Conservation via photography
- Thread starter Kenilworth
- Start date
Kenilworth
New member
Amy said:
It doesn't. No mantra does. It excuses you from thinking.
Kenilworth
New member
I think I think as much as I think I think...
The caver's motto does not put the caver in the right mindset. By sanctioning footprints without qualification, it does the opposite, permitting mental and physical laziness.
The caver's motto does not put the caver in the right mindset. By sanctioning footprints without qualification, it does the opposite, permitting mental and physical laziness.
PeteHall
Moderator
If you photogrpah something beautiful/ interesting in a cave, then publish it, people will want to go and see, so the cave is likely to get trashed quicker than if you kept quiet.
But if you don't publish the photographs, what's the point in taking them (other than for your own selfish pleasure).
Why not forget the photographs and just tape off any pretty bits far enough back that nobody can even see what's there, removing temptation and that way it stays pretty so the bats can enjoy it the way it's supposed to be. In fact, better still just wall it up. (is there an ironic emoji anywhere?)
Sorry, serious point in there. Is it ever acceptable to deliberately close off a (section of) cave without a photographic record to preserve its aesthetic value?
But if you don't publish the photographs, what's the point in taking them (other than for your own selfish pleasure).
Why not forget the photographs and just tape off any pretty bits far enough back that nobody can even see what's there, removing temptation and that way it stays pretty so the bats can enjoy it the way it's supposed to be. In fact, better still just wall it up. (is there an ironic emoji anywhere?)
Sorry, serious point in there. Is it ever acceptable to deliberately close off a (section of) cave without a photographic record to preserve its aesthetic value?
And nothing much to do with caves, as far as I can see.
How come that taking a picture to stick up on your wall is 'selfish'?
It strikes me that there is room for both approaches ? the just-take-a-snap-for-the-recored approach and the 'arty-farty' (sorry) approach.
But you know what ? if I was choosing a picture to stick above the mantelpiece on a permanent basis, I imagine that I'd go for a well-composed, well-lit shot by an acknowledged expert such as Chris Howes or Robbie Shone, rather than a quick snap taken on an exploration trip. But hey, that's merely my opinion, and I guess lots of others differ.
So what? We're all different.
By the way ? what does 'Anhodiccca' mean?
PeteHall
Moderator
Sorry Fulk, I think we are at cross purposes. This thread was specifically related to photography as a form of conservation and my comment was made entirely within that perspective.
From the perspective of recording/ conservation of a new discovery, a personal photograph that isn't published doesn't benefit the wider caving comunity, therefore it is for ones own personal benefit, therefore selfish.
I am not suggesting taking photographs for yourself is in any way a bad thing to do, more that witholding a photographic record defeats the point of the photographic record as a form of conservation. Just as surveying a cave and not publishing it does not benefit anybody.
From the perspective of recording/ conservation of a new discovery, a personal photograph that isn't published doesn't benefit the wider caving comunity, therefore it is for ones own personal benefit, therefore selfish.
I am not suggesting taking photographs for yourself is in any way a bad thing to do, more that witholding a photographic record defeats the point of the photographic record as a form of conservation. Just as surveying a cave and not publishing it does not benefit anybody.
Kenilworth
New member
Pete,
Those are good questions. There is another alternative too, which is to publish photographs without revealing the site.
But if access will be open, photos should always be taken, because damage will be inevitable. And these do not need to be published immediately. They can be archived for later use, or shared between a specific group, there are many possibilities. Even if the photos are not shared with anyone, they will have value. You can call it selfish if you want. But compare cave photos to family photos and maybe this sort of use is easier to understand. Until a few years ago, we didn't feel compelled to share our family photos with the world, and no one thought us selfish. They were still meaningful and valuable to us. Cave photos can be similar, especially if our use of the caves includes fidelity.
Anyway, a cave's being preserved for an audience of few (or only one!) seems nearer to conservation, in my mind, than its being destroyed for an audience of many.
Those are good questions. There is another alternative too, which is to publish photographs without revealing the site.
But if access will be open, photos should always be taken, because damage will be inevitable. And these do not need to be published immediately. They can be archived for later use, or shared between a specific group, there are many possibilities. Even if the photos are not shared with anyone, they will have value. You can call it selfish if you want. But compare cave photos to family photos and maybe this sort of use is easier to understand. Until a few years ago, we didn't feel compelled to share our family photos with the world, and no one thought us selfish. They were still meaningful and valuable to us. Cave photos can be similar, especially if our use of the caves includes fidelity.
Anyway, a cave's being preserved for an audience of few (or only one!) seems nearer to conservation, in my mind, than its being destroyed for an audience of many.
PeteHall
Moderator
I don't disagree with you Kenilworth. There are many alternatives, some more satisfactory than others.
It all depends why we want to conserve the cave I guess and what we want to conserve.
