RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad

RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad

  • Good

    Votes: 24 55.8%

  • Bad

    Votes: 19 44.2%
  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
egpj

egpj

50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
Local time
1:58 PM
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
723
Location
Bogota, Colombia
View My Gallery
I used to have a picture in my Gallery called "Swasti-Bush". I was just informed via email that my photo had been deleted. Here is a link to the photo on my webpage:

http://homepage.mac.com/egpj/pics/Leica_MP_004.jpg

I had not uploaded the photo as any kind of political statement but had been doing a study on graffitti in Medellin, Colombia. Also, the paint runs are beautiful!

Anyway, my own opinion is that censorship of this type is offensive. I did not think that RangeFinderForum had moderators that would stoop to deleting your work but all other members should know that there are those who will take it upon themselves to delete your art when they desire to do so.

Glenn
 
Last edited:
I don't want to sound rude with this, but if you want to post photos of whatever you like without censorship, then go ahead and start your own forum and gallery. You are totally free to do so. If you want to post at RFF, then you have to play by the rules of the owner. If Jorge decides that only pictures of pink bunny rabbits are allowed to be posted in the gallery, then he is completely free to impose that rule. Obviously if he does, this site would be a lot less popular than it is. I have a photo of a woman flashing her breasts in my gallery. If Jorge found photos of that type offensive, I might not agree, but I would certainly understand his right to control "offensive" content. (How anyone could find women's breasts offensive I don't understand, but I can understand how images of swaztikas can be found offensive.)
 
I just followed your link to view your picture. While I am certainly not a Bush fan, I think it's over the top. I'm sure you can find pretty paint runs on other signs. Personally I can understand this censorship.

To put it simply: This is Jorge's sandbox.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to say that, but photos like yours led to one of the worst flamewars ever on Photo.Net where members threatened to sue each other.

In this case I think censorship is allowed to keep this place as nice as it is.
 
One aspect of this photo is that it doesn't have a RFF photographic context. Had you shown the person spray painting it, or a wide shot of the surroundings to show what produced this sentiment, it would be photographic art of the type typically posted on this forum. Out of context as it is, it's a political statement created in a graphic arts format.
 
I think Nick nailed the problem with this particular shot. Without any form of context, all it does is make the political statement. Perhaps if it had even been a part of a series of shots of Colombian grafitti, it wouldn't have these issues, but as a standalone photo it really doesn't work. While I, personally may choose to agree or disagree with that political statement, I feel it fails the "art" test.

As Frank noted, this is Jorge's private board that he graciously shares with us. That said, I believe that the deletion was correct in this instance.

William
 
I concur with Frank and Nick.. the photograph in itself doesn't convey anything.. it's obviously the statement that is the focus.. if you had possibly included some of the environment to show the culture that it exists in, maybe I'd be interested.. but pointing out that there are idiots out there who have such a low mental capacity to compare anyone to a nazi doesn't have any photographic value

and as it has been said, this is Jorge's site.. he makes the rules, and we follow them.. of course you're entitled to express your dissent.. which you have done.. but saying that "censorship is offensive" doesn't really apply.. if you're offended, you're more than welcome to say so and/or leave.. but keep in mind that we're a very motley crew here, and we have to have some rules in order to keep our community the way we like it

that having been said, I hope you stick around and enjoy our group
 
I'm not a fan of censorship, but as has been mentioned before:
(a) It may help to keep everything friendly, and
(b) It's Jorge sandbox.

I won't vote in the poll, but I sympathise, Glenn. I would be equally frustrated and dismayed by the situation if it had happened to me... I understood when I first saw the picture (before this thread) that it was not your own personal political statement, simply your record of someone else's statement.

Nick: I do disagree with your statements. The fact that the photo was made by a rangefinder camera should be enough to "qualify" it for inclusion here. Showing the person painting it, or showing a wider shot of the surroundings, has nothing to do with "RFF photographic context". The things you mention are simply some characteristics of a common style found here.

I do agree, however, that had these differences been included, the image would be more palatable to the masses. It may have moved the focus of the photograph from the political statement to either the action of making the statement, or the context of the statement (assuming it was part of a greater context that was meaningful). Maybe these changes would make it less objectionable, but perhaps not.
 
Allow me to rephrase one of my comments, lest it appear overly confrontational or intolerant:

Nick, I respect your opinion and understand what you are trying to say, but my opinion of "RFF photographic context" is different.

I didn't want this to start some sort of "you're wrong" / "no, you're wrong" type of competition. I simply wanted to state my opinion, because I think it's an important topic to discuss.

edit/
Jeez, the blue I was using was terrible... Let me try something else.
And, what's wrong with my typing? Ugh...
 
Last edited:
Frank, I have a great amount of respect for your opinion but I have to disagree this time. I have seen flame wars and they really are ugly and never want to participate or fuel one. I am trying to understand your standpoint and that of others that have replied. As for Nick's comment. I do not agree as to my photo fitting the photographic context of the forum. The photo was taken with a rangefinder camera ergo. The intent of my heart was not as a political statement for me although I did record another persons political view.

Then again the rules are dependent upon what Jorge wants. I will remove my photo's off this forum and edit my signature to show a link to my webpage. Only keep to the love of the cameras without having to worry about who I may offend with my shots.
 
egpj, that is one of the reasons I keep most of my pics on my own website. In the PN flameware the photo.net owners where threatened with law suits, if anybody is offended by my pics he shall tackle me and not somebody else.
It's cheaper in germany 🙂
 
it's best to keep camera enthusiast websites as depoliticized as possible. we're here for the cameras, after all!
 
egpj,

Your pictures are welcomed here and I rarely delete anything. However, now and then I come across a photo which I consider to be borderline between art and politics. In this case, your photograph caught my attention as borderline. I am sure the forum members all have different political views yet we all get along because we do not discuss them. You may have posted your picture as art but unfortunately I saw a statement instead. I have seen other pictures here where political figures are captured on film both favorably and unfavorably. However, when I saw those pictures, I saw news and street photography of rallies and other events which showed the subject in context. I did not see that with your picture. So rather than start a flame war, I decided it was better off being removed.
 
In the main, I've always been of the opinion, if you don't like it, don't look.
Photography is the greatest tool for evoking emotion, a reaction, especially when it comes to current topics.
I say, like it or no, let 'er rip!
HOWEVER! As several have said, this is Jorge's forum; it's not public property. What he says, goes. We are allowed to post by his fiat, and due to his generosity.
If he disapproves, for whatever reason, his rules apply, and I'm happy to live by them.
 
man, i step away from the computer for a few hours and someone starts the fan. 🙂

while i'm here, can i clear up a very small point?
i am the moderator.
jorge is the owner of the site.
there is only one moderator at rff, although we do seem to have an absentee mod for the rd1 section.
i know it's a small point but sometimes there are references to moderatorS and frankly i get confused😉

as to censorship...jorge has the big scissors and i have the small ones.
obviously jorge has the last word over all of us.

joe
 
I went ahead and deleted my stuff anyway. I understand your position about getting rid of that particular image but I just do not want it to happen again. Therefore, I will just get rid of everything and concentrate on keeping the pictures on my site. End of (my) problem.

I did not realize that my photo had started a flame war or negative comments. That was not my intention.
 
Thank you egpj. Please remember that we are discussing this image, and you should not take this personally.

There are 2 reasons why your photo was censored. I explained the easy one: Jorge can do as he likes. We might not agree, but it's that simple.

The second reason is more complex, but Nick and others have explained it well. Your shot of the artwork, is not a work of art. It is a documentation of a work of art. There is no artistry in a photo duplication. Your image carries only the political message, and demonstrates only technical competence on the part of the photographer. Is a photo of a peice of art art if it includes no context? No. This is not censorshipo of your art, it is censorship of a political statement.

You have a great many images in your gallery that demonstrate your artistry in photogrpahy. I absolutely love the one you call Reflexion. It has a person standing inside an opening in the shape of a cross. Now that image contains a very powerful symbol as well but you have crafted a context for it.

I sincerely hope you can live with this decision and will stay on here at RFF. The discussion certainly has been interesting!
 
Last edited:
I posted a joke here once that posed a hypothetical situation involving a flood, a drowning president and a photojournalist. It was funny yet controversial. For 5 minutes. The thread was deleted.

At first I was surprised, but within 5 minutes I accepted the action. It would have ticked off a number of people. No problem really.

Our members are made up of a lot of cultures and beliefs. For the most part we do very well at not ticking each other off.

Just go with it. It all works out.

Bob
 
Hi egpj

I've seen your stuff and you are a talented photographer. I think you are also intelligent enough to know some people who are Jewish are offended by swastika images. There are well known reasons for this emotion rearing up in that part of our community.

Innocent or not it is not so much censorship a as consideration for our fellow man. Intolerance for any part of our society based on stereotype is the root of a lot of history's most tragic moments.

Jan
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom