War Politics and Photography

R

ruben

Guest
Yesterday I posted two comentaries at the Anti War Demo thread. In the first I called for everyone to "keep proportions", meaning showing mutual tolerance.

At the second one I wrote a brief sentence which I simply do not remember now, and attached two pics downloaded from the Altavista images engine. The first was the famous one, perhaps the most influent of the past century, depicting those kids at Vietnam, with that nude girl burnt from Napalm, her arms wide open.
The second image showed New York people fleeing the catastrophic collapse of the Twins.

This second post was deleted from the thread. Moderator Coxon sent me the following PM:

"Ruben,
Did you take the photos you uploaded to this thread? If not you are in contravention of the forum rules:

Rule No. 6 - No Public Posting of Copyright Material
6) You will not upload, attach or post any material you are not the creator and/or copyright holder of. It is however acceptable to post links to publically accessible material.

If they are your photos, I will restore the post.

Kim
__________________
Hakuna Matata "




Along my time at RFF I used to attach from the same source (Altavista) many small images, bringing some color to my posts. Many here will remember such attachments during the Mundial, and lately at the thread about "10000 members". None of them was deleted.

:D

Well, that's why I love the mix of Politics and Photography. Here is where the potatos are really hot !

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruben,
I have 2 comments.

As you declined to answer my PM and have started this thread, it is apparent that you have no wish to resolve such matters but would rather turn it into an issue especially with your words Here is where the potatos are really hot ! It appears then that you are trolling.

I would normally send a PM but to save you the effort of cutting and pasting it here, I say it now.
Please remember the rules and in particular:
Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"
2) You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't create meaningless threads with the sole purpose of starting a dispute. This includes messages in profiles and signatures.

Regards
Kim
 
Ruben

The moderators dont necessarily read every post, I recall Joe jumped on one of mine cause I titled it 'sex in the series filter' because that was what it was about.

Having read it promptly, he was then helpful.

You cannot complain if you were breaching copyright rules. insert a link if it is a problem.

I should not have corrected Bill, I did not detect he had probably posted before the event I referenced.

The delinquent thread is still staggering on. Most species have close relatives our closest is way distant and they are not doing well, the chimp and pigmy chimp.

Noel

P.S. double posted with kim
 
Discussing stuff like that doesn't work over the internet - unless everyone has more or less the same point of view, be that left-wing or right-wing.

This is a forum about rangefinders, I say keep politics out of it. I get enough of it reading the newspaper on the bog.
 
I'm with Kully. I know where to go to find political discussions slantend towards either extreme. I won't spew my particular agitprop on this forum, and I'd appreciate the same from others.

I come here to escape that kind of thing. Let's talk rangefinders...
 
let me remind you that this is a photo forum and not a forum for political discussion.

and anyone who believes that we can talk about politics and photograpghy at the same time clearly has not been paying attention to any of the threads that have attmpted this.
no matter.

rf gear and photography, those are the main topics here.

if this is too hard for any to maintain then think about moving on.
go find a nice political site and try talking about photography there.

joe
 
kully said:
This is a forum about rangefinders, I say keep politics out of it. I get enough of it reading the newspaper on the bog.
Click to expand...

English is not my native language. Can anyone help me understand the implications of the term "Off Topic", please. :rolleyes:
 
back alley said:
let me remind you that this is a photo forum and not a forum for political discussion.

and anyone who believes that we can talk about politics and photograpghy at the same time clearly has not been paying attention to any of the threads that have attmpted this.
no matter.

rf gear and photography, those are the main topics here.

if this is too hard for any to maintain then think about moving on.
go find a nice political site and try talking about photography there.

joe
Click to expand...

English is not my native language. Can anyone help me understand the implications of the term "moving on", please. :rolleyes:
 
Joe,

You sound like my sixth grade teacher, Sister Rose Delores... except she said stuff like that in Latin, with a French accent. :)
 
I agree that this forum should not be used for the airing of particular political views. However, I think that it is important not to make the prohibition on discussing politics absolute. Photojournalism is by its very nature political. The point is eloquently stated by James Nachtwey in "War Photographer," when he argues that an essential role of the photojournalist is to "get publications to focus on issues that are more critical, that do not provide people with an escape from reality but attempt to get them deeper into reality, to be concerned about something much greater than themselves."

The problem around here seems to be that a small minority take every mention of politics as an opportunity to air their own views and to denigrate others. The recent thread on the World Press Photo Awards demonstrated this tendency. Photographs were assessed on the basis of the political messages they conveyed (or were perceived to convey) as opposed to on the basis of the effectiveness with which they conveyed those messages. I agree with those who are arguing that there is no place for the first type of discussion on this forum. However, I believe that our discussions would be greatly impoverished if we denied each other the right to engage in the second type of discussion.
 
The subject of rangefinder photography inherently includes discussions of "serious" photography. Many, many of the forum members make constant reference to the work of photojournalists.

Some of the best conversations on this forum take place when people are discussing the ethics of what should be photographed.

