The Photographer's Dilemna

[Scenic WonderRunner]

The Photographer's Dilemma...........

Food for thought............ (and discussion).

Said very well, so I thought I would share this article. I feel it applies to any area we visit and should be pondered!


http://bcn.boulder.co.us/environment/cacv/cacvquan.htm



The Cedar Mesa Project
The Photographer's Dilemna

Return to The Cedar Mesa Project Home Page.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The 'discovery' of Anasazi country was inevitable, but its consumption has become rabid, increasing…by more than threefold in about two years. Whether voluntary or involuntary, solitude in this crowded backcountry has become an anachronism, replaced by what has been called 'managed remoteness, planned romance' booked in advance by permits that ration the land among the herds in order to minimize damage."
Meloy, Ellen, Raven's Exile, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1994. p. 82.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may be a mistake. Exhibiting photographs of sites poses a real ethical dilemma to both photographer and viewer. Photographs inform. They invite. They educate, they exploit. There is a natural dilemma between the sense of awe, inspiration, beauty and respect that most photographers hope to create in their images and the increased visitation, violation and vandalism that often results, directly or not, from the public presentation of images containing archaeological sites. If this exhibit, like many books and calendars, propels more people onto the landscape to trod over middens, pocket potsherds and arrowheads then it will have been for naught.

If, however, you leave with a heightened awareness and respect for the landscape and the people who inhabit(ed) it, that is good. If, the writing and photography act as a catalyst for you to redefine your relationship to this land, this people, that too, is good.

If you refine your approach to visiting sites so as to reduce human impact then I have been successful. If you become active in the preservation and protection (from public and governmental abuses) then I'll be delighted.

Photography has been an ally of southwest archaeology since its early beginnings. Like Yellowstone and many other early national parks, photographs of ancient Puebloan sites were presented to the public to inform, document, educate and invite visitation with the ultimate goal being preservation. The paradigm of the time dictated the viewing of these ancient peoples, their objects and site remains as a curiosity, a novelty. Today we are witnessing the result of decades of growth of public interest in visiting sites. Sites and artifacts are disappearing from the landscape at an alarming rate. Even the best guarded and protected of sites like Chaco NHP are witnessing increased visitation and its attendant stress on sites.

There is a danger in this relationship. Many are the photographs that could have occupied this space from negatives and transparencies stored or from sites yet to visit. Fear of returning to favorite sites and seeing walls scarred by graffiti or unnaturally fallen has me question showing any that are not guarded by rangers or guides. Doubt and decision. I have chosen to engage in the positive photographic presentation of ancient cultures, that through exhibiting their Inherent beauty and other powers viewers would gain stronger appreciation and join in their preservation.

Concerned photographers can best aide in the task by being cautious when writing captions. Avoid naming a site or offering its canyon location unless it is protected to the degree that Canyon deChelly, Mesa Verde, Ute Mountain tribal Park, Wupatki, Navajo National Monument and Chaco Canyon NHP are. When composing try to keep recognizable landmarks out of the scene so viewers cannot use your photograph to navigate over the natural resource to reach the cultural resource. Be as precise as you can when offering archaeological information. Visit with the governing land management agency concerning your work but do not hold their opinions as the gospel truth. Follow proper procedures for visiting sites. Educate as often as you can. Volunteer use of your photographs to environmental groups and remember that you walk on lands still inhabited by "those who have gone before." Assume you were invited to visit their home and act accordingly.

by Bruce Hucko

 

[articulate]

My gut reaction? This is rediculous:

Concerned photographers can best aide in the task by being cautious when writing captions. Avoid naming a site or offering its canyon location unless it is protected to the degree that Canyon deChelly, Mesa Verde, Ute Mountain tribal Park, Wupatki, Navajo National Monument and Chaco Canyon NHP are. When composing try to keep recognizable landmarks out of the scene so viewers cannot use your photograph to navigate over the natural resource to reach the cultural resource.

 

[DaveInDenver]

My gut reaction? This is rediculous:

Maybe. Still, I personally post little to no descriptions and photos of relatively unknown ruins, petroglyphs or fossils I've been shown or found. This is primarily because I've seen them degrade when their locations do get out. My experience has been to see mostly mining ruins be scavenged, but I've also personally come across rock art that's getting defaced not long after it starts popping up on the Internet.

I'm happy to show whatever I might know to people, but as a matter of course I don't post or repost them publicly. I don't think there's any value in keeping them secret, but at the same time there is so little respect for property and history that I also don't think letting anyone with a computer and 4x4 know where they are is necessary either. Yes, it is arbitrary and no I don't think I'm special. But I'm under no obligation to show anyone anything and I'd feel guilty if I contributed to the demise of artifacts.

 

[DesertRose]

Maybe. Still, I personally post little to no descriptions and photos of relatively unknown ruins, petroglyphs or fossils I've been shown or found. This is primarily because I've seen them degrade when their locations do get out. My experience has been to see mostly mining ruins be scavenged, but I've also personally come across rock art that's getting defaced not long after it starts popping up on the Internet.

I'm happy to show whatever I might know to people, but as a matter of course I don't post or repost them publicly. I don't think there's any value in keeping them secret, but at the same time there is so little respect for property and history that I also don't think letting anyone with a computer and 4x4 know where they are is necessary either. Yes, it is arbitrary and no I don't think I'm special. But I'm under no obligation to show anyone anything and I'd feel guilty if I contributed to the demise of artifacts.

Well said, Dave - thank you! As a writer for 25 years, I agree with you and don't think it's ridiculous at all :Wow1:

I've always carefully chosen the subjects of articles, and the accompanying photographs, so that I'm not selling the "hidden" or "secret" places - that, once published in a major outlet (what's bigger than the Internet, BTW?), become overrun and quite frankly ruined. I have always felt that as a conservation minded writer it is my duty to ensure I don't contribute to a resource's demise just to make a buck.

 

[articulate]

Maybe. Still, I personally post little to no descriptions and photos of relatively unknown ruins, petroglyphs or fossils I've been shown or found.

Dave, I should have been more careful selecting the quote. I wasn't referring to captions - that seems fair. The idea of shooting a frame in such a way to "keep recognizable landmarks out of the scene so viewers cannot use your photograph to navigate" was funny. In a rediculous way. If photography is about light, you can't be so pick-n-choosy. But I'd buy anyone a beer and shake his/her hand who could navigate to a site I photographed based on my photo. That's a worthy accomplishment.

 

[devinsixtyseven]

My gut reaction? This is rediculous:

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Pay a visit to the outdoor fossil museum northwest of Moab and you'll understand immediately--there's hardly anything to see anymore. If it was possible to remove a piece, it's gone. I've seen grafitti carved in sandstone that was extremely difficult to reach...but it's there. I've found tire tracks and footprints over ground that should have been untouched, even when there was a perfectly obvious and easily accessable alternate route (but not quite as direct). I've watched people remove pieces of the land as "souvenirs". The people who do these things, they don't care about you, me, or the next person to come along...only their own enjoyment, who cares about the next guy. I leave an arrowhead, one of these jerks comes along and takes it, just like the author of the article talks about fallen walls and vandalised petroglyphs. I'd rather throw the entire lot in a museum under armed guard, where the "few" (they aren't few, they're average, in my experience) selfish among us can't spoil it for the rest of us.

People who know where something special is, and keep that information private, are able to pass the information to interested and responsible people who will do the same. It keeps the irresponsible people from ruining the special places in the world, whether it's archeological sites, historical mining towns, natural features whether geological or biological, even entire cities or parts of the world...like Phoenix, Denver (and Denver's nearby mountain communities), parts of SoCal, and many other places where overpopulation has resulted in a measurable and detrimental change in geology, hydrology, air quality, population density, and general quality of life. "Use" and "take" rather than "adapt" and "support" have led to grafitti and tire tracks where they shouldn't be, trail closures across the country, cracked foundations and depleted aquifers in arid population centers, and a deep abiding cynicism in me that leads me to expect that if there's something beautiful and easy to reach, I should perhaps look elsewhere for entertainment as someone else will have probably already ruined it by the time I arrive...either by careless or intentional destruction of whatever it was, or such a necessary assembly of protective infrastructure that it detracts from the natural beauty of the area (like the concrete viewing ring around Old Faithful).

If I discover something beautiful and untouched, I'll leave it be and keep the location to myself, if not the story and the pictures...and I'll choose to share it only with the people who seem least likely to destroy it through their actions or attitude.

-Sean

*edit* Sorry, I just saw your next post...I guess it really depends on the area. Every slickrock fin looks the same, more or less...I'd only think it would be an item to keep in mind for wide angle shots where you're taking a picture of something in particular and don't want an easy reference, like a road, building, etc...and I don't think anyone would be able to reference location even from a wide angle shot of Harvest Scene.

 

[Scenic WonderRunner]

I want to just ad......

I am only trying to stimulate a friendly, informative and educational discussion on this subject.

I would like to explain why this writing struck a chord with me.


In Sept. 2006, I explored and camped around Cedar Mesa. I knew there were ancient native sites all around me.

Here is my experience during my first night on the Mesa.............

I find a beautiful, already been used, dispersed campsite on Cedar Mesa. I drive just north of the main trail over 100 yards to get to this magnificent site. Just before dark I hear a truck pounding up the trail in a bit of a hurry. Thinking they were just trying to get way up to the main highway before dark, I really gave it no thought. A few min. later two men come walking at a fast clip right up to my campsite (I have Never acted like this with someone else's campsite!). They were about to just walk right on through without saying a word at their hurried pace. That's when I spoke up and asked where they were headed.

They told me they saw on their GPS that there is an ancient ruin in this area and they thought it was here. I told them no use in walking any further, I have been out along that Elk/Deer path and it leads to a dead end. With that they headed down in front of me, beat feeting all around the cliffs and surrounding........."Cryptobiotic Soil".

Now first of all......with their attitudes, even if I could have given them directions to the perfect ruin......I knew better!

I got extremely upset at their disregard for what I felt was a very special area. I didn't need a scientist to tell me that this was special soil!!!!!!! I guess some people "get it"........and some just don't or never will.

They stomped around for a few more min. and then hurried on their way, never once taking in the beauty that surrounded them. How many years will their footprints remain in this special place? 100+ Years ............?

While I was in the area and hiking around, I was very careful to ONLY follow animal paths and to not just carelessly STOMP Everywhere I wanted!

Earlier today while searching, I found a site that showed a very small number of visitors to the Cedar Mesa area in 1974 maybe like 5,000, and by 1996 this number of yearly visitors swelled to over 50,000 per year (when I find these numbers again I will quote them with a link, sorry I can't find it right now).

After witnessing these acts first hand........I have no problem understanding what the writer ment.

This leaves me feeling VERY concerned. I'm sure you know why.


I have a lot more on my mind...........but I'll let the discussion continue.

 

[articulate]

Mark, you bring up a nice point. Friendly is as friendly does.

Can I point out that these dudes who tromped through your site were't holding a photograph for navigation but a GPS?

While Bruce Hucko is making a fair argument about photography, I don't believe for a moment that grafitti, ecological damage, and litter originate with a great photo. Great photos might inspire some folks to visit a place - but what these people have been taught about respect and ethics hold more "blame" for the destruction than some good photographs on the internet.

Hell, in your instance it looks like GPS units do more damage than photographs.

I'd also like to make the claim that great photos give value to a remote and desolate site. Photos celebrate these things. Why stifle them? Again, the blame for destruction is careless people. I see Bruce's point, but I respectfully disagree.

My apologies for my gut reaction, but I still feel the same way.

 

[JPFreek1]

I'm gonna have to go with Stephens on this one. Respectful and responsible use of ones surroundings is vital (these are principles I believe in when I enjoy any natural surrounding) and I think most outdoor photographers realize this. A good photographer should know that he/she is a visitor to the areas they photograph and as such, should respect those areas as they are there to provide value, enrichment, and celebration to those who enjoy them. Photographs provide that enjoyment. When people ruin a fragile area, it's not because of a photo but of a lack of understanding or respect for that resource.

Basically, respectful and responsible use of the outdoors is a must that applies to photography as much as it does to other land use. I usually try to keep my captions pretty generic when I take photos and publish them in my magazine and like Mark said, if someone can find the exact location of where I took a photograph, that's pretty remarkable in itself.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Respectful and responsible use of ones surroundings is vital (these are principles I believe in when I enjoy any natural surrounding) and I think most outdoor photographers realize this. A good photographer should know that he/she is a visitor to the areas they photograph and as such, should respect those areas as they are there to provide value, enrichment, and celebration to those who enjoy them. Photographs provide that enjoyment. When people ruin a fragile area, it's not because of a photo but of a lack of understanding or respect for that resource.

Basically, respectful and responsible use of the outdoors is a must that applies to photography as much as it does to other land use. I usually try to keep my captions pretty generic when I take photos and publish them in my magazine and like Mark said, if someone can find the exact location of where I took a photograph, that's pretty remarkable in itself.

I don't think anyone says you shouldn't take the photo or remember them in a travelogue. I think the point is to give a cursitory thought about how and where you post and publish these if doing so will cause damaging traffic. I'm sure the first documenters who found and mapped out Newspaper Rock never imagined the ramifications. I'm sure it seemed harmless at the time. But it's been so defaced by graffiti that the original art is basically no longer distinguishable. Should the public not know about it? Of course they should, but making its existence and location known ultimated sealed its fate.

It gets back to who's 'qualified' to see it. You should not have to have advanced degrees in archeology to enjoy and visit antiquities, but you should at least have the respect not to ruin them. How do you prove that? I have absolutely no idea. It's just that if I have a map to a mine ruin or photo of rock art, I don't feel that telling everyone and anyone on the Internet even a rough location is useful. Part of the bar you have to jump to see and visit places might be things like membership to the right societies, subscriptions to the appropriate journals, an educational background or just simply proving yourself.

I don't think it's a perfectly black and white decision, so I err to the side of over caution. This is for a couple of reasons, first I am not a teacher or guide and am not qualified or required to explain the full story. I'm also not a public official who (presumably) has the interest of society and the public good in his hands. I don't have the power nor responsibility to properly document and physically protect these things and so in my estimation it also not up to me to guide anyone to them. Just the same, if I'm on a trip with someone I know, I don't try to keep anything secret.

 

[JPFreek1]

I think the most important issue out of all of this is to spread the word about responsible use of lands. With freedoms come responsibility and people should be taught, if they haven't already, to respect our planet in all its forms. If folks are taught to be responsible about the lands they visit, then this whole issue wouldn't be an issue. Just my two cents worth.

 

[sinuhexavier]

It is a delicate subject. I have had National Geographic Adventure as a client since 2001.I have always kept my descriptions and locations vague, wether it be a secret powder stash in the Wasatch or hardly used alpine bike trail in Moab. There is the conservation factor, but beyond that I am selfish... I don't want to share my hard earned secret corners with anyone. Finding these places takes work, asking the right questions, going down a lot of dead ends, all that work makes the discovery all the more rewarding.

 

[devinsixtyseven]

I have always kept my descriptions and locations vague, wether it be a secret powder stash in the Wasatch or hardly used alpine bike trail in Moab. There is the conservation factor, but beyond that I am selfish... I don't want to share my hard earned secret corners with anyone. Finding these places takes work, asking the right questions, going down a lot of dead ends, all that work makes the discovery all the more rewarding.

Call me egotistical, selfish, or elitist, but I feel the same way. I only share that sort of thing with people I know will respect and not trash it.

 

[Brian894x4]

I face some of these very same concerns as we explore, photo and write about historical sites. Finding these sites does take a ton of work and I've spent as long as a year trying to find a specific site. I have many countless hours of research and exploring, but I don't want to horde the information, because my specific goal is the sharing of history for future generations. However, I too have witnessed first hand what vandels and theives can do.

There are very few occasions that I don't write about a specific site, but unfortunately, I have had to make the locations vague or even specifically omit locations of many sites that we've found and that's sad, because I love to create maps and share this .

Theft and Vandalism is definitely a problem and my biggest concern. I can't tell you how many sites I've visited and revisited later only to find stuff missing, or boards on a buildings turned into ashes for a local campfire. It's just infuriating!! Some sites require long hikes to reach and they tend to be the most preserved as vandels don't like to be too far from the trucks and beer.

There's also sites that are on private property and the land owner may request that the location be kept secret. And finally, there's the danger and liability factory. Many historical sites were and are being destroyed on purpose by the state and private land owners because of liability concerns. If they're kept hidden, the chances of them still existing is greater. I've actually had public officials ask that I omit the location of certain sites just for that reason and I've obliged.

It's a very frustrating dilemma. I don't want to stop sharing these historical sites with others, but I fear someday I may have too. Fortunately, most people who go searching the web for this kind of stuff share the same values we do to explore, research and most importantly...preserve, and most vandels are those that haphazardly come upon the sites, rather than seek them out.

But there is a new breed of criminals out there. The scrappers and antique theives. These guys purposely seek out historical sites looking for valuables to sell off or to scrap. I fear that's only going to get worse as the price of metal increases and antiques become increasingly easier to sell over the internet.