What are the common elements of humanity?

[robert_k1]

<p>Sarah, thanks for your interest. But a decade into the project, the end is still not in sight. Along the way, I have learned to narrow down the scope, edit critically, fill in the blanks, find new locations and subjects. IOW, my enthusiasm and interest keep rising. Meanwhile, I have exhibited segments when appropriate opportunities arose. If and when I come to some sort of closure, I'll keep you in mind.</p>

<p>Here's an interesting site with noble intents and great images from every corner of the world. I would seriously consider showing my project there. A little pricey. But the site's terms of use are clearly spelled out in lay person's terms, showing care and respect for rights of the contributors' work. They put other photo hosting sites like Google, etc. to shame.</p>

<p>http://socialdocumentary.net/</p>

[mizore]

<p>Wouter, one of the worst things that's happened is that Muslim students aren't coming to the US to study. Even during the Iranian revolution, we had Iranian students in American universities. My Moroccan student said that being in America showed her that some of her parent's stereotypes were wrong. She was the last student I had from North Africa/Middle Eastern countries. But even being around people face to face isn't enough. I grew up in the American south.</p>

<p>One thing that seriously bothered me was that Sarah's reaction to people using strong rhetoric about Death to America wasn't that different than the Greensboro, NC, Klan's reaction to the Communist Workers Party's "Death to the Klan" rhetoric. An interview with one of the survivors made it clear that the CWP hadn't been talking about killing individual Klan member. They wanted the organization to dissolve. Sarah, your reaction to Death to America rhetoric isn't way more sophisticated than the Klan's, though you're trying non-violent methods to counter what you see as a threat to your personal life. </p>

<p>As someone who thought we really shouldn't have been chanting "Attica Means Fight Back" in 1972 (fortunately, we were facing supremely well-trained NYC cops, some of whom tried to pick up radical girls while we were marching), I think you really need to examine where your over-personalization of that political rhetoric is coming from. You can't see the difference between wanting America as a political entity to fade into history with people wanting to kill you personally. </p>

<p>History says that eventually America, like most current nations, will be something else in ten thousand years, but that populations don't change as often as governments. Many of the families that were in the British Isles when it was part of the Eurasian mainland are still there -- 80% of the mother lineages and 30% of the male lineages from 14,000 years ago. They've been in all sorts of nations over the thousands of years, and as human lineages, they lived far longer than any one nation, just as human families live much longer than human individuals. America is one way among many of organizing human populations. Death to America means, at the worst, dissolving our way of organizing human populations (most of the time it's young kids getting press). It's not about killing us personally anymore than "Death to the Klan" was about killing individual Klansmen.</p>

<p>Your project assumes YouTube/Google isn't sufficient to show people in real situations in real cultures. I suspect that those are more genuinely affecting because they're not calculated (the Chinese government certainly found Google threatening). </p>

<p>I've read that every peasant farmer in Nicaragua has a cell phone (may or may not be true, either). I'm not sure what percentage of them would have full time internet access, or what percentage of them can even afford more than occasional use of an internet cafe to check up on sites about their own country.</p>

<p>You can certainly put the site up. Getting people who aren't already sympathetic to America to look at it is another thing all together, which I think you're already aware of.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>I'm already getting lost in my own thread! Bear with me!</p>

<p>Gerry: Thanks for the link to Meir Samel's work! I found it very interesting and spent quite a long time going through it. (He has a LOT of photos on the Internet!) I'm struck with the following impressions and would appreciate hearing the impressions of others:</p>

<p>First, most of his photos are of individuals, mostly head and torso shots. I played with this approach myself, but I found my images devoid of any sort of "story" that would link the viewer to the subject. In fact that was the main reason I started this thread -- in search of the core elements of humanity that I might be able to depict. Now, looking at Meir's slideshows, I do view his lone subjects with empathy. However, it's still the shots of two or more people interacting with each other that establish some sort of "story" for me, and those are the ones that I find more impactful. Do others feel this way?</p>

