Photography and politics

[Roger Hicks]

To me, one of the reasons photography is important is because it helps me understand other people and other points of view, especially internationally.

Politics are important for the same reason. This is why I believe it is impossible to say 'This is a photo forum not a political forum'

As easily the most civilized international photo forum, rangefinderforum.com is especially important to me for this reason.

Who agrees and who disagrees? Not a formal poll because subjective opinions are important.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[dmr]

To me, one of the reasons photography is important is because it helps me understand other people and other points of view, especially internationally.

Politics are important for the same reason. This is why I believe it is impossible to say 'This is a photo forum not a political forum'

As easily the most civilized international photo forum, rangefinderforum.com is especially important to me for this reason.

Who agrees and who disagrees? Not a formal poll because subjective opinions are important.

I agree that this is the most civil of any on-line forums I have known of. That's something I do value. I also value the international and multicultural aspect we have here.

People here tend to avoid political hot-button issues. You know, those left-right red-blue issues that our politicians play "let's you and him fight" with. 🙂 I've never felt any blatant censorship, but I do know the moderator(s) has/have been cautious when talk (or images) ventures too close to that which might be hypergolic. 🙂

I do think the main advantage we have here are the people, who use some restraint and appear to respect others' opinions as valid from their particular perspective, even though they may disagree with them.

 

[jaapv]

I would say that there is nothing wrong with showing one's political feelings, as long as it is done in a non-inflammatory way and is somehow relevant to the real purpose of this forum: RF photography. I remember a great post about a KKK rally with superb photo's. It seems to me to be impossible to amputate that part of one's personality; it is one of the interesting things about meeting people on the internet.

 

[Roman]

Well, I agree...

BTW, every single decision you make in your everyday life has some underlying political dimenison, so you cannot divide between politics and photography (or work, or shopping, or entertainment, etc.), anyway.

Roman

 

[Oldprof]

I think of photography as a medium of communication. Like writing, it has nearly universal applicability as its content can cover almost anything you can imagine. But there are differences between a written record and a visual record. I believe the interpretation of an image (if presented without text) may be more personal and subjective than the interpretation of a written statement. Still, people often differ in their interpretations of written works. In all media, the intended message is not always the received message.

I agree with Roger that photography can help us to understand other peoples and places, and that the political dimension of photography is important. But these are only some of the things photography can do. I believe a large proportion of all pictures taken are to document the lives of family members, friends, and pets. Biologists and astronomers use photography to enhance and document their research on the natural world. Physicians and dentists use x-ray photography for diagnostic purposes. I could go on, but you get the point.

Should RangeFinderForum declare certain uses of the photographic medium off limits? Most members would probably agree that the Forum should eschew pornography. Based on the discussion in the recent thread on censorship, quite a few members would also prefer to avoid political images and debates. Personally, I don't mind political content, but I would would prefer like to see the images and issues discussed in a civil manner. This Forum has a good track record in that regard.

 

[FrankS]

As long as we stick to RF photography we'll be fine, but the instant we start to discuss say, America foreign policy, or if Christ is the only path to God, we will be in deep doodoo. There is no way for a group as diverse as we are to discuss politics or religion without creating bad blood. It is sometimes possible in face to face discussions, but the disconnectedness of the internet too often gives people the mistaken idea that saying anything they feel like is okay. If we want to keep this "family" together, I strongly urge members to find other forums to discuss politics and religion.

Please let me know where that is, and I will probably join you there for a good shouting match, mud-slinging, ad name-calling.

 

[GeneW]

I'm interested in how photography can help portray the human condition, but I always worry when I view political photographs that I'm being manipulated, perhaps unknowingly, by the photographer. Shots of demonstrations (left or right), for instance, don't really show me much about anything except people who have decided to hang around together to shout and wave banners. But I'm an apolitical animal by nature so I probably don't get it ...

Gene

 

[sooner]

Hi All,

I agree with Frank completely, politics is better left for other forums. This forum is rare if not unique for its mix of civil and knowledgeable members, along with those like myself who are much more the former than the latter (call us polite lurkers?). Let's not ruin it. As an avid follower of politics, I have found very few people who can discuss both sides of any issue, let alone do so calmly. Once, I traveled with a guy, and we got along great until he realized we disagreed on a big issue, and that ruined it. We spent the rest of the trip with him trying to convert me.

