Drilling is actually legal in Yosemite, provided it is done by hand. Frivolous bolting has always been frowned upon in the climbing community. Bolts are essential for climber's safety and being impossible to spot from a distance, are a neglectible distraction.
I don't see what all the hubbub is about. Some turpentine and gray paint will have the rock looking like new in no time. Did you know that Algore was the first to photograph Delicate Arch.
Willie
Well, I'm really glad I took photographs while I was at Delicate Arch!
Yes, there will be more restrictions, because this incident shows that the more people who have access to wilderness, the more likely it is that someone will cause harm, if only through a momentary lapse of common sense or judgement as seems to be the case with Mr. Fatali.
Let a million photographers in over 10 centuries, all with the best of intentions not to harm the land they love, and there WILL be permanent damage done. Its a statistical near certainty.
Of course, by then the several billion regular tourists would have reduced these spots to fine dust !
Wilderness is forever only if you keep yourself off of it forever.
The only sensible idea I've heard for long term preservation was a lottery system for access.
I think some of you are missing the point!! Allow me to disect the last posting.
1. There may or may not be more restrictions at Arches National Park. Only time will tell. If there are more restrictions, it will not be because more people have access to wilderness. Arches National Park is NOT wilderness!! It is only a 5 mile roundtrip hike to Delicate Arch; not wilderness by any stretch of the imagination! If there are more restrictions, it will be a result of Fatali's actions and other people like him that have NO respect for the land!
2. Can YOU actually categorize Fatali's actions as a momentary lapse of common sense or judgement?? Are you one of the "new" breed of photographers that witnessed the event during the workshop?? I hope you realize that setting 4 fires would take some time and effort!!
3. The terrain in Arches National Park can be preserved if people treat it with respect; i.e. stay on trails or on bare rock. Yes, a little bit of erosion will occur with all the little feet tramping on the rock, but it will pale in comparison to nature's erosional forces that are acting on the same rock every day! Treating the landscape with respect prohibits scaring the rocks by fire!!!!
This is from Fatali's site (fatali.com/artist/light.html): "No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unatural filtration were used as tools in the creation of my photographs. I work exclusively with the natural light of nature. To me there is no other way to express the beauty of natural phenomena."
Bruce: In response to your dissection (ouch!) I should say
1. I don't know Michael Fatali from Adam, aside from what little I've read. I gave him the benefit of the doubt because he seems to have been a responsible Western landscapes photographer prior to this incident. At this point no one knows whether he lost his good sense for a day, was pressured into doing it by commercial need, was greedy and a bad guy etc. etc.
2. Arches NP is not wilderness, as some else pointed out. As I responded, it sure is from the viewpoint of someone like me, who lives in Tokyo :-)
But the point is that it would be wilderness, but for our Government happily making it a "park". To me, what's the point of wilderness preservation, if, in any given period in history, you carve out the bits you happen to like and designate it as "non-wilderness". Tastes change over the centuries, and before another 1000 years of human history, there will be access roads to everything.
I completely disagree about human impact being less than nature's erosion. Its simply not correct. Natural erosion, though very great over millenia, is no match for the steady grind of feet. I observe, unscientifically, that the stone steps in the temples in Southern India have been worn six or eight inches over the space of a few centuries.
As for staying on the trails, you've got to figure that human nature will cause (lets say) 1 in a 1000 to stray. Over the centuries, that's enough to do significant damage.
Equal access for all who wish to go is simply not the answer to long- time preservation.
Mani,
You make some worthwhile points. But, think about how much planning had to occur to be able to bring all the accessories required to start 4 "chemical" fires. I propose that Fatali graduated to such a heinous act by doing smaller destructive acts to the landscape over the span of many years. You just don't wake-up one morning and decide that you are going to Delicate Arch to start a few fires!
Also, people can stray off trails and keep the damage minimal if they don't follow in each other's footsteps. In my opinion, you never find true wilderness unless you leave the trail. Leaving the trail requires greater dedication to the preservation of the landscape. It should only be done legally with all no-trace precautions practiced.
Today I learned from Arches National Park that the fires at Delicate Arch were chemical in nature, i.e. a chemical residue was detected in the stone. Also, they are bringing in experts to determine how to remove the stains from the rock. They may end up actually "sanding" it off!
Sure sounds awful, Bruce, and not particularly innocent...
As for access, I stand by my point. Even if you have a policy of no- trace, given enough time, there will be some proportion of Michael Fatalis and worse people than him who will get in, even if the good guys greatly outnumber the bad ones, and the effects of bad behaviour would accumulate.
I believe that most people in search of a true wilderness experience are the same type of people that will show respect to the land. People like Fatali are lazy. After all, it took a fair amount of muscle just to carry the fire-starting accessories the few miles to Delicate Arch.
Think about it, how could anyone be so jaded as a photographer to think that you would have to resort to starting fires to get the kind of light you want! I have seen nature put on some fantastic light shows; much better than anything man could produce. Granted, Delicate Arch is probably one of the most over-photographed icons in the United States, but isn't it just enough to stand in it's majesty and just view it?; let alone photograph it?! And, I still have yet to see it photographed with a rainbow over it. Wouldn't that be nice?! I am sure Fatali is dreaming up some scheme to produce one!!!!
Wow,
I've been away from the internet for the last three weeks, and this thread hit me like a ton of bricks when I read it!
I am amazed that Fatali was able to go so far down a destructive path without stopping to think, or without a small voice in his head telling him that this might not be good. Clearly this was very well planned, since the typical photographer does not bring duralogs, etc. with them on photographic expeditions. Therefore, I won't accept any rationalization that starts with 'momentary loss of reason' or 'spontaneous lack of judgement'...
What's worse, if he wanted to teach participants about artifical light techniques, he should have been thinking about a jelled flash unit! They are much smaller and lighter than a bunch of duralogs, and they have no permanent negative impacts on the subject.
Ultimately, Fatali did so many things wrong in this incident that I don't believe that he will have an easy time gaining back the trust of the publishers and other people in environmental circles.
I, for one had considered going to an extended workshop with him because he is an ultra large format shooter that works in general subjects that I am intrested in (the southwest, canyon country, but please, not Antelope Canyon!). But no more, because I cannot think about supporting a photographer who is capable of such destructive and contradictory behavior.
His actions seem to be as reckless as those of Art Wolfe, but clearly in a more destruction manner. Where Wolfe lied to the viewer and betrayed their trust, Fataly has 'violated' the subject, and has shown that he cannot be trusted as a voice of reasonable environmentalism among the photographic industry. All for the sake of the shot, what a shame.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks