off the mark.</p>

<p> Look, you guys have kept this forum going forever. I lurked on here during my first couple of years of the 5+ I've been on PN, and will go back to doing just that. Since, as Fred so delicately pointed out, I am the problem and the price, it is unfair that anyone else should have to leave or pay, specially Fred.</p>

<p> There's no reason for me to be here, specially after this fiasco. I will try ripping the covers off the mirrors in the house later and check to see if there's still a reflection. If there isn't, maybe I can apply to moderate the bag section in the classifieds.</p>

<p> Fred, you are a fine person, sometimes capable of exquisite thought. Please do stay.</p>

<p> Apologies to all. I'll see you around in the other forums here.</p>

<p><strong>John:</strong> FWIW, in spite of the wardrobe brouhaha over Curtis, I've always thought him to have been one of the better portraitists of his day. I think his intentions came through quite well. His heart was in the right place and it shows. There was a show of his work here recently, and though most viewers weren't aware of the issues concerning the work, the comments I overheard, and the ooohs and aaahs were almost 100% positive.</p>

<p> </p>

[laurent-paul]

<p>Hm</p>

<p>Opening this forum, my intent was to exchange ideas, as well as trying to explain what happened with the previous thread which closed before I could answer.</p>

<p>The result being the possibility of anybody leaving the PofP forums, and especially Fred, is so far remote from the intent, that now reflecting on Twain's quote, the intent had to be a "good" one resulting to this "evil" situation.</p>

<p> </p>