CROWN OF THORNS

From my Christmas Eve walk. This was in a storefront window.

David, being an atheist, I don't conect to the content and context..( only as a part of human history) but I like what looks an old book.The light and dark BG, are creating the Christian's world atmospher.( btw, is it a paper book or some sort of fabric ? )

This is going to be a bit hard to explain. I was very tired and perhaps a bit intoxicated in the late evening of Christmas Eve. I felt that some cool night air would do wonders, so took a bit of a walk. Most of these shots I have posted are shop windows. This one is some sort of preacher-missionary that has a storefront office, and this is the display window. I'll be posting a few more from this walk later tonight. In my town there are a large number of very fervent evangelical fundamentalists, and this type of thing is common. Sometimes living here is almost like living in Cromwell's England must have been. Take care my friend.

A grand disappointment is that something so full of the potential to bind human beings to each other and to tie individuals to the universal has somehow managed to find so much of its basis in sin. It just goes to show how truly deficient human group thought can be. If I have one great hope for the survival of both Earth and our species, it is that we come to realize the failings of organized religions and overcome them with greater enlightenment.

 

This photo, within the greater body of your work, speaks to these ironies very effectively.

Thanks. I think we are pretty much on the same channel on this line of thought. Take care.

Having just suffered through hours of utterly futile debate with an in-law who is an ordained minister. Who despite years of supposed theological study kept insisting on referring to me as an atheist no matter how many times I told him I was an agnostic, I came upon this image with even more than my usual amount of venom for organized religion. If civilization has any hope of a future it will be despite these fools, not because of them. My apologies for using your image to vent. I do find it an interesting shot. The skewed white balance and the noise make the text appear ancient.

In the words of our foremost political evangelical nutcase, the president, you have forgotten the most important tenet of today's religio/political system. I like to think of it as the Eleventh Commandment. "You are either with us or you're against us." In other words, the world is black and white. (It's much easier to control that way, you see.) Gray areas are for those nasty intellectuals and people who think instead of follow like sheep. Sorry, but agnostics are too gray for those types. You believe or you don't. No other choices, kiddo.

Being that it's Christmas, I wish they'd at least celebrate the birth of the savior before they butcher him! How did religion get so joyless and mean?

I don't know a thing about you, but I guarantee your tolerance for "Christians" would sorely be taxed in my town. This year alone we've had two new churches start up, simply because some fruitcake thinks he's got the direct line to the Big One upstairs. If you want a really good laugh, check this out: http://www.kingsburgrecorder.com/articles/2007/12/18/news/doc476858c935f3b720487232.txt

 

I am quite opposed to organized religion on a number of grounds. The Bible is one of them. These bozos have so corrupted the concept that they probably would execute Jesus again if He did return. So vent all you wish. It won't disturb me a bit. I will admit that this wasn't meant to be a screed (which I gladly often do), but just a representation for better or worse of my Christmas Eve stroll.

 

As for Christianity in this country, it IS the state religion, despite the wisdom of the founding fathers. We have a de facto state religion as evidenced by the fact that almost nobody who has declared that they are agnostic or atheist can get elected. That would seem to be a religious test to me. And I think it shall not be long before we will have our own ayatollah running the country.

 

Oh, and thanks for stopping by.

The answer to your question is simple. PEOPLE! Without them I think religion would just be kind of funny. With them, it frightening.

Thanks for the link -- funny and scary all rolled into one.To my way of thinking, psychics and evangelists are pandering to the same human weaknesses and therein lies the problem with them sharing turf. I live in a small rural community POP. 6500, so I do know a bit about intolerance.

 

 

Unfortunately we have one of that same brand of idiots running our country at the moment . He is perhaps a bit smarter than George....or at least he can eat pretzels lying down, but otherwise the two have a frightening amount in common. Our guy is busy trying to drive our laws back into the dark ages.

 

I was flabbergasted that my in-law just could not wrap his head around the distinction I was making. He disagreed with my position despite being unable to conceive of my position? Grey is my favourite colour and I'm sticking with it.

