On the influence of LF upon the moral faculty

[paulr]

I don't believe it's possible for work to be "moral" or "immoral" without a surrounding context. An image itself can't mean anything, can't convey a truth (alleged, sincere, deliberately falsified)—or an intention—without some kind of contextual frame around it. Therefore it's the use of an image, not the image itself, which can be seen to have moral content.

I can't imagine how the film format or type of camera could be an important part of that discussion.

[Jmarmck]

My first thought is huh!

But then, there is nothing "moral" or "immoral" about any form of artistic expression.

The viewer is the arbiter of moral, truth, experience, whatever and brings their own moral beliefs, experience etc to the viewing and the appreciation of the work.

Another thought occurs, why should or could LF photographic practice be any more or less "moral" than any other artistic practice.

Well said!

Morality is for those who judge.

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't believe it's possible for work to be "moral" or "immoral" without a surrounding context. An image itself can't mean anything, can't convey a truth (alleged, sincere, deliberately falsified)—or an intention—without some kind of contextual frame around it. Therefore it's the use of an image, not the image itself, which can be seen to have moral content.

I can't imagine how the film format or type of camera could be an important part of that discussion.

ditto. Or film vs. digital FWIW. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone made the argument (tired argument IMHO) that traditional film is inherently more truthful and therefore more trustworthy and therefore somehow morally superior.

[jnantz]

theosophists may argue that truth and purity and other aesthetic principles exist as less than an abstraction.
to me truth and beauty and morality are all subjective and me using a lf camera have nothing to do
with any of it.

[sepstein17]

I shoot what I like after I like what I see -- morality must be built in there somewhere but do I consciously think about being moral when shooting or amoral or immoral -- i don't think so...

[Heroique]

The faculty in the photo dept. where I used to work were not known for their morals. In fact quite the opposite, the less restrained you were by morals the more successful your career.

That was hilarious.

The thread title does sound like it's talking about a college department's faculty.

...Therefore it's the use of an image, not the image itself, which can be seen to have moral content. I can't imagine how the film format or type of camera could be an important part of that discussion.

If you cited a particular LF image "used" in this way, wouldn't it be easier to imagine?

Me, I can imagine a number of LF prints (used) by Ansel Adams that clearly suggest our moral relation to the natural world; I can also imagine several that are rich enough to transcend any moral code, and need little if any context to do so. (For the former, see Peter's post #6 about AA and Aldo Leopold's worldview.)

His best images do both in my opinion – they are moral + amoral.

[djdister]

The faculty in the photo dept. where I used to work were not known for their morals. In fact quite the opposite, the less restrained you were by morals the more successful your career.

Well, the same could be said about many Senior Executives or the wolves of Wall Street (and guess what, they are still there).

[Jody_S]

The faculty in the photo dept. where I used to work were not known for their morals. In fact quite the opposite, the less restrained you were by morals the more successful your career.

Camera (and I assume lens) collectors have the reputation of being the most 'moral' of all hobbyists, 2nd perhaps to the model train people. By 'moral', I'm implying Victorian or Puritan sexual mores, in that we don't generally fool around on our wives, or even divorce very often.

I gather that does not extend to photographers in general, especially fashion photogs. Nor, apparently, to institutional photography people.

[Kirk Gittings]

Boy must be a Canadian thing. I have known some American camera collectors that were lecherous aholes.

[Jody_S]

Boy must be a Canadian thing. I have known some American camera collectors that were lecherous aholes.

Every group has outliers...



I can't confirm this from any social sciences viewpoint, it's just something I've heard a couple of times. And compare camera collectors to just about any other group of hobbyists, it doesn't see far-fetched. I've spent my life surrounded by people into hockey and curling, snowmobiling and diving, and I can say with personal experience that many of these people used their pass-time as a means of getting out of eyesight from their wives, so they could get drunk and fool around. But a camera swap meet? Unless you're gay and into older men, there isn't anyone there likely to arouse your interest. Nor is there an active bar scene afterwards, unless nobody tells me where they're holding the party.