Some consider it important to phtograph induvidual formations with a scale, for a scientific record, with no care for good lighting or artistic composition. Others feel it more important to record the atmosphere, beauty and overall effect of a cave.
Personnaly, I think if something primarily has aesthetic value, it is an injustice to record it without trying to capture its beauty.
If something is beautiful and we preserve it in such a way as nobody can see it's beauty, again, I think we have defeated the point of conserving it.
Take your family photos for example, you may enjoy looking at them on your own, but do you not enjoy them more by sharing them with the people who also care about them (ie. your family). Is it not the same with caves?
It all depends why we want to conserve the cave I guess and what we want to conserve.
Some consider it important to phtograph induvidual formations with a scale, for a scientific record, with no care for good lighting or artistic composition. Others feel it more important to record the atmosphere, beauty and overall effect of a cave.
Personnaly, I think if something primarily has aesthetic value, it is an injustice to record it without trying to capture its beauty.
If something is beautiful and we preserve it in such a way as nobody can see it's beauty, again, I think we have defeated the point of conserving it.
Take your family photos for example, you may enjoy looking at them on your own, but do you not enjoy them more by sharing them with the people who also care about them (ie. your family). Is it not the same with caves?
Kenilworth
New member
Certainly. And it may be that cave photos mean the most to people who personally know the cave, and the history of its use.
NewStuff
New member
Yet again, Who decides if you should only photograph a cave, not share those photographs, or to delay the sharing? This is assuming that no-one else explores it under your ridiculous "stop caving" ideas, which you deny having, but...Kenilworth said:
Seems pretty concrete that you would like everyone, bar a few to photograph them, stop caving immediately. At no point have you explained a practical implementation, the paople who decide, and why it's them who decide any of this. It's all very well shouting about something, but you have no idea how to replace the "bad caving" you seem to think we're doing now.Kenilworth said:
You still need to explain what a Professional Cave Photographer that take salon quality pictures is.
wormster
Active member
Fulk said:
Quite right it isn't in a cave, its in Drakelow Underground Shadow factory! AND is underground - my other thing is Mines and Quarries, and WW2 history, but there again this is a CAVING site, so I'd hardly expect you to understand........(YES I'M JOKING)
Just a made up word think of the whole as Who, Where, Why, etc....
My main reason for not plastering 'fasands of photos, (either underground, or family, or anything else related) is that in the past I've had my snaps stolen from me and passed off as somebody elese's work! - I think that is called copyright theft, and having been down that road IMO its better not to tempt fate again!
wormster
Active member
PeteHall said:
Has been done in the past in at least one Mendip Mine/Cave that I know of, the way that the particular individual walled off these 17th Century artifacts actually protects them, whilst keeping them on view at the same time, conservation in itself is a tricky enough subject, there are other threads available to comment on......so I'll not bother saying 'owt else on that subject at the moment!
Kenilworth
New member
Amy said:
I have thought a lot about your post today Amy. I wonder if you might share some of the before/after photos here? They would be useful to the point being made.
If you do write a conservation article, I hope you will spend the time on deeper things than complaint about the damage done and insistence that cavers observe flagging etc. I'm trying to say that this was partly your fault, partly "Caving's" fault, and partly the fault of the particular cavers who did the damage. Work out where all the blame lies, and why, before submitting an article, and I think the results will be much more meaningful to yourself and to the readers.
Bwahaha I would wonder how this is possibly my fault that someone not on my trips and who I do not cave with how I could possibly control their conservation ethics and make them muddy things up or step beyond tape, but thanks. :bow:Kenilworth said:
I cannot assign blame, I can figure out with deductive reasoning who the likely culprits are - assuming they signed the cave log - and that is all. Even still, I would never publicly call them out especially having no direct evidence. Witch hunts do zero good. Article is in progress of being written and it is a tricky thing, to word things so people think, without losing people. Because here *most* people honestly in my experience don't give a f*k about "little things" - spraypaint and mud handprints on walls and carving names in rock is about the only thing people get upset about, in my experience. So trying to explain why we should care about more than blatant vandalism is difficult. It's like trying to explain empathy to someone who has none.
Kenilworth
New member
Think a little harder.
Don't I know it.
It sounds like you're missing an opportunity.
droid
Active member
Kenilworth: you might get further in your argument if you phrased it in a more accessible manner.
You are writing in a Forum, not a paper publication, and hence your audience may be different. I've asked you for concise clarification and it has bee refused, as has newStuff's requests.
If anyone needs to 'think harder' it might be you.
Think about your presentation of your ideas. Think about your target audience.
You are writing in a Forum, not a paper publication, and hence your audience may be different. I've asked you for concise clarification and it has bee refused, as has newStuff's requests.
If anyone needs to 'think harder' it might be you.
Think about your presentation of your ideas. Think about your target audience.