<p>Second, I was fascinated by his study of the US. His work is very compelling and often beautiful, but I am struck that a photographer from one country can only come away from another country with images that depict ways in which that country is different. Perhaps that is human nature? I see a whole lot of pictures of prostitutes and nude/seminude people on the beach. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw either of those, even here in LA! (I'm not saying they don't exist, but just that they're not a particularly visible part of American life.) In fact I used to live in a city where women could legally go topless, and one couldn't even see toplessness there, aside from occasional political rallies with feminist themes. As much as he would like to understand the US, I don't think he really does. His motives are good, of course. And of course his intent seems not to be to photograph our society, so much as to photograph people. Even so, I see validation of my point in his portfolio that we as photographers must teach people from other countries about our own countries and not seek to teach our own countrymen about other countries. When attempting the latter, we get it wrong, even with the best of intentions.</p>

<p>Finally, I see in his slideshows (and I think it's accurate) that Israel has a lot of guns and soldiers. I must admit a rather negative reaction to guns, but I feel that his work humanizes the Israeli military. I'm fascinated by that. If even *I* can look past the guns to see the people, perhaps others can too? I would be curious whether anyone viewing Meir's work comes away with a negative reaction to the Israeli people because of the guns. Note here: I'm not referring to the government of Israel, but to the people.</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks very much for pointing me to Meir's work, Gerry. It's very interesting, to be sure!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Wouter, Mike, Rebecca: There seems to be a theme surfacing that I do not make statements in a manner that are of the exact temperment that will please everyone. For instance, when I say I will need to study something, I'm criticized for not being serious enough about having to study it. For me, studying some question can mean a decade of very hard research. As an academic, I don't use the term "study" or "read" lightly. I don't know what these words mean to you, but I suspect they might mean something very different to me. I hope you and others can give me the benefit of the doubt here.</p>

<p>Robert K: Ah well, I understand. I've been in your situation before. Some projects can grow like kudsu. ;-) Thanks for the link to SDN. I had a look, and what they offer is definitely very interesting. However, their slideshow engine is infuriatingly lumbersome for someone on a slow connection (like I'm on right now). Still worth exploring, though... Thanks!<br>

Dick, thanks for sharing your story. I loved it! I'm very much on-board with your conclusions about one society's interest in or curiosity about another's. The interest grows all the more intent when there is an enormous barrier erected between those societies. I have similar stories (not nearly as interesting as yours) about interaction with colleagues on the other side of the Iron Curtain before its fall. I had a natural curiosity about them and they about me. Curiosity is well embedded in the human genome!</p>

<p>Rebecca: I'm sorry you don't find my reaction to "death" messages "way more sophisticated" than those of a KKK member. People do naturally have unsophisticated reactions to these messages. These messages not only cause unsophisticated message recipients to live in fear, but they also encourage unsophisticated members of the mobs shouting these sophisticated messages to act out in unsophisticated ways against their unsophisticated fellow man. There are frequent unsophisticated acts of terrorism throughout the world, frequent unsophisticated abductions, frequent unsophisticated hate crimes, and so forth. I recall a rash of unsophisticated beheadings not long ago in Iraq. If you listen to and believe the more sophisticated messages of the leaders of the KKK, they're not at all about killing or carrying out hate crimes against ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans. So their followers surely wouldn't engage in such acts? Is this what you're saying?</p>

<p>Personally I think there is great value in reducing the numbers joining any hate-based mob, whether the KKK or the "death to America" demonstrators. When their message reaches majority status, bad stuff happens. When their message is that of a fringe element, it is usually ignored. I personally believe that it is harder to say "death" to anyone who has a face, and harder still to say "death" to anyone who is in many respects just like me.</p>

<p>Finally, I'll mention that I have many differences with my government, not the least of which derive from my life-long pacifist history. I would NEVER shout "death to America," even pre-911 when there would be no ramifications, even in my most sophisticated, most metaphorical moments. Sure, the message would be one of outrage, which I often feel. I could explain that it is directed at the government, not the people. I could explain that I really mean I want the US to cease foreign aggression and that I'm really not crying out for the abolotion of our government. Sure, I could explain all of that. However, it simply wouldn't "feel" right for me to shout "death to America," because I love my country, and I love our people. Instead of shouting "death to America," I shout what I mean, for instance, "US out of Iraq and Afghanistan!" Shouting "death to America" would, I think, require me to have some hatred of this country and of the American people. I think most people think this way, and I think that is why so many people voice concern when, for instance, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad proclaims, "death to Israel."</p>