Besides, our treatment of politics is far too muddled with "visuals" as it is, and most photographs appeal to our feelings and not our intellects. We need more facts, truth, and intelligent discussion regarding politics, not more images to throw coals on the fire, IMHO.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Frank,

I *think* I understand your viewpoint, but I'm not sure you're right.

My wife Frances Schultz, born in Rochester, New York, says that as a child she was always told that no-one should discuss religion or politics. After nearly 20 years outside the US she believes that this advice is dangerous and misleading: it's a way of hiding from what's real. Two of the things that are most real, in fact.

With Roman, I agree that every act is a political act (then again, my great-grandmother was a Party member -- the only one in the family, I hasten to add.)

With Oldprof I agree (sort of) that our main interest is RF photography. But unless we can let the political message behind our pictures speak for itself -- even if it is misunderstood -- then I am not sure that we are true to that interest.

By way of illustration I attach a shot taken by Frances Schultz in Levoca in Slovakia. She took it with a Bessa T and 50/2.5 Color-Skopar. Its 'grabbed' reportage quality makes it, for me, an archetypal RF shot.

What does it say to people? Is it blasphemy (we both think not)? A commentary on the rebelliousness of youth (we both think so)? An illustration of the influence of the English language? In our opinion it is no more or less offensive than the Bush/swastika shot: it is a report of how the world is in a particular place, without endorsement, without condemnation.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrandfrances.com)

 

[Nikon Bob]

We practice politics, whether we know it or not, every day in our dealings with other people. Every photo is political as it contains some kind of point of view. Documentary/street/photo journalism is even more in your face in this respect and is a favoured arena for the use of Rangefinders. You simply connot wash the politics out. Some of the most thought provoking photos that I recall have been from that type of photography. What creates trouble is not a photo with political content but the viewers inablity to step back and try to look at the other point of view presented in a dispassionate manner.

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Sooner,

Aren't you saying, in effect, that the members of this forum aren't grown up enough to discuss politics? That's putting it harshly, but I'd very much like to believe otherwise. If people can't discuss politics in a civilized manner, can they discuss ANYTHING in a civilized manner?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Nikon Bob,

Absolutely. We cannot wash the politics out. Is it not better to admit this, and try to explore the motives/politics of a shot, than to pretend that politics don't exist?

(This is a rhetorical question as I suspect I know your answer).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roman]

Roger,
I'm from a younger generation than you, I guess, that's why I immediately noticed that most of the writings in your picture are simply names of punk rock bands - I used to be a big 'Bad Religion' fan myself, and (being an atheist) proudly wore their T-shirt with the crossed-out cross; 'Agnostic Front' were not really my cup of tea, though, and 'Disgorge' sounds like a deathmetal band... 😉

Roman

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roman,

I'm 55 but I'm not entirely out of touch. Bear in mind that I have *young* friends (probably older than you) who were into punk the first time round. My vote for the first punk song was The Who with My Generation ("Hope I die 'fore I get old..." -- an adequately nihilistic punk message) but I'd also back Ian Dury and the Blockheads, though for me their definitive punk track was F*ckin' Ada, long after the Sex Pistols.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[FrankS]

Simply in order to get along, let's discuss the photographs of whatever, being adult and sensitive to the viewpoints of others in this international forum. There is nothing wrong with discussing politics as it relates to photography but if the disussion shifts completely to a political issue (and how could it not if an issue is raised?) then this forum, IMHO is not the right place for that discussion. Roger, do you remember the controversy raised by the posts springing from your national food quality posts? They were completely off the topic of photography and totally not desireable here at RFF. We are adults and we should be able to talk about politics and religion, but not necesarily here on this RF forum, beyond the degree that it is involved with photography. Simply in order to get along, let's focus on the topics that unite us rather than the topics which will certainly divide us. This is my opinion.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We're never going to agree on this one, Frank, but even despite that, I don't think it's a good approach to try to pretend that politics don't exist in relationship to photography. Yes, discussion may require unusual effort and tact in some cases, and there are significant differences in what different people regard as 'normal discussion' and 'flaming'. All the more reason, say I, to confront the issue head-on rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

No, you say, we're not pretending it doesn't exist, we just prefer not to address it. I respond that preferring not to address it is tantamount to pretending it doesn't exist.

I respect your viewpoint. I just don't agree with it. And I believe (as I think do some others) that this disagreement is better aired than unaired, as long as we can do it reasonably amicably.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[FrankS]

Well you do have a choice, Roger. You can either agree with me or you can be wrong, it's up to you. 🙂 🙂 🙂 (Notice the 3 smilies to make sure you know I'm kidding. Just want to get along.)

I respond that preferring not to address it is tantamount to pretending it doesn't exist.

This statement I disagree with. Totally different.

 

[TEZillman]

Roger,

In you initial post, if I understand correctly, you made the statement that politics are important because they, like photography, help you to understand people and other points of view. I think I would disagree with that statement. I would agree that photography helps one to understand other people and other points of view, but I think polictics does just the opposite. Politics tend to move one to agree or disagree. To the extent that politics end up resulting in compromises, there is an end result that is helpful in arriving at understanding. The compromises are all to often the exception.

It is very dificult to make a photograph that clearly states a political point of view on its own. The photo that you posted later that was taken by your wife is a good example. It makes no clear political statment. It can mean/communicate a great many things to various people, especially if it stands on its own and the viewer does not know where it was taken. It certainly has an impact. The politial aspect of it is greatly enhanced by it's location, but even then it can be interpreted in numerous ways.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Roger,
like Roman said, Frances' pic displays names of thrash metal bands, most which represent the hey day of the mosh pit (yeah, those were the days).

On the political talk, I don't see how politics can enter into the discussion here without sparking fierce debate. I for one don't subscribe to bashing of my country, it's leaders or it's policies as I would feel you would not. Based on the reponses to the veiled political posts recently I find I am in the minority in that I support and defend my country, my leaders, and it's policies, yes....I am the one! 😉.

I value the opinions of people here when it comes to RF cameras, film, developing,etc. I enjoy the "corniness" and fun we poke at each other at times, but I fear that we might be headed down the road where other forums have gone. I would leave before that would happen.

Todd

 

[cp_ste.croix]

I love discussing politics, but only when I can be assured that emotional responses will not devolve discussions into binaries which ignore nuance. Political discussions on the net almost always become polemical in my experience. While this is clearly the most civilized forum on the net at present, I am convinced that the storm of emotions which might arise would quickly change that reputation as ad hominem attacks would grow and people would end up displaying their worst attributes, rather than their best. I am no more immune to this than anyone else, given the right circumstances. I do not wish to see the friends I think I have gained here in a light that is less than flattering. They are not good enough friends for that major step. We are, after all, annonymous correspondants.

While I agree that the personal is the political, and that our actions can contain a political dimension beyond their surface, I also believe in the purely aesthetic and that an image can be merely beautiful without necessarily conveying a political message.

Do I think that anyone here should be forced to deny their own political dimension in order to participate? Of course not. People talk about their jobs, past experiences, current outings, family, relationships, etc. all of which reveal a political frame of reference that they opperate from. As long as everyone here feels free to be themselves, without fear of persecution, then I think that is a great thing.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the tools, or the desire to justify or explain their own political leanings. Challenging people or calling out their beliefs in a public manner, in a forum which would lead people to belive that they might be safe from this behaviour is not only inconsiderate, it is bullying. I can't remember the names of anyone who has done this, but I have seen it happen here.

I am also yet to see anyone change their mind on an important political issue based on a forum post. My politics are posted on my weblog, linked at the bottom of my signature. Anyone who wishes can choose to comment or engage with me in a political discussion, or even just learn a little about my point of view. Those who wish to avoid such issues can read only my 'humourous' posts. Those who come for photography can avoid it all together. It is their choice however, and I think that is important.

respectfully,
chris ste. croix