Many of us agree that the essence of rangefinder photography is not so much the equipment ... cold metal and glass ... as the passion that accompanies using a precision instrument to record an image of lasting significance.
 
ruben said:
Many here will remember such attachments during the Mundial, and lately at the thread about "10000 members". None of them was deleted.
Click to expand...

Certainly my friend! I can remember the one of Zidane you attached in order to cool down my animal emotions ... you did a great job as unofficial moderator ;)


ruben said:
Well, that's why I love the mix of Politics and Photography. Here is where the potatos are really hot !
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree. I would add something: politics is about life, values, how we see the world, how we want it to be ... so is photography. Needless to mention all those great politically committed photographers ... when I close my eyes I see pictures by Dorothea Lange, showing the poor of the Depression ... and lately, I visit the Bruce Davidson exhibition at the HCB Foundation ... it's nothing but politics and photography ... political photography.

Cheers,

Marc-A.
 
Vince, Rafael,
I aggree with you in the main. However, political photography, government policy and thread hijacking are 3 separate issues. Let me put it this way:

Many of the most iconic photographic images in history have had a political content. To discuss those photos in a coherent manner with due regard to others point of view is pertinent to a photographic forum in the right thread. Discussing the political impact of photography in a dispassionate way can be pertinent. Using that as an excuse for trolling and flame wars is not. Discussing the policies of governments, political parties or groups is not pertinent to a photographic forum. Hijacking anothers threads with polictical statements is certainly not correct. Let's look at recent history:

Mango started a thread to organise a meeting of RFF members in London. What has politics got to do with that and yet the thread was trashed despite intervention from the mods. Ruben, against forum rules, uploaded copyright material and asked for political comment. What does that have to do with organising an RFF meeting? If he really wished to discuss the photograhic implications of those pictures, he was at liberty to start a new thread with links. Instead he chose to start this thread in the manner he did. That would seem to indicate that his purpose was to troll rather than start a discussion.

Look at other threads. As Joe has stated not one of them has contained a meaningful discussion but has degenerated into a flame war of government policy with next to no regard for photography. Such events would indicate that the participants are more interested in flame wars and trolling than finding out about others views. The rules are quite plain. No copyright material unless you own the copyright, no flameing and no trolling. If having a good fight is more important to you go elsewhere. The large majority do not want it here.

By all means prove me wrong. Start a meaningful discussion about the politics of photography. Providing it stays on course and they is no mention of government policy in a non photographic sense, no trolling and no flames, I will let it run.

In the meantime, any hijacking of other threads with political statements or attempts to turn them into OT threads will be dealt with in accordance with the rules and policy of the forum.
 
Since I do not remember myself proposing to turn RFF into a forum of political debate, I have no choice but to send back the free ticket out, with the same generousity with which it was offered me.

The basic issues we all are addressing, apropo the London Anti War demo thread, in my opinion, are mutual tolerance and maturity at RFF. What is the main subject of Photography if not the human being, be it in front or behind the camera ? Therefore since its inception photography has been trying to grip that elusive genre that came to be called "The Human Condition".

Human suffering is not the property nor the privilege of this or that political wing. Historically, henchmen have turn into victyms and victyms into henchment. Precisely because RFF is not aligned but by love for Photography, when issues somewhat related to politics arise (and have in the past) we could size the opportunity to bring forward our curiousity, towards the complexities of life. I would call this maturity.

Precisely from our Brittish friends, once in the past came a public call to go together to a Pride Parade. I disliked very much the tone of the call, as it sounded me then like a kind of 'let's go to the circus'. So I intervened in the thread, and followed in PMs and things showed somewhat different in an unexpected direction, for me and for my counterpart. This was allowed as the tones were kept unpersonal and low. To this gift I would call tolerance.

To be a loyal RFF member is not to punnish this or that view, or to block its free discussion, instead of punnishing unproper tones of discussion, or requests for censorship. Whatever deals with life deals with photography, otherwise explain me again what is a camera.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really, the previous thread got hijacked by one person who used extremely strong and provocative language to say it was inappropriate to photograph anti-war demonstrations. Others then expressed a counter-opinion. It didn't turn into a flame war. It didn't get ugly, unless I missed something.
 
I agree we should not post copyrighted material. Several iconic war images need only be described with simple language. We have seen them and know them.
 
i'm sorry but on a forum dedicated to rangefinder photography there is nothing as important or more important than rf photography.

are politics important? very!
just not here is all.

every election i can, i work for my favourite political party, walk door to door, accompany my candidate to meet the voters, hang signs etc. i work at it, not just troll internet forums looking for a juicy argument.

but here i talk about gear and pics.
it's very simple really.

joe
 
Perhaps we should turn to the original problem. I cannot endorse the posting of copyrighted images unless the poster owns the copyright. I make my living from photography. To me this is a really serious violation, akin to theft. Please respect the photography of Nick Ut - yes the photgrapher who took the picture of the burning girl has a name. The burning girl now lives in Cananda. Her name is Kim Phuc. This image is a piece of intellectual property and the person depicted is a flesh and blood person, even if the photo is an icon. See this:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0008/ng6.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom