View Full Version : RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad
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
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.
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.
wlewisiii
07-15-2005, 17:08
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
JoeFriday
07-15-2005, 17:10
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
BJ Bignell
07-15-2005, 17:18
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.
BJ Bignell
07-15-2005, 17:25
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...
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.
Krasnaya_Zvezda
07-15-2005, 18:16
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.
back alley
07-15-2005, 18:20
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!
Fedzilla_Bob
07-15-2005, 18:27
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
jan normandale
07-15-2005, 18:50
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
With one photo I can offend just about every political group and religous order. Dang! I gotta frame that one!
egpj, what do you think of the argument that a straight up picture of a work of art is not a creative work of art in itself?
In my view this site is meant to bring together rangefinder photographers for fun and sharing. I think that we have to realize that we all come from different backgrounds, political views and countries. A bit of self-cencorship is called for. If you think that a photograph might be overly offensive then just make the decision to not post it. It is merely being respectful to others when you do this. Like others have said, we are here because of Jorges generocity. If someone really needs to post photos to express themselves in a way that might overly offend others there are other place to do this. In cases like this where egpj seems to have posted a photo that might offend without any agenda then the forum owner and moderator will take care of it.
Most of the other photo forums have fallen victim to horrible in-fighting that almost destroyed them. I certainly don't want to see this happen here. I prefer to see whatever censorship is needed to keep that from happening.
Frank, it (the graffiti) was not art. Something that I found amusing about the piece was the heart that was painted over behind it. You can see it to the left of the "B". The two differing emotions was something that I saw. I liked the turmoil in that image but nobody else could see it. Sooo, I really accomplished nothing. "Art" yes but not effective.
egpj, I had to go back to see the partially painted over heart as I hadn't noticed it before.
A third argumment has surfaced against the posting of this image in the gallery, that of cultural/historical sensitivity and respect for others.
Has the decision by Jorge to censor this image from the RFF gallery been validated for you after this discussion, or are you still in disagreement with the action?
"With one photo I can offend just about every political group and religous order. Dang! I gotta frame that one!"
It's not your photo, egpj, the swastika is capable of doing that all by itself. As for hanging it on my wall, no thank you.
it seems like the messenger is sometimes confused with the message s/he is reporting.
i didn't read this picture as the photographer intending to offend; but saw it more as reporting, and juxtaposing the conflicting symbols, and presenting the political intent of the grafittist.
further, it seems like just about any picture is capable of offending someone, whether it is because of references to politics, religion, objectification and exploitation of individuals and cultures, or pictures that are more about technique and tools, or those that are plain old boring and banal.
I understand why he cut it now and it is HIS perogative. In the photo someone made a statement of hate about our president while painting it in front of a heart. It is a duality and I think it is worth exploring the concepts that are expressed. One of hate (rather inappropriate in my political opinion) covering over one of love.
I'll keep my pictures on my webpage. Hopefully that will keep me out of trouble. I just don't like being censored.
Krasnaya_Zvezda
07-15-2005, 21:12
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.
Frank, my esteemed friend, this is a specious argument. Your statement rips open an enormous can of worms. ART CANNOT BE DEFINED. It is what the artist says it is. Is a religious icon art? Can a photo of that icon be considered art? How about a painting? I submit: Any representation of an idea, in any form, can be considered art.
That's a wide open interpretation. Good reason for that, since art itself is damn difficult to pin down.
I disagree with you on your statement, "is not a work of art."
No one can define this. If I spit on the street, and call the splatter art, it is.
If someone writes, "WHY?" in dripping spray paint, on a wall, and it's photographed, that's art, and I doubt any would have questioned it.
Might not be a great photo, but it wouldn't have generated any controversy.
And for those who object specifically to the swastika, those who are offended by it--- you should be offended, as should any who see it; and the suppression of that image would only serve to subdue its message. All right thinking individuals should be outraged whenever we see it--- and we should see it, lest its lessons be forgotten.
Red Green (a famous Canadain) defined art this way: If I can do it, it isn't art. :)
Honu-Hugger
07-15-2005, 21:43
I think it is a fairly safe bet if anyone here were to guess my personal politics they would quite likely be wrong; my personal feelings about this particular image or any other image aside I am a strong proponent for free expression in art in the larger community. What I am saying is that regardless of whether or not I like or agree with an image or the statement that an image makes I respect and advocate the right of the individual to make and display the image.
In the smaller more communal setting of our forum I think that it is prudent for us to respect the sensibilities of all and try not to offend -- we are something of a family here and we do have an outstanding track record of cooperation, good spirit, and respect for one another. As BJ B pointed out ultimately it is Jorge's sandbox and I respect Jorge and his judgement as much as I respect anyone's individual rights.
Egpj, I thought that your photograph was provocative and that is an important element for an image and art -- regardless of whether I was sympathetic or offended by the statement the image made. It is a good photograph, but perhaps not best displayed here. If I had taken the photo I would have posted it as well, but that doesn't mean much because I frequently find myself on the wrong side of appropriate behavior :D. I hope that you have taken no personal offense that it was removed because I am certain that none was intended.
Honu-Hugger
07-15-2005, 21:44
Red Green (a famous Canadain) defined art this way: If I can do it, it isn't art. :)
I just about fell out of my chair laughing at this -- I feel as though I "resemble" this remark!!! :)
Honu-Hugger
07-15-2005, 21:53
My vote in the poll was forced into "Black or White" on a question that contains a great deal of grey. Had this been in the form of 1 to 5 I would have submitted a response somewhere other than the extreme. In spite of my feelings about censorship you have my word that I will not post any nude pictures of myself ;).
Krasnaya_Zvezda
07-15-2005, 23:20
In spite of my feelings about censorship you have my word that I will not post any nude pictures of myself ;).
Certainly, something good has come about due to this discussion!
SolaresLarrave
07-15-2005, 23:27
At one time, Jorge posted some rules about photos that could go on the RFF Gallery, so it's not like he's exercizing power just because he can. It's all clearly reasoned and explained.
In any case, egpj, you've proved to be a mature, responsible and gracious RFF member. Don't let these things clip the wings of your enthusiasm.
Saludos!
parks5920
07-15-2005, 23:51
Thanks Jorge for keep the RFF about camera's and photography, NOT politics.
Todd.Hanz
07-16-2005, 00:18
If I spit on the street, and call the splatter art, it is.
[/I]
where is the line between art and the loss of bodily fluids? If your puddle of spit is art, do you think anyone in the "print swap" would like to get an 8x10 "glossy" of one of my sneezes during ragweed season........ probably not so much? ;)
My question is what if the "Swasti-Bush" wasn't done with art in mind but as a political statement, is it art if art wasn't intended? When did it become art, when you took the picture?
BTW, don't remove your gallery because of this incident, I've seen some of your other stuff and would like to see more.
Todd
Roger Hicks
07-16-2005, 03:43
I fully support Krasnaya Zvezda. Frank's argument about art was totally specious -- remember R. Mutt and the urinal -- and besides, part of the function of art is to hold up a mirror to the world. The world includes politics; to pretend otherwise is to hide one's head in the sand. Some are happy to do that; others are not.
Was the picture offensive? To some, possibly, though I can't help feeling they were neing unusually thin-skinned. So was Serrano's 'Piss Christ'. But even if you REALLY don't like something, surely the only sensible reaction (after due reflection) is along the lines of 'I wondfer why they were stupid enough to do that.'
Some pictures are indeed like the child who shouts BUM in order to shock people, but we can dismiss childisness easily enough. Some remind us of things that should not be swept under the carpet, but faced: the swastika and its Nazi heritage are a good example. Sure I find Nazi swastikas unpleasant; but they won't just go away if I pretend they don't exist.
I don't like the idea of starving children or wars, either, but I don't say that no-one should photograph them in case someone is offended. They are SUPPOSED to be offended. That's the point. People who are offended can either try to mend their ways (if they are in the wrong) or to change the world for the better (if they are in the right).
Finally, 'in the wrong' and 'in the right' are value judgements, as Bush so elegantly and eloquently demonstrates. You do not need to go very far down the path of 'I don't like this, so I'll ban it' to run into serious trouble.
Sure, it's only a photography forum, and Jorgeis doing a great job (it's easily the BEST photography forum) but this doesn't mean we always have to agree with him. I am profoundly grateful for the forum he founded and runs but this isn't the first time we've differed and the only way it is likely to be the last is if he throws me off the forum, which I hope and believe to be unlikely.
Cheers,
Roger
I don't understand what censorship is supposed to protect us from. I think most of the members of this Forum are adults who recognize the world is an imperfect place and contains things that will be offensive to some people. I can deal with being offended. I don't want censors trying to defend my sensibilities. I think I am better off knowing what is going on in the world than being protected by some well meaning censor.
Roger Hicks
07-16-2005, 05:08
Dear Oldprof,
"I can deal with being offended."
Precisely.
Cheers,
Roger
Nikon Bob
07-16-2005, 05:45
Thanks Rodger and Oldprof for putting into words what I was thinking. I would like to add that when the word art is used so much in this issue I want to hurl. Now be good children and eat your dull/bland gruel.
Bob
I will stay active in the board but have removed all my shots. If someone wants to see what I am shooting then they will just need to click on the link in my signature.
Hey Jorge, tell us the truth, this is because of the Patriot Act! A little big brother action moving in on ya?! :p
For those of you who can not figure the last statement out (I know you are out there) I was making a joke about the situation. Not putting Jorge on the spot only poking fun. Thank you! :D
Whenever a group of people want to get along peacefully with each other, like a husband and wife, or the folks on this forum, it cannot be done successfully if one acts with out consideration for the other(s). There is a certain amount of individual compromise involved in making a relationship work. One cannot live without compromise in a relationship.
As to the definition of art: neither art can't be defined, or art is whatever a person says it is, are very useful definitions. This may be a good topic for another thread. I stand by my opinion that a straight on photo documentation of a peice of art is not a work of art in itself because there is no creativity demonstrated by a photographer doing this, only technical competence. So my definition of art would have to include "creatiivity demonstrated by the artist." I will back off on my earlier statement that egpj's photo is not art, because egpj has pointed out the context of the painted-over heart which I had not noticed. I agree with egpj when he said his image was not effective in portraying this context.
We are clearly just discussing a single image here. This is in no way a criticism of the photographer.
I don't understand what censorship is supposed to protect us from. I think most of the members of this Forum are adults who recognize the world is an imperfect place and contains things that will be offensive to some people. I can deal with being offended. I don't want censors trying to defend my sensibilities. I think I am better off knowing what is going on in the world than being protected by some well meaning censor.
I think what Jorge is trying to do is protect the forum. Some photos can cause very devisive arguements. Just look at the arguements on most of the other photo forums to see what I am saying. I don't visit most of them much anymore because of this. And it isn't even just photos but political discussions and agendas.
Also, I don't see the problem with some censorship. Seriously, what makes us think that we have the right to post whatever kind of work we want on someone elses site. This is not a site to learn about world events. This is a discussion forum where members are graciously offered the right to post some photos. But, like I said before, some self censorship is required unless we want problems. Adults or not there will be arguements if we don't have some self restraint. I believe that art should push some boundaries but sometimes thing do go too far. Part of the problem is that photos posted on a site are seen as being endorsed by the site and in general most people don't like conflict. If you want to push the boundaries then by all means do it on your own.
RFF is perhaps the nicest group of people on the internet in a photography forum. Please dont spoil it. Whining about a decision of the owner or moderator in front of everybody is just bad form, as is spreading it to other threads.
Red Green (a famous Canadain) defined art this way: If I can do it, it isn't art. :)
ROTFLMAO
You're too much, bro.
If everything is art, nothing is art. One way we define things is to say what they aren't. Duchamp's urinal is only art in the context of modern art (or maybe at a plumbers' convention). By itself, it's not art.
After reading the thread, I have to agree with Oldprof and Roger on this one. I'm not sure I see where this image violated the rather informal and loose rules on posting photos we have.
BTW, nice work on your site, egpj, good photos. Please stick around :-)
RFF is perhaps the nicest group of people on the internet in a photography forum. Please dont spoil it. Whining about a decision of the owner or moderator in front of everybody is just bad form, as is spreading it to other threads.
While I don't find the photograph offensive, I could not agree more with the statement above - it's one of the things that made PN unenjoyable for me.
I find the vote useless. In principle I don't agree with censorship but, as said by others, in this case I can see why Jorge wanted the shot gone. As this site is a private site I don't think there's much to say against or for censorship: Jorge decides.
Honu-Hugger
07-16-2005, 10:11
Thanks Rodger and Oldprof for putting into words what I was thinking...(snip)
Bob
Thank you, too. Well said.
Brian Sweeney
07-16-2005, 11:15
Posting Photographs on this site is a privilige, granted by Jorge, Jorge has rules for the forum and gallery, and "The Rules" have long been posted.
As to the original photograph, many people find the use of the Swastika in this fashion as insulting. Of course these days, the Swastika is used to label anyone who disagrees with certain points of view. That certainly trivializes the evil that the Third Reich stood for. Most of the people who use the term Nazi, Fascist, and the associated symbols in such a trivial manner certainly are ignorant of their true meaning.
This forum practices a lot of self-control. Sometimes external control is required. Otherwise it goes the way of photo.net. I quit photo.net completely as it was so far out of control. Photo.net banned a photo similar to this one as well.
Yje bottom line is, it's Jorge's website. If he wants to make rules, that's his business. If I don't like his rules, I don't have to play in his sandbox
Roger Hicks
07-16-2005, 12:15
Indeed, many who use the terms 'Nazi' and 'fascist' are ignorant of both their historical and philosophical connotations. But many who refuse to use the same words are equally unwilling to spot parallels.
I do not wish to suggest that Bush is either a Nazi or a facist. But both evils do exist in the world today. So do bullying, insensitivity, cultural ignorance and many other evils. How much head-burying do we do? How far do we pretend things don't exist? You may or (more likely) may not agree with the sentiment expressed by the original graffitist. But then to blame the photographer for recording that there are people who think this way?
As for the sentiment 'we don't have to play in Jorge's sandbox', this sums up to me a fundamental problem. This isn't a sandbox. We're adults. PN to the contrary, we don't have to settle all our disputes by throwing our toys -- or by taking them and going home.
As Aristotle said, man is by nature a political animal. To eschew all political debate is to deny a part of our humanity. This is NOT an personal attack on Jorge: he is entitled to do whatever he wishes with hisd own site. But to aim to suppress all debate, or to accuse debaters of 'whining', seems to me a rather sad and lacklustre yet authoritarian world-picture.
Cheers,
Roger
schaubild
07-16-2005, 12:19
A side remark: In Switzerland the use and publication of this sign is prohibited, you won't get sued by an offended person but from the state. I think it's the same legal situation in Germany.
Roger Hicks
07-16-2005, 12:21
Dear Schaublid,
That must put rather a damper on those magazine articles that seek to publicize the vileness of neo-Nazis. Tattoos, graffiti, uniforms -- you can't portray these symbols of hate for what they are?
Cheers,
Roger
schaubild
07-16-2005, 12:23
There is a difference between showing/using the sign and documentation, quite easy to understand.
Roger Hicks
07-16-2005, 12:27
Not that easy to understand, or at least to frame laws for (I have a law degree). It's down to common sense, which barely exists in any legal system I am aware of. Which, for example, was the deleted picture? Showing or using? No matter what the answer, it would be fruitful ground for a lawyer to prove it/dispute it.
Cheers,
Roger
schaubild
07-16-2005, 12:32
My personal opinion: documentation; bad photography and taste. Not worth the discussion going on, there are more interesting things to talk about.
Brian Sweeney
07-16-2005, 12:43
This is not a sandbox, it is a privately run and maintained website. It has rules and conditions of use associated with it. If you cannot abide by those rules, you can have your photographs, postings, and account deleted by the owner. If you do not like it, there are other sites with "less rules". I doubt that most people would prefer those sites over this one. Some of the PN Leica Forum malcontents formed such a site. RFF is much better, but others do exist.
As for labeling a person as a Nazi, if they are proud to be called such then it is time to worry. If they get elected into office, it is time to be afraid. David Duke lost the election a long time ago.
TPPhotog
07-16-2005, 12:52
I find this thread interesting from the point of view that censorship happens every day in our lives yet we seem to either be unaware of it happening or choose to accept it.
I gave up shooting for local rags when they rejected perfectly good story pictures because they didn't want to upset the local company it involved as they advertise job vacancies through the local papers.
Yet one picture has caused quite a debate here with many taking sides. From the positive side I'd say that it proves the power of photography has not diminished over they years which I find very refreshing.
Duncan Ross
07-16-2005, 13:06
Hey:)
Just say no! To censorship, that is.
Alot of the pro-removal arguments posted so far could quite easily be applied to THIS (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=14659) photograph, which IMHO is quite pointless, especially given the way it is presented/titled etc. Will this be removed? I doubt it.
I think that in order to avoid any recurrence of this, the gallery should be limited to being a showcase for pictures of bunnies and other fluffy animals.
Regards
ManGo
Hoi! Fluffy animals are my speciality!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=12100&cat=500&page=1
Skinny McGee
07-16-2005, 15:25
Please do not let this site become another photonet. I am not at all a Bush fan but I have found a place in this site that does not have the rudeness and the arrogance that I can not deal with with the photo net.
I realize I'm a bit late - but thanks Roger and Oldprof from me, too!
BTW, I'm much more offended by all that jingoism represented by pics of star-spangled-banners in somebody's backyard (and no, I don't consider myself 'anti-American' in any way at all, I just hate any kind of nationalism - like they say around where I live 'Patriots are idiots!', and nobody in their right mind would display a flag in their home).
So, will we see censorizing of such just as offensive (to many people) images, too, or will this be kept one-sided, only directed against one side of the coin?
Roman
back alley
07-16-2005, 16:01
this site will remain civil, i'm sure of that.
this discussion has remained civil but has gone on far too long for my liking.
joe
A side remark: In Switzerland the use and publication of this sign is prohibited, you won't get sued by an offended person but from the state. I think it's the same legal situation in Germany.
Yes, with the exception of arts and reportage and documentation.
That is the reason why the right wing parties and organisations use the Iron Cross and the flag from the german empire befor 1918.
Same goes for some numbers and letters, there is an organisation here which is definitly on the extreme right wing and does security for the, legal, right wing parties. They call themselves "Standarte 88", where everybody knows that 88 stands for the letters hh. They are under oberservation but haven't committed any crimes, yet.
On the other hand, this is a harbour town and we have many connections to many shipping companies all around the world. In a Barge belonging to the Senate of my hometown and used to tour VIPs around the harbour you'll find the swastika on flags from shipowning companies from India.
So the context is ipmortant here in germany.
The picture diskussed here is definitly legal in its documentary context, it would be illegal in a political context. Showing this on a banner protesting against the USA is definitly illegal.
like they say around where I live 'Patriots are idiots!',
Roman
Roman, as a german I'm brought up to be ashamed instead of beeing proud of my country. Actualy I think some patriotism and proudness is a good thing.
But you have to stay open to criticism and accept that not everybody has the same opinion.
this site will remain civil, i'm sure of that.
this discussion has remained civil but has gone on far too long for my liking.
joe
Joe,
I've been wondering why the thread wasn't locked LONG ago.
What possible purpose is being served keeping it open? Exactly what is being gained by the "poll"?
:confused:
Tom
back alley
07-16-2005, 17:25
i was thinking this was jorge's baby to deal with so i thought i'd stay clear and plus it seemed a bit ironic to lock a thread about censorship.
joe
richard_l
07-16-2005, 17:49
A side remark: In Switzerland the use and publication of this sign is prohibited, you won't get sued by an offended person but from the state. I think it's the same legal situation in Germany. I would hope it's not the swastika itself which is prohibited. It's an ancient symbol which was used in Tibetan and Navajo art (for example) long before it was appropriated by the Nazis.
Quite right Richard, but then the nazis did appropriate it and completely ruined/poisoned it.
... this discussion has remained civil but has gone on far too long for my liking.
joe
The discussion in this thread has been civil and I also find it worthwhile - the length of the thread does not bother me as Forum members are expressing their respective views. And so far no one has sunk to ad hominem attacks.
Joe,
I've been wondering why the thread wasn't locked LONG ago.
What possible purpose is being served keeping it open? Exactly what is being gained by the "poll"?
:confused:
Tom
I started the thread because I was angry. Angry about being censored for taking a photo and posting it because I liked it. I had no intention of making a political statement but saw dual concepts in the image with the heart and the swastika. It flopped. Others have seen the print and liked it but I guess it loses something in the electronic world.
It must have provoked a negative response here on the forum and therefore Jorge removed it (possibly someone complained, I do not know). Maybe Jorge took offense and that is enough. Really, I had no idea that this was Jorge's board as in he owns the digital domain for this board. Since finding that out I have changed my tune and abstained a little from commenting even when I read things that were potentially inflammatory to me. Since there are those who would like to debate the matter then let them have at it until it dies. For me, as the initiator, the matter is settled. Jorge's property therefore his decision because he is the "BIG CHEESE". I'll keep my photo's someplace else and participate on the board for the love of the cameras that we use. I will keep up on this thread if the need arises to restate what I have said above.
By the way, if things do degrade from some individual getting abusive, because this type of thing can raise passions, then I do hope that the moderators step in to keep things civil.
:bang: :bang: :bang:
back alley
07-16-2005, 20:39
'moderators'
there's that damn s again.
Fedzilla_Bob
07-16-2005, 20:44
egpj-- I don't know if the following was said clearly enough: please reconsider only showing your images from your personal site. You contributions add to our community.
Bob
lo siento, my english is no so good, y mi espanol tam bien. :p
derevaun
07-16-2005, 21:50
I gotta say, I think the original photo is not as transparent as some have opined it to be. Most importantly, it doesn't hide the medium, and it would be crude for it to show more context IMHO.
This thread had proved that it's worth something: a few have brought up the fact that the swastika is not a simple symbol with which to make a point. The photo has inspired reflection and dialogue--I can't say that about many of mine.
Having said that, I'm generally in favor of removing photographs in the interest of civility, among other things. It seems like it has worked out OK in this instance, thanks in no small part to egpj's complaint.
Joe,
I've been wondering why the thread wasn't locked LONG ago.
What possible purpose is being served keeping it open? Exactly what is being gained by the "poll"?
:confused:
Tom
I concur completely. Talk about beating a dead horse.
;)
:)
:)
Duncan Ross
07-17-2005, 01:17
I concur completely. Talk about beating a dead horse.
;)
:)
:)
I feel the poll was worthwhile, at the moment almost all of the posts agree with the decision to remove the picture yet the poll suggests less of a majority.
I thought the picture was good, especially as it was more than just a simple image. However take into account that I feel the greatest ever photograph taken was the portrait of Che Guavara althought I couldn't reduce this into a table of logical arguments that add up to this, I just do.
Perhaps removing the picture had a problem arisen might have been an initial option - however it's done now and I feel the RFF community have together properly debated it in a mature and calm manner.
I still like fluffy bunny shots tho.....
Rick Waldroup
07-17-2005, 05:17
I say let the photo stay. Let it stand on its own merit. I have no problem with politics in photography. As long as forums like this can have civil discussions about controversial subject matter, why not keep it going? What is so wonderful about RFF is how many different people from all over the world meet here for one simple reason- the love of rangefinder cameras. A little controversy every now and then only spices things up. There is no harm in that.
Roger Hicks
07-17-2005, 05:31
I'll second Roman -- excessive jingoism makes me uncomfortable too, no matter whose. As Dr. Johnson famously said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Far too many people of a jingoistic turn of mind are willing to turn to this argument when all else fails: "If you don't agree with me, you're a traitor!" And as Roman said, this isn't anti-American: it's anti-idiots, anti-flag-wavers, anti them-and-us. This includes English, Scots, Welsh, Chinese, Americans, all sorts... People are motre alike than they are different.
I am also intrigued by those who want this thread closed down. Why? As Oldprof said, it's been civil, and it's intriguing that this much controversy has been stirred by a single image. Are those who want it closed afraid of debate? Antipathetic to debate in general? What?
Cheers,
Roger
wlewisiii
07-17-2005, 06:02
I am also intrigued by those who want this thread closed down. Why? As Oldprof said, it's been civil, and it's intriguing that this much controversy has been stirred by a single image. Are those who want it closed afraid of debate? Antipathetic to debate in general? What?
Cheers,
Roger
I think it has more to do with bad experiances elsewhere - especially at photo.net but also at other forums - where a thread can be civil for some time and then degenerate into a flame war with little to no warning. Since many of the people here want RFF to remain, essentially, as the antithesis of photo.net anything that could lead to it's possibly becoming like photo.net causes nervousness. How valid that fear is, is quite another question, but that's how I see it.
There are many photographic forums on the net, but few that have worked as hard to maintain civility and collegiality as RFF. A bit of paranoia on these issues may not be a bad thing.
William
back alley
07-17-2005, 06:58
in truth this is an ancient argument and i have seen nothing here that i have not seen before.
i have not learned anything new and that is why i was ready for the end of this thread.
controversy for controversy's sake is empty.
i think it's interesting that the 2 main people involved in this have the least to say while others seem determined to keep this thread going.
joe
Are those who want it closed afraid of debate? Antipathetic to debate in general? What?
Cheers,
Roger
I LOVE a good and heated debate. To that end I monitor two political forums where there are no holds barred.
But what do you want to see here, a Rangefinder discussion forum or a political debating society?
There is a reason for the dictum that in civil company, you do not discuss religion or politics. I was hoping that this place would remain civil.
Tom
PS: There is a world of difference between photographs *about* politics and a *political* picture.
Roger Hicks
07-17-2005, 08:55
Dear Tom,
There is no dictum against discussing religion and politics: it is a regional preference. Indeed, religion and (more usually) politics are the very meat and drink of conversation in most of the world.
To separate politics from anything -- including, or perhaps especially, photography -- strikes many of us as incomprehensible. As Umberto Eco said in Travels in Hyperreality it is regarded as the duty of a European intellectual to discuss the world in which he lives and therefore politics -- and before anyone interprets that as an anti-American comment, I have numerous American friends who second his view.
William's comment on what one might call 'due paranoia' certainly has merit, as we have all seen nasty things happen on other forums -- but doesn't that make it even better if we can discuss grown-up topics like grown-ups?
And I can't really accept Joe's argument about 'the two main people on the thread'. Those who start a conversation need not necessarily be those contribute most to it, or indeed finish it. Clearly some people do find it interesting, or it wouldn't continue. Elsewhere I started the 'what is creativity' thread, based on ideas lifted from others' posts on this thread, and yet others have contributed more than I.
For me, one of the attractions of photography is that it helps me to understand the world better, and the viewpoints of other people. Exactly the same is true of politics, which is why I find it so odd to separate them.
Cheers,
Roger
jan normandale
07-17-2005, 22:17
this thread keeps popping up on my followed threads. I agree with Joe. I'm signing off on it, so good luck to all interested. I'm going to shoot film instead of writing because that is what interests me.
jan
I don't get the "offended by swastika" argument too. I've seen Klan documentary pictures posted here; do black people here find them offensive and worth removal?
That said, I fully understand that this is a privately run (and excellent) forum where the owner has the last say. Still I don't agree with this act of censorship. I can't post protest shots on the photo sites in my country due to self-imposed censorship, and this case exibits the same symphoms.
I can't post protest shots on the photo sites in my country due to self-imposed censorship, and this case exibits the same symphoms.
Eugene,
You are missing an important difference. Pictures of protests or other political situations are fine. The swaztika shot seemed to many, at first glance ,to be simply a political statement, which many people find offensive on several levels: the use of the swaztika as the primary picture element, and by American Conservatives, for starters.
Frank,
Unless the photographer painted the swastika themselves it is just a documentary shot of a political opinion. You can argue about it aesthetic deficiences or that the opinion itself is too extreme, or silly, or overstatement, but I can't blame the photographer for uploading the image. Such an opinion exists and I see no guilt in documenting it.
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event. This point was discussed in this thread.
I've got a few protest shots myself:
Fedzilla_Bob
07-19-2005, 08:25
I don't get the "offended by swastika" argument too. I've seen Klan documentary pictures posted here; do black people here find them offensive and worth removal?
Not a problem for me. I can only speak for myself though.
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event.
Ok.. I didn't see it in that light, maybe because am not a US resident. But was the shot removed merely for perceived promotion of a political message?
As to swastika sensitiveness I can only suggest to grow a thicker skin. I see them popping on the walls from time to time here, and this is the country that lost nearly 1/3rd of population in that war.
I've got a few protest shots myself:
They look badly overexposed but good catches.. what the protest was about? The first shot look helloweenish :)
[QUOTE=varjag]I don't get the "offended by swastika" argument too. I've seen Klan documentary pictures posted here; do black people here find them offensive and worth removal?
QUOTE]
I think most people of all races would be offended if the image were a cropped view of the words on a sign that said "Kill N*ggers". If the photo lacks any context beyond the political message, then it is a political message itself. That is the issue.
(egjp's image DID contain a context, but it was so subtle that it needed to be pointed out and explained.)
Ok.. I didn't see it in that light, maybe because am not a US resident. But was the shot removed merely for perceived promotion of a political message?
That is correct.
As to swastika sensitiveness I can only suggest to grow a thicker skin.
That's more than a bit insensitive, IMHO.
They look badly overexposed but good catches.. what the protest was about? The first shot look helloweenish :)
Bad scans.
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 08:55
I'm with varjag. A lot of people need thicker skins.
Do I really care if you insult someone of whom I have a higher opinion than I do of you? No. If you insult the Dalai Lama you're probably a fool and it's your problem. Insult Tony Bliar, Howard the Vampire, or even dear old Charlie 'Fond of a Dram' Kennedy and if it's funny I'll forgive a lot. If it's not, well, there may be truth in it anyway. Same goes for Dubbya, Putin, Chirac (remember the slogan VOTE FOR THE CROOK, NOT THE FASCIST) and plenty more. To quote a leading British comedian, "I wouldn't dream of making a joke about our friends the Germans unless I thought it was going to be funny."
And indeed let's not forget Soviet losses in WW2. Sure, I realize that Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, citizens of the Baltic States etc weren't willing Soviets but that doesn't lessen the heroism or the losses.
If you're offended or frightened (and I've been frightened by this sort of thing), or if you just want to wimp out, don't blame the messenger. Think about how the world is -- and how to change it. Closing youir eyes will not make it go away.
Cheers,
Roger
Frank, my comment wasn't ill-meaning. Sad fact of our life is that we encounter things that offend us but are beyond our possibility to change. Banning a shot with swastika won't remove it from that wall.
I've only read a few of the posts. I don't find the image offensive, as I see the photograph as a form of documentation. It documents the political symbols and - what's the word - iconography of protest, etc. I don't think the photo by itself promotes a political message. It certainly documents one.
However, I don't agree that deleting the image somehow crossed a line over to censorship. I fully agree that the moderator is entitled to make the decision as to whether a photo is appropriate. Heck - plenty of people paint and tatoo and pierce their bodies in ways that I consider weird. Documenting those weirdos photographicaly might be very interesting. Posting such images is hardly a matter of right, and deleting them hardly is a portent of the end of free speech.
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event. This point was discussed in this thread.
I've got a few protest shots myself:
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 09:03
I didn't see Eugene's comment as insensitive either (Frank's message was posted as I was writing mine).
With a thick skin you might do something useful. With a thin skin you spend too much time worrying and not enough acting.
Cheers,
Roger
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event.
I think this sums it up well. A protest sign or political graffitti on a wall promotes a political message. That is its purpose. A photograph (posted in a gallery) of the sign or graffitti with no other context CAN BE SEEN TO PROMOTE THE MESSAGE IT DEPICTS. If the photograph contains a context such as a person carrying the sign or a person painting the graffitti, then it is clear that the message belongs to them, AND NOT THE GALLERY OR FORUM WHICH HOSTS THE PHOTO.
(Sorry for the capitals, that wasn't shouting, it was for emphasis. I should have used italics but I don't want to retype everything.)
Peace out to you, I'm done with this topic.
Part of the problem here is how this is being looked at. It is not a matter of whether the original photo should have been taken. That is not the issue. The problem is whether is was appropriate to post on this site. From what I can tell, Jorges decision to remove it was based on trying to keep this site as peacful as possible. In general this type of photo could have caused a detrimental debate that could split the goodwill of the forum. We all have seen this repeatedly on sites like Photo.net and Dpreview. Nobody wants this to happen here. It is just better to be safe than sorry.
I don't know if someone complained or not. But if it really offended someone then what is the problem with having some respect for them and not posting it or removing it. I know that everyone is probably offended by something but most people have tolerance to a certain degree. Even if I found it a good photo, I have no problem removing it if it really offends someone.
These types discussions are different on the internet. When people are not face to face discussions can get heated very quickly. Personal attacks are easy over the internet and these discussions turn into personal attacks most of the time. When you don't have to look into someones eyes and it is easier to degrade them. I am sure that Jorge was just being sensitive to the forums needs or to someones feelings.
Also, I want to congratulate the members of this discussion for keeping it civil. Different points of view from both sides of the spectrum have been voiced with no personal attacks. I am very happy to see this. Because of this the RFF has become my favorite photo forum. :D
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event.
I think this sums it up well. A protest sign or political graffitti on a wall promotes a political message. That is its purpose. A photograph (posted in a gallery) of the sign or graffitti with no other context CAN BE SEEN TO PROMOTE THE MESSAGE IT DEPICTS. If the photograph contains a context such as a person carrying the sign or a person painting the graffitti, then it is clear that the message belongs to them, AND NOT THE GALLERY OR FORUM WHICH HOSTS THE PHOTO.
(Sorry for the capitals, that wasn't shouting, it was for emphasis. I should have used italics but I don't want to retype everything.)
Peace out to you, I'm done with this topic.
Well said Frank, I have to agree with you here. I was about to write the same thing.
I voted yes to the censhorship by accident. I thought we were talkiung about censoring flame wars. When I checked the beginning of the thread I realised it was for censorship of a photo.
You shouldnt censor art, full stop. There was nothing gratuitous in that photo.
Daniel.
Such a long discussion about censorship, a favorite subject of mine!
From what I can gather, free speech and censorship are mutually exclusive - you have either one or the other.
The internet, in fact, is a highly censored place already. Ian Clarke wrote an interesting article about this subject and later wrote a dandy piece of software to circumvent the internet's ease of censorship control. Read more here if this divergent topic and technology interest you fine rf-photographers:
http://www.freenetproject.org/papers/freenet-ieee.pdf
As far as that picture goes, I am sure Henry Makow would have a thing or two to say about it. As for myself, I am trying to stay positive.
As an historian I note that half of the world seems to take the image of a cross as a return to an ideology dating to the crusades. Hatred of this familiar symbol has endured far longer that of the backward cross of Hitler and has proved especially fraught with peril. Hatred, in any form, dies slowly as many of us embrace it with fervor.
Just a comment
Johne
back alley
07-19-2005, 10:39
Closing youir eyes will not make it go away.
but it does not mean that i want to talk about it here either.
i am an active participant in the politcs of canada, alberta and edmonton. i pick a candidate and work on their campaign.
i go door to door, talk with those who want to engage in political discussion and share my views and the views of the candidate.
i do way more than spout from the pulpit that is the internet.
i'm in the trenches.
joe
parks5920
07-19-2005, 10:59
This is a debate that will go on forever, just like it does in so many different places in our day to day lives. But again, this is Jorge's site and if he feels the need to remove certain elements to keep his vision and intent of the RFF, then so be it.
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 11:56
Dear Chuck A,
"If someone complained..."
Won't wash. Anyone can complain about anything. If I complained about all the images I find distasteful (tacky, jingoistic, stupid...) I could complain about a lot. But I don't. Brian Mattock was spot on in another thread where he said that pictures don't offend him. I suspect he's a 'high verbal' like me: pictures hurt us less than some people. The only difference between us (and this is not a personal attack) is that I suspect I can handle verbal attacks slightly better too.
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
07-19-2005, 12:17
Roger,
It's 'Bill' Mattocks. But that's ok. And you're right, you can undoubtedly handle verbal attacks better than I can. At least from you. No one else gets up my sleeve the way you, I'll say that. And here we let the matter rest, presuming you're alright with that.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks (Bryan is my middle name)
Dear Chuck A,
"If someone complained..."
Won't wash. Anyone can complain about anything. If I complained about all the images I find distasteful (tacky, jingoistic, stupid...) I could complain about a lot. But I don't. Brian Mattock was spot on in another thread where he said that pictures don't offend him. I suspect he's a 'high verbal' like me: pictures hurt us less than some people. The only difference between us (and this is not a personal attack) is that I suspect I can handle verbal attacks slightly better too.
Cheers,
Roger
Of course I realize that but what I am talking about is if someone is truly offended by it. On moral or religious grounds, for example. This is not the same as finding something distasteful because it is tacky or stupid. I am talking about photographers using self restraint when posting and viewers to give some latitude and only complain when a photo is truly objectionable. I don't see what the problem is with this sort of arrrangement. It is merely respecting others.
Nobody likes verbal attacks and in my opinion they are uncalled for on a forum like this. Even if we don't agree, We can be civil. :bang:
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 12:26
Dear Bill,
I am extremely sorry. That's even worse than the 'Rodger' spelling I regularly get. Put it down to the wine (I'd just finished dinner when I wrote that). Not unforgivable, but close. I beg your forgiveness.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 12:30
Dear Chuck,
Yes, but how do you tell when someone is REALLY offended? You have to exercise your own value judgement on that one and decide whether they are being (a) reasonable or (b) thin-skinned or (c) an out and out whinger or (d) a troublemaker. Also, what REALLY offends one person may seem entirely reasonable to someone else, even someone on the same side.
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
07-19-2005, 12:34
Dear Bill,
I am extremely sorry. That's even worse than the 'Rodger' spelling I regularly get. Put it down to the wine (I'd just finished dinner when I wrote that). Not unforgivable, but close. I beg your forgiveness.
Cheers,
Roger
Not to worry, life is good. Enjoy the wine - my tipple is beer.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 13:33
Dear Bill,
Can't afford good Belgian beer (oh dear, risk of being anti-American here...) but a very drinkable French rose is 1.19 euros a litre. Alas that's now pushing $1.50 and it was under $1.10 a couple of years ago. Vote for a stronger dollar!
Cheers,
Roger
The problem is whether is was appropriate to post on this site. From what I can tell, Jorges decision to remove it was based on trying to keep this site as peacful as possible. In general this type of photo could have caused a detrimental debate that could split the goodwill of the forum. We all have seen this repeatedly on sites like Photo.net and Dpreview. Nobody wants this to happen here. It is just better to be safe than sorry.
I don't know if someone complained or not. But if it really offended someone then what is the problem with having some respect for them and not posting it or removing it. I know that everyone is probably offended by something but most people have tolerance to a certain degree.
See, and that's the problem I have with this photo having been removed from the gallery - even if Jorge did not intend it this way, implicitly by choosing to remove exactly this picture (an not one from a whole slew of others that I - and probably many others, too - find offensive in the gallery), Jorge has been taking sides in a discussion that had not even started (at least I have not seen anyone complaining); I think, if the picture had not been removed, this whole lenghty thread would not have been started, and most people who did not like the photo (or its message) would have simply ignored it (just as I ignore those pictures that I, and others, find offensive - I have not yet seen any mudslinging, wars, etc. been started here on RFF over a picture posted in the gallery).
Basically, what I'm trying to say in my muddled style - if you censor only one side in an argument, you are being partisan, and unfair; if you are censoring both sides, well, pretty soon we're only going to see pics of fluffy animals any more (until someone finds those offending for whatever reason); once you start with censorhip, you're on a slippery slope, going downhill...
Roman
PS: Roger, what a coincidence, I had just opened a bottle of cheap French rose (from Corbieres) a few minutes ago...
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 13:45
Roman,
Slainte!
(And a superb presentation of an argument)
Roger
Little Prince
07-19-2005, 14:21
Just for the record, I've no problem with fluffy animals :D . Prefer to be in direct contact with them though.
Todd.Hanz
07-19-2005, 14:30
I'll second Roman -- excessive jingoism makes me uncomfortable too, no matter whose. As Dr. Johnson famously said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Far too many people of a jingoistic turn of mind are willing to turn to this argument when all else fails: "If you don't agree with me, you're a traitor!" And as Roman said, this isn't anti-American: it's anti-idiots, anti-flag-wavers, anti them-and-us. This includes English, Scots, Welsh, Chinese, Americans, all sorts... People are motre alike than they are different.
I am also intrigued by those who want this thread closed down. Why? As Oldprof said, it's been civil, and it's intriguing that this much controversy has been stirred by a single image. Are those who want it closed afraid of debate? Antipathetic to debate in general? What?
Cheers,
Roger
Don't confuse jingoism for partriotism (pride of country), I support my country but I'm not blind. If you were to visit my house you would see a large American flag flying in my front yard, does that make me a "flag-waiver", it's part of our culture.
I think the reason this long and boring thread still exists can be found in it's title "RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad", I mean really, who wants to be the one to close that one down ;).
Todd
Roger Hicks
07-19-2005, 14:57
Todd,
Good point. Who indeed?
But the point about flying the the flag is interesting. Many non-US cultures just wouldn't do that. National flags are all too often associated with far-right looney nationalist groups in Europe. This is not to decry their use in the USA but rather to illustrate the way in which parallel symbols can have different meanings in different cultures.
Semiotics may be tedious and often worthless but it is not an irrelevant field of study. All too many people are unaware that the messages they send are not necessarily the ones they think they are sending.
Cheers,
Roger
Todd.Hanz
07-19-2005, 15:25
I agree with the Semiotics comment, tedious for sure but not totally irrelevant, which brings us full circle back to the swastika eh?
Todd
Brian Sweeney
07-19-2005, 15:26
I suppose for the EU to work, the European Countries must rid itself of the old-style Nationalism that has set its member nations at each others throats since the fall of the Roman Empire. The US has mostly rid itself of "State Pride" after one horrific war. You do not get the fights of "Damn Yankee" vs "Johny Reb" , even into the 1960's. Another Horrific War seems to have washed that one away. Perhaps European pride will replace "French Pride", "English Pride", "German Pride". A lot of wars would have been averted had Europe been under one combined flag.
And with that, I shall stick to discussing RF's.
TPPhotog
07-19-2005, 15:29
I've been thinking about this one and it seems that no-one objects to the swastika on fake Leica's, yet the picture does appear to have upset some people here. Could the context rather than the actual symbol be the issue?
Brian Sweeney
07-19-2005, 15:34
No one objected to the Swastika's on the FW-190, AR-234c, and HE-219 that I posted. I suspect that it was the context.
TPPhotog
07-19-2005, 15:51
If it is the context I wonder if the picture that has been deleted had been in a series of graffiti if it would have been deleted? My point being that on it's own it could be perceived as a political statement, but as part of a series it would have merely been a piece of graffiti or even art?
back alley
07-19-2005, 16:00
has anyone asked jorge?
TPPhotog
07-19-2005, 16:01
has anyone asked jorge?Probably not :(
Brian Sweeney
07-19-2005, 16:33
Jorge already commented that the picture was deleted as it was a "stand-alone" and looked like a political statement. That was early on, before this thread turned into the "benefits of politics to improve your RF photography" thread.
TPPhotog
07-19-2005, 16:39
My Apologies Brian, Jorge and everyone else. I've been on a sleep-over shift and guess I lost track of all the various facets of this thread :angel:
back alley
07-19-2005, 16:59
me too and i looked for it!
Bertram2
07-19-2005, 18:14
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!
Glenn
Having read the whole thread now there are some thoughts I would like to add, some thoughts about the comments that were made and which tried to explain Jorge's decision. :
It is clear anyway that the list owner can do whatever he wants. Nobody doubts about him having the right to delete pics if he wants. But this is no argument for the decision to delete this photo, right ? That would mean it was o.k. because he had the right. Strange logic. Weren't we rather talking about the question if it was offensive for the member ? Talking about rights is misleading here I' say.
Isn't it stunning that in a certain situation a photo suddenly is not longer a photo but a statement only? No matter what the photographer says about his intentions ? This is a photog community and not a political discussion group.
So why is a photographed statement suddenly no photo but a statement only ?
What makes the difference ? The personal perception of the spectator ? Where does THIS lead us too ?
It was said this is no art . Why does a photog has to defend himself and his work as art now ? Is only art allowed here ? If so 90 % of all RFF pics should be deleted, most of my stuff included btw.
It was said the photo could make some people upset. Who was meant ? Those who cannot keep a photo separated from a statement ? If so, shall we really care about these people ?
Some thoughts only, as I said.
Best regards,
Bertram
I get the feeling a lot of folks are sending exactly the message they intend to send. "We need to discuss politics on the forum so those of us with a more worldly, enlightened perspective can share our wisdom with the intellectually-challenged masses."
I tire of the condescending attitude that some Americans are somehow naive and unsophisticated in our view of our country -- that showing respect for the flag is somehow uncultured -- that other parts of the world are past such barbaric practices.
You have your opinions. A lot of other people, especially those who have spent some time studying the world events of the previous century, have a different view. It's not likely anybody is going to change anybody's mind. So why don't we stick to cameras and photography? I don't think a Kiev v. Contax argument ever caused any lasting animosity between participants.
Todd.Hanz
07-19-2005, 20:29
I absolutely agree with kiev4a (sorry I don't know your real name) !
Todd
back alley
07-19-2005, 20:48
ok, this has had a great and civilized run, but this also must be put to bed.
and if i am forever known as the mod who closed down the thread on censorship, then so be it!!
good nite all!
joe
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.