<p>I wish I could be a more sophisticated person, but alas I'm not.</p>

<p>Regarding your next point, Google and YouTube do indeed give us a window onto the world. Through Google and the Internet, we can find just about any piece of knowledge. So if I were to assemble an anthology, would that be useful in any way? Is it at all useful to organize knowlege beyond what the Google toolbar affords us? Is it useful to cull through the pages and pages of junk that we get with any Google search to extract the few articles that are meaningful? Is it useful to assemble photographs into a cohesive collection, so that they can gather context from each other? Is it useful to present them without the intrusion of urgent notifications that you've just won $1,000,000 for being the millionth visitor to a given website or without commercial intrusions that some housewife in your area discovered the secret to having whiter teeth? Is any serious subject taken seriously when it is interspersed between videos of teenagers engaging in farting contests or spinning kittens around to make them dizzy?</p>

<p>Yes, I think I can do better than YouTube and Google.</p>

<p>Finally, I indeed realize not everyone has a computer or internet access. However, are you going to argue that nobody anywhere else in the world can access the Internet? I also realize not every country will be represented in the project, and not all of the 14 billion eyes in the world will gaze upon the exhibit. So what? Are you going to argue that nobody will see it and that it will have zero impact because it falls short of having comprehensive, universal impact? That's frankly nonsense. </p>

<p>I am comfortable in saying this online exhibit will be for the consumption of people with computers and Internet access. That doesn't mean I'm insensitive to the plight of people without computers and Internet access. Good lord, by your logic, nobody should create a museum exhibit because (1) not everyone has a car, (2) not everyone can afford gasoline, (3) not everyone can find the museum, (4) not everyone can afford the entry fee, (5) most people don't even live in the town where the exhibit is shown, so they would have to travel farther, (6) some people are blind, (7) some people are incarcerated, (8) some people are too stupid or unsophisticated to know what a museum is, (9) many people don't read English and might not be able to read the placards that are in English, (10) the exhibit might not open before some people die, (11) the exhibit might close before some people are born, (12) it doesn't matter anyway, because we'll all eventually become worm food, (13) blah, (14) blah, (15) blah. To be perfectly blunt, I could address your complaints all day long, and you will continue to have more complaints. At a fundamental level, I think your real complaint about the project is that you feel it is "sentimental." I get that, but I frankly don't care. There are a whole lot of unsophisticated, sentimental people in this world, and I guess I'm one of them.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Sarah. Your enthusiasm is inspiring. May I suggest to look in the Facebook and Flickr for alternative possibilities. On Flickr one member can establish a group with pool of photos and videos, keep discurssions, invite and block people to participate. See how much attention you actually can master.</p>

<p>Above exchange about "killing" is monodimentional IMO. Your seems to perseive this phenomenon as a matter of intelligent choise made by independant individual on the base of political, cultural or personal alignment who also free to choose otherwise. It is simply not so.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Ilia, what you said. </p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Sarah, regarding <strong>Meir Samel's</strong> work you have given it more in depth appraisal and scouting even than I did. For me it is one person's scrapbook of what he sees arund him and what interests him. Like what most of us do in a photo lifetime of casual stuff.. <strong>Weapon handling </strong>as you mentioned.Israelis both sexes have to serve their tour, sort of reminder of our early history militias. (They have learned to break a Saturday prayer, answer the radio call, and head to the army post. that is Israel..)<br>

I offer the quite obvious thought that you are engaging in a broader than that kind of photo essay which is going to have a running theme from the get go and a style that suits what you like to see in people pictures. And with that large scope you are, sounds like it, set to engage collaborators and more; i.e. if you are smart as you sound, some editors to do the final picking and choosing.<br>

Last thought, for what it's worth, because it may not have been voiced yet at all. Photos tell a powerful story. Not the whole story. And an ambiguous story, no way around some of that is there. <br>

Photo Essays that combine words and<em> text</em> tell the story <em>better</em> and more cogently, at least to my way of thinking.( Words and music. Music (photos) sweet, words true ( or at best filtered by <em>groupthink</em>).)<br>

Shucks, you about have picked my dusty frontal lobe right brain plumb clean, so l now exit,Sarah, with continued good wishes for your success. if you fail it will still be a terrifically fun failure:-).aloha, gs</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sarah, I'm sorry you think I'm just complaining, and looking for more complaints all the time. That is simply not the case. I'll quote Gerry's last post since he very clearly states my main, and nearly only, point:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photos tell a powerful story. Not the whole story. And an ambiguous story, no way around some of that is there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the ambiguous and incompleteness: that's where the major risk lies. Photos will not be the same as meeting other cultures, and on their own they will not raise understanding. Mutual respect does that.<br>

That's all.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Wouter, I wasn't labeling you as a complainer. You misread my post. You also misread Gerry's post, as he wasn't cautioning me about "major risk," so much as difficulties. I think all of we photographers, myself included, realize there is often/usually ambiguity in our images. However, I think we differ as to whether these ambiguities rise in importance as to become major risks. A Middle Eastern friend of mine saw a photo of an American man with a punkish haircut and saw something perverse and disturbing in it. However, that did not cause him to join the ranks of those labeling our people as the Evil American Satan. He was willing to attribute the perceived evilness to one individual, rather than the entirety of our society. People are not so narrow, fragile, and unforgiving as you seem to think.</p>

<p>Now suppose it were under my/our control whether that photograph were even included in a collection my friend were to view. A Middle Eastern collaborator might have reviewed the photo and said, "No, not this one! This one is definitely going to freak some of the people from my culture out." Then the photo would have never been presented. This is one of those endeavors in which "two (or more) heads are better than one." In the end, if there is a misunderstanding about an individual photo that a reviewer didn't anticipate, the person with the misunderstanding will probably weigh it against the remainder of the body of work. Any person who is prepared to label a culture evil on the basis of a single photograph has frankly already passed judgment on that culture and will probably never be persuaded otherwise.</p>

<p>I don't want to diminish your point about the power of face-to-face interaction. You are absolutely correct. It is a very powerful thing and is perhaps the best way to build bridges between cultures. Now tell me how I can do that with my camera, because I'm a photographer, not a world traveler of limitless financial resources. (Many Americans are poor.) Even if I had the means to join the "jet set" and make myself a goodwill ambassador to the world, I could never afford to bring tens or hundreds of thousands of people along with me on my global adventure. I have to realize my limits. Instead, I can spend a lot of time taking photographs and collaborating with numerous other photographers who do the same, and we can organize our photos into thoughtful stories that we can upload to the Internet for (at least) hundreds of thousands to see. That's much more than we (the working group) could achieve by individually circling the globe, assuming we all had the financial resources to do so.</p>

<p>I understand that you believe photographs are of no value because there is nobody there to explain them. I would say that they are of <strong>lesser</strong> value, but are still of value nevertheless. If the photographer does a good job in presenting the photographs, there will be more of understanding and less of misunderstanding.</p>

<p>If you truly believe that nothing but face-to-face interaction can tear down cultural divides, and if you truly believe that information devoid of this face-to-face interaction is so frought with major risks, then by extension, you would be arguing that publication (in any form) is so dangerous that it should not be attempted. I don't think you really believe that. Rather, I think feel I am not weighing any of these cultural issues/differences with the attention that they deserve (indeed, with the same gravity of attention as the teen who uploads a farting contest video to YouTube). There is simply no way to convince you otherwise, because you are not prepared to believe it.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Wouter....what is this "<em>major risk</em>" you speak of? If I create an image, and you see it, that does NOT make me responsible for your reactions to it!</p>

<p>What is there about Sarah's idea that seems to attract doom advocates? God preserve us from "<em>major risk</em>" as we dare to show some images which show, thinly, who and where we are.</p>

<p>I'm trying to think of something else to say.....but the whole thing is <strong>so simple</strong> that there's nothing to add. Either DO it. Or don't do it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sarah, thanks for the eloborate response. We're closer on this subject than may seem. I agree that photos are of lesser value, rather than no value; where we disagree is the potential impact of what is missing. You hit the right point, by the way, by stating: <i>If the photographer does a good job in presenting the photographs,...</i>.<br>

It's a more hairy task than it seems, but the interesting part too. I did not say, nor meant to imply, that <i>only</i> face to face would work. What I did mean to say: it only works with mutual respect; that must be the starting point and from your posts I honestly believe it is your starting point. But be aware that in this mutual respect there is a need to leave out certain symbols, actions etc. to ensure there is no offensive material to strangers. That is what I meant by the major risk. But your last post underlines you understand that point, and are thinking of proper ways to address that. I found that missing in earlier posts, hence those warnings, but the awareness you show on this point in your last post makes me belief we actually agree here.<br>

<br>

Gerry, sorry if I misquoted you, the addendum of that being a big risk was mine, and not implied in your message. So I should not have attributed that to you in the ambiguous way I did.<br>

<br>

Robert, I I create an image and show it to you, I am responsible for your reaction to it. If I write something here, and you misunderstand, it is because I did not communicate well enough (exactly, the reason why I needed so many follow up posts). If you do not sense this responsibility towards a message you communicate (be it photo, text, painting), then strongly consider this: the basis of what Sarah proposed hinges on the perception of others. The effect of the perception is the goal; if you want to engage others, better feel responsible for the message you send.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Wouter.....totally untrue! I am responsible for my own reactions. Me. Not You! That's just how it is......</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>Common "elements" of humanity or common "characteristics" of humanity? </p>

[mike dixon]

<i>I understand that you believe photographs are of no value because there is nobody there to explain them.</i><P>

 

Actually, the photos would be of no value because the people you're trying to reach won't be interested in looking at them. This isn't <i>Field of Dreams</i>. Just because you build it doesn't mean they will come.<P>

 

<i>What is there about Sarah's idea that seems to attract doom advocates? </i><p>

What is it about internet discussions that seems to attract melodramatic hyperbole?<P>

 

People pointing out that other cultures won't necessarily interpret your "message" (or have any interest in your message) the way you intend is hardly advocating <b>doom</b>.<P>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, the photos would be of no value because the people you're trying to reach won't be interested in looking at them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may not find photography from other cultures interesting, but I do. I think there are others like me. Anyway, I'll add you to the list of people saying this is a waste of time and that it will never work. Point noted. Thank you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't <em>Field of Dreams</em>. Just because you build it doesn't mean they will come.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, I've authored quite a number of web sites, and all of them attract a fairly healthy flow of traffic -- even the very boring, utilitarian, informational ones. So I must respectfully disagree. If I build it, they WILL come. That's the nature of the web, so long as a web site is well constructed, is well linked, and has good/interesting/useful content. Of course your premise is that our content will not be interesting, I would presume because we're lousy photographers.</p>

<p>------------------------</p>

<p>Walter: "Elements" wasn't quite the right word, but neither is "characteristics." Maybe "threads" is a better term? The best term of all might be "parameters," but that sounds very sterile.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>Of course your premise is that our content will not be interesting, I would presume because we're lousy photographers.</i><P>

 

You presume incorrectly. I've lived abroad for about seven years, and I've traveled extensively. People I meet (by making the effort to live in or travel to <i>their</i> country and engage with <i>them</i>) often have an interest in my photos and my experiences. They appreciate building understanding on a personal level. But they're generally not searching the internet looking for photos of "real life" taken by people they've never met in places they've never been (and will probably never visit) in order to better understand and appreciate commonalities with foreign cultures.<P>

 

Who are you trying to reach with your project? Whose attitudes are you trying to change? Making a website for those relative few who already have an interest (and who already have access to a vast number of images of the type you've talked about) is like preaching to the choir.

[shoulder]

<p>May I enter this discussion as a non- American? I am a surgeon as you can see <a href="http://www.shoulderinstitute.co.za">here</a>, <a href="http://www.shoulderinstitute.co.za"></a> living in South Africa and I deal with Americans regularly, attend American congresses and publish articles in American journals.<br>

I agree that here in the Southern tip of Africa we also witness some degree of anti-American sentiment and most of the reasons have been well expounded by others in this string.<br>

Due to my contacts with the American specialists and scientists I have become an admirer because of their zeal, work ethic and ingenuity when it comes to developing new technical inventions.<br>

One aspect of the sentiment towards America is based on the age-old feeling by cultures with a lower level of productivity and work ethic towards the more successful groups, even if the latter achieve it with hard work. This part of the anti-Americanism will not be changed by the project.<br>

Having said that I want to commend Sarah for the idea of this project and it can only have positive effects both for the observers of the photographers as well as the photographers.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>"... common elements", or "characteristics" ?</p>

<p>I guess we could use "common ways of humanity" but it is not so gainful rhetorically. Too ambient.</p>

<p>Well. Humanism is chewy after all.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>"What is it about internet discussions that seems to attract melodramatic hyperbole?"</p>

<p>Interesting question. I would say it's lack of communication skills.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Some people will never change one way or another, whether it is anti or pro Americana. Perhaps, a little naive but Sarah decided to contribute by doing her thing. Maybe she'll get a few, or maybe, she'll get a few hundreds...who can really say for sure? No doubt, I think she have a tough sale but it is her ambition, project...</p>

<p> </p>

[shoulder]

<p>i still think that this idea of Sarah's is a good one. The results are unpredictable but the intention is so honourable that I fully support it.<br>

I have a question : how would one promote the site where the photos will be displayed to reach the correct audience?</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Mike, I thought it might be clear that the subject being 'doomed' by the numerous naysayings was Sarah's <strong>project</strong>. Anytime someone has a new idea these days, it seems the resounding response is to say, in as many ways as possible, that it will not succeed. That was not always the American approach to new ideas........is it NOW?</p>

<p>If, Mike, you don't like the word 'doom' as I have used it then what would work in stead? Negativism, failure orientation, reflexive and thoughtless criticism....what?</p>

[mike dixon]

If the goal of Sarah's project is to allow a group of photographers to feel good about themselves and give themselves a pat on the back for trying to make a positive change in the world, then I suppose the criticism in this thread would seem terribly negative. If the goal is to actually effect some kind of positive change and promote understanding among people who don't understand, then most of the criticism in this thread is right on target.<P>

"Reflexive and thoughtless criticism" is a more accurate description of your post than of posts by people who are trying to clearly articulate the problems with Sarah's approach. I actually live in a foreign culture and spend a significant amount of time in other foreign cultures where I actually <b>do</b> a lot of photography and directly <b>communicate</b> with people. What about you, Bob? What experience do you have that's directly relevant to what Sarah's proposing?

[bobcossar]

<p>Mike......you say "<em>clearly articulate the problems with Sarah's approach</em>". But you can't seem to see that there <strong>ARE</strong> no problems with Sarah's approach. Sarah doesn't <strong>HAVE</strong> an approach.....she has a vision of a project. A simple project. A project is not an <strong><em>approach.......</em></strong></p>

<p>That said, your question to me personally has no relevance at all<em>, </em>but I will answer it for you anyway. I live in a foreign culture<em>.</em> I am not a native of that culture. I am not even a citizen of that culture. I take photographs for a living, and have done so all my life.<em> </em></p>

<p>I wonder what it is that you think Sarah is proposing? It doesn't seem to me what Sarah thinks she is proposing is what you think she is proposing.......So who would know what Sarah <strong>IS</strong> proposing<em>? You? Or Sarah?</em> <em><br /></em></p>

[longname]

<p>What has always amazed me about America is that every culture is represented. More so in the cultural sense rather than the political. Why not show typically foreign cultural practices in an American background?</p>

<p>edit: A story came to mind: A friend of mine from West Africa wanted to dress more "American" and asked me why men always had their shirt sleeves rolled up. I told him it was because Americans weren't afraid to work with their hands as well as with their minds. I just thought that it was funny that a simple thing like that could make such a statement.</p>