Thanks for you explanation... I see a discussion that is exactly "my cup of tea"....I'm an atheist for many reasons. I can not support the mental blackmail they are specializing in.... as well as experts in commercing the religions...( and living well with its financial results ). You are right David, they are the so called only chanell to upstairs...their political agenda, in my country, makes me sick.

 

So Gordon, I totaly agree with you, but to talk with them is like talking to the wall...

I'd love to sit down over a cup of coffee or, better yet, a glass of wine, and talk with you. You're quite a lady. I hope in the upcoming year you will continue to leave your comments and facilitate the discussions I enjoy so very much. Take care, my friend.

Great! agreed, wine it is ....;-))

 

Most selfproclaimed atheists preach their own agenda with a zeal of street corner bible preacher. Somewhere behind all this, there is view of the World in Peace with one "Atheistic" Big Brother providing It for people....

Nothing new... "Homo Homini Lupus Est"/"Bellum omnium contra omnes" (T. Hobbes, 1600)...

 

I am not a religious man... but it does not bother me a bit that people have their images of Soulmates in haven... Why should I care (?)

 

It is when those images start being manipulated by preachers of Universal Atheistic Love that things get ugly... as recent history shows...

so lets refrain from medieval centuries conotations and concentrate on the Now instead...

js

 

Thought is thought, statement is a statement... the Peace is about being able to contemplate its meaning and implications within the realm of intellectual curiosity and without need of poking finger... otherwise it quickly loses an aura of selfproclaimed Atheistic Objectiveness.... To do that, one would really need to be a Real ("idealistic" with no hidden agenda) Atheist... and I have not heard of many outside of classics Epicurus and/or Democritus. All zelots of today ... religious or atheistic, preach their own political agendas... and the most funy thing is ... they usurp that right (some of them call it "calling") upon themselvs... (think whom they gather you are?)Bunch of weirdos.

 

To me David's picture is a timid representation of something in his mind which he had no courage to bring forward... that is his own Opinion!

I think you may confuse David's objective style with timidity. There is a sense in which he presents rather than strongly opines. (Although his opinions come through when one familiarizes themselves with his work in general.) Others might have shot this photo in such a way as to make a more direct/overt statement. I can see many symbolic subjects placed in front of the scene, even reflected in the glass, that would have said a lot more than what David has said here. So, while I understand your photographic critique, I don't think it takes into consideration David's greater body of work and his own consistent approach to his images. It is thought provoking, however.

 

On your more socio/religious statements, I don't think the issue is well formulated by posing a moral equivalence between atheism and religion based on zealotry. The fact of the matter is atheism and religion are substantively quite different and that's the agenda here, not how fervently each group believes what it believes. I'm not questioning the strength of anyone's belief. I'm questioning the beliefs themselves.

I am not a believer so I am not commenting from a position of faith. I'm commenting on the words and the image that David so aptly captured and conveyed in this photo.

 

I see a message of hope in the face of despair. "We are sinners" suggests a self-loathing and an impending hopelessness. Yet, in the face of that, hope survives: A message of love and redemption.

 

Divorcing myself from the theology (which I'm intimately familiar with but do not subscribe to) this image in its simplicity communicates the profundity of grief and struggle that life often entails tempered by an unwillingness to give in.

 

Recognizing that and capturing this image shows an understanding of what the art of photography can be.

 

Well done!

I am a bit at a loss to understand all this foaming at the mouth over an image that is so innocent. Should you wish to see truly offensive statements about religion, I suggest you view my "GOD IN AMERICA" folder. I'm sure you will find something there to excite you. But this poor image? I'm at a loss. It clearly was stated that I was merely out on a walk on Christmas Eve and took a number of images as a pastime while I enjoyed the absolute stillness on a foggy chilly night in small town America. I don't know what you've read into this image. All I did is capture what was sitting in plain site in a storefront window. I cannot see that there is any relevance to whether I'm a believer or a non believer, a Hindu or a Sikh. I also took images from windows or doors to a donut shop, a drug store and a fifties shop. Was I trying to make a statement about those subjects too? The statement was that for better or worse, this was what I SAW. Period.

 

If your problem is with some of the commentary that resulted from the image, then so be it. One could certainly argue endlessly about the virtue (or lack thereof) of organized religion. Your generalizations about atheists having a political agenda could you please explain what would be wrong with that, other than it appears to be a different set of agenda than what you endorse. There are as many reasons for being an atheist as there are atheists. It would not seem to be appropriate to make broad generalizations about their motives and purposes.

 

I'm not a believer in objectivity (atheistic or otherwise). There is a well known song to the effect, "All lies in jest. A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." It's just that some people make more of an effort to be objective than others. Frankly, you don't strike me as very objective at least in this matter.

 

So my friend, I take it you do not like the image. Is it the tonal palette? The dark shadows? The grain? The harsh light? The composition?

Dear Mr meyer,

I did not say a word about your picture...

What do you base your "objective" conclusions about mouth foaming on?

I do believe you had some intentions regarding meaning of the photo but somehow you've retreated under "exquisite" type of pressure... :)

So maybe I am wrong with my understanding... wrong or not it is my understanding. And what exactly is my supposed agenda the way that you see it?

My agenda is no agenda.

 

I will pick it up later as I am out right now

respectfully,

js

Ps.

If anything... I do Like your Picture

 

Existing light gives it a mysterious quality and the subject itself lends itself to intellectual provocation. Based on these qualities alone I consider it a Valuable piece of work. I do respect works that carry beyond just the esthetics.

js

Fred...

 

I like the classicly chronological approach you attempt presenting your point of view. :)

 

The Format you exercise is notably correct except that the Form by itself does not necessarily make it an argument.

 

- Appeasement of the audience

- Discrediting Logic of the opposite point of view

- Making of the Point

 

Appeasing of the audience is executed in a correct manner.

 

Discrediting of Logic attempt fails in that by shifting the meaning of my statement into an issue of philosophical nuance, you usurp its real meaning as your original one (Agenda). :)

 

 

My statement is precisely about Agenda and not like you put it, about

"posing a moral equivalence" :)

 

Systematically, your approach is pleasing although at the end you do not make a point.

 

By the way? what according to your understanding is David telling us? :)

 

Respectfully,

js

 

I would not have put forth this argument in this way in a logic class.

 

I think I made my point. Whether you got my point is little under my control.

 

Briefly, on the matter of agenda.

 

Religion: Based on faith. Maintains traditions instead of blazing new territories of thought. Bases morality on outside source (God, Ten Commandments, Pope) rather than internal struggle with issues. World view tends to be more black and white than allowing for gray areas. Leaders tend to seek power. Hypocrisy seems rampant (professing certain beliefs and, in fact, practicing others). More wars fought in the name of opposing approaches to God than his lack of existence. Spirituality that can be uplifting and raise up humanity when practiced sincerely.

 

Atheism: Based on reason, evidence. Recognition that tradition can be good or bad and that science is trustworthy and an established mode of dealing with the world. Recognition that morality can be relative to culture and era, that absolutes are rare, and that not everything falls into a Yes or No mentality. Atheists can be as proactive about their beliefs as religionists. However, at least contemporarily and in the U.S. (what I'm most familiar with and what I'm most concerned about) most atheist activism is in reaction to religionists wanting to impose their views and morality on others. Atheists don't generally mind other people praying, but they do mind institutionalizing prayer in schools. Atheists don't generally care who may marry but they do tend to mind others dictating who may. Atheists don't generally feel the need to deny the existence of God on their currency or to start official legislative meetings with a group chant about the lack of God. Can be more depressing and more difficult with no afterlife and no given reasons for existence.

 

I will address David's photo in a comment I've been considering for the last day to him directly, based on some of the things he's said, so please read below. I will say that I generally don't think about what the artist/photographer is telling me and I prefer to think about what the image expresses to me. That's because my experience of photography and art has a lot to do with feelings, biases, familiarity with art history, etc. that I bring to it. I am well aware, being a photographer myself, that what people get out of my photos may differ from what I've put into the photos. Stimulation of emotion, thought, feelings, whatever, is more the point than a specific agenda in many cases (not all).

If we were limited to Simon and Garfunkel and Dylan we'd have a world of poetry to cover most human circumstances. Great quote from a great song.

 

I agree with your idea that complete objectivity is impossible and it falls on a continuum. On that continuum, I see your photography as falling toward the more objective side, my own more toward the subjective side. With, of course, some overlap and some gray area.

 

That being said, I'd want to discuss further two of your statements, especially in light of "A man hears what he wants to hear . . ."

 

"All I did is capture what was sitting in plain site in a storefront window."

 

"The statement was that for better or worse, this was what I SAW. Period."

 

I'll start by saying you, David, know best what your intentions are and how you see your own photography. Nevertheless, I have opinions and am rarely hesitant to share them in the name of learning and enlightening discourse. I think you make choices. You don't simply photograph. There were an infinite number of pictures you could have taken that night that you didn't ("disregard the rest"). These are the photos you chose. I can't think that your choices, especially looking at your body of work, are random. They may come naturally, and without much overt thought on your part, I don't know, but it is not just what you see. It is what you see that touches you and what touches you seems to have a consistency ("A man hears what he wants to hear").

 

When I look through your work, as I say, I try not necessarily to infuse you personally with the themes and "statements" I may read into your work. I'm well aware that art can lie as much as it can tell deep truths. A certain gesture or expression, when caught in a photograph, can take on a universal "meaning" that would not have been recognized at the time or in the moment. That's the beauty of art. It can take a gesture and make it into a grand expression. There's both truth and falsehood in that and that's what I love about art. So I prefer to talk about what your body of work conveys to me rather than what I think you believe.

 

Second, and this is quite pertinent to your type of work (the more objective or "documentary" type of photography), the perspective of the viewer will make all the difference in the world. I recently saw a movie called "Jesus Camp" with a bunch of my atheist/liberal/whacko friends. We all took the film as an indictment of the crazier (yes, a biased word) zealots who train kids from a very young age to be Warriors (their word) for Christianity. We found it scary, repulsive, and felt the filmmakers did a good job of presenting the nuttiness of these folk. I then read some reviews of the film and, to my astonishment, found that many far right religious people viewed it as a great film that they were glad was made and that they felt showed the wonderful work being done in the name of their religion. Go figure!

 

Getting back to the point. When I look at your work, I see that a lot of the ironies you find would fall in the category of a liberal's bent toward what's ironic about America and religion. I think you are able to find hypocrisy, irony, strangeness, etc. I also think your work has a feel for the past, for nostalgia, for what is decaying, for eras gone by, etc. There's a real romantic sense in your photography.

 

To be fair, while I think religionists and conservatives reign in the field of hypocrisy, there is much of that to go around even in liberal circles. One prime example I always think about is the many "liberals" I know who are in favor of drug programs, homeless shelters, etc. but you have a hard time getting certain liberal neighborhoods to approve such housing in their own neck of the woods. I imagine there could be images found to convey such hypocrisies. Please tell me if I misjudge and if your work addresses each equally. I find your work more drawn to a certain side of the spectrum. Frankly, I'm glad it is. And I think it is where the subjective side of your photography comes in. More in the body of your work than in each individual image. I think Thorn of Crowns, the image, presented in isolation, could say many things to many people. I think when you took it, you may have been moved by many things, including the stature of the book, the lighting, the scale, the starkness. Looking at your body of work, it would be hard not to interpret or feel it as a bit of an indictment (or at least a source of some bemusement at the commercialization of such a deep religious thought), especially coming next to a photo of a garish cross you've titled "Burning Cross," which surely conjures up some demonic thoughts about how the cross has been used in history.

 

Anyway, you know I love your work and always look forward to your images, regardless of your motivations. I learn from them and feel like I've travelled the country after browsing your portfolio. It's much more than what can be said in a few paragraphs and it most certainly cannot be pigeon-holed into a one-note or monolithic "message." It is a fairly wide vision. To stimulate passion and discussion, in my view, is the greatest accomplishment of an artist. Congratulations.

Beautifully said...

It was a pleasure exchanging some thoughts with you.

janusz