Tuesday, May 30, 2006
red brick flag
Think of this as a still from a film - a short perhaps. Imagine the film running, the camera stationary and wait...
This is about narrative alone although it's not too bad a photo! We recently went to our sheep breed (rare) AGM near Coventry and took a (grey and rainy) day out to visit Worcester. Almost from the moment we crossed the border (there's a word I dislike) we became aware of cars flying St George flags, one either side on little sticks by the windows. On narrower roads these cars invariably drove one foot from our rear bumper (no problem, it's a Land Rover). We wandered around Worcester, exploring parts away from the centre, eventually arriving at yet another cricket ground surrounded by flowering horse chestnut and opposite was this house with that dreaded flag. I tried to get a good shot of the ground with the trees and gave up and before departing thought that I'd take the flag as 'one for the record'. Immediately the door flew open and, what I can only describe as, an archetypal English football supporter stormed out. Why was I photographing his house? He was going to call the police. What was my name? Reason seemed useless in such circumstances so I merely said that I would be very happy for him to call the police as I hadn't broken any law. This object stormed around mouthing inconsequential inanities and telling me to clear off - as I stood in the road. Photo taken we departed. I lacked the inspiration (or maybe, subconsciously, the courage) to take a photo of him (fuel to the fire?) unfortunately.
I don't like flags of any description much and this one I certainly don't like: it seems to evoke some sort of cultural inferiority complex. The cars with flags attached reminded me of countries in Latin America celebrating football matches but without the fun and colour. I wish Germany all the best when these people arrive!
In another incident the previous day in the Hereford Arts Centre, which is quite an elegant new building, I took a few pictures. Eventually the duty manager aproached me and asked why I was taking pictures. We discussed it and he came out with the statement that later (this was around 1600) people might be offended were photos to be taken of children. I was flabbergasted. No problem about artist copyright (which I had been scrupulously respecting), just the potential to take a child (dressed one hopes). All I can say is that Middle England has its problems.
Sorry about the length and the very ordinary photo.
I suppose this is a coda to the whole debate. The front page of 'The Sun' from Friday, 2 June. No doubt the editor is unaware of the irony that most of the time 'The Sun' is emblazoned with the Union Jack but has conveniently made itself an English nationalist paper as opposed to a British one. Meanwhile the car flags are being paraded on roads as far as Pembrokeshire.
Permalink / posted by and copyright of John Ellis : 10:33 AM
Comments:
John, come and photograph my Cross of St. George. I'll give you a warm reception and a cup of tea, or something stronger if you would prefer. I'm more concerned about the use of net curtains. Now that's just terrible.
Did you watch the last series of "Grumpy Old Men"? If so did you sit there saying "I agree with that" at every point? And more importantly did your wife sit there in hysterics saying "You should be on this program"
Flags on cars, I thought that bad drivers had been instructed to warn of their inability to drive by displaying the red and white flag, and if they are really useless drivers they must have two. Just drive off the road into a ditch if you see a car approaching with three flags, it is safer.
I am currently keeping my fingers crossed for a 23-0 score in the first match, hoping that will be the knockout blow and all mention of IT will disappear off out TVs.
I have been asked why I was taking a picture of a shop in Bransgore by the shop owner but he was pleasant about it. Although you are within your rights to take pics from public land and RoW I'm not so sure about shopping malls etc where the owner's permission might be required.
With this paranoia about photographing children I wonder that in 50 years historians will be looking back and images and wonder where all the adults came from and what did kids do as there will be no contemporary records of activities that kids enjoyed.
Someone I know was approached by a yellow jacketed man on the beach near Bournemouth and asked to leave the beach. He happened to have a camera (E10) round his neck. On asking if a camera was allowed on the beach he was told that there was no rule but that unless my friend left then yellow-jacket man would phone the police who would then detain him for about 3 hours whilst his camera was checked for images of kids, and possibly his home computer. My mate beat a retreat.
Liked the picture, your story kind of fitted in with my stereotype!
John-Jo - sounds like an invitation to view your etchings!! Thanks for the way you took my story with a good deal of equanimity! I thought that I had the potential to offend but there is no point beating about the bush.
Rex - I enjoyed all that. No, I've never watched GOM, mainly because I can't stand J Clarkson (others listed are OK). Jana keeps a one-woman-commentary going which would rival your story about wives, so I suppose I could run my own show, but I think that my 'grumps' would not align with other people's!
Why didn't you warn me about the flag etiquette and cars?!!! In serious mode, I find simplistic hysteria about photographing children in their natural habitat something quite significant and, as you say, likely to feature in a historian's view of the country in x years time - assuming half the country isn't under water - whoops, was that another grump?!
"...fitted in with my stereotype!..." - me as a GOM or English football supporters?
I suppose if I found someone photographing the outside of my house, I would wonder why. A non-photographer would not really understand. I do find it sad that one is unable to take candid portraits of children without people thinking you are a pervert. I used to sit by a punch and children stand and take pictures of the children's faces. Nothing I could not show to a WI meeting but, today, I could get arrested or even beaten up. It is a sad reflection of society in England today. As far as the flags are concerned, they will be taken down when England are knocked out of the world cup. Although I enjoy football and passionately support Portsmouth, I think all sport and competitions are somewhat depressing. There is only one winner and many, many losers. There are 32 teams in the world cup finals. 31 nations will suffer the humiliation and depression of defeat. The photo shows a moment of a nations hope, to win the world cup, to be the best. We wait and see.
I nearly got an article published in a photo magazine in 2005 about how it could be legal, decent, and honest to take pictures of kids in public. They bottled out in the end though. I've been meaning to rewrite it for my website - basically just because I can, and maybe to use in defence one day. Most of the pics that I had were taken in Hong Kong, but a few were from England.
About Mr Flag Angry: If I'm in a country were I speak the language I usually carry some professional looking business cards and/or have a story about the local press wanting pictures, or possibly doing a student assignment depending on context. If I'm in a country where I don't speak the language, well then shrug, no habla matey. The only time recently that I've badly misjudged things was locally. I had a getorfmyland moment with a crofter. I had wrongly guessed whose field I was in.........the fact that I have a legal right to roam and the fact that it is actually government land not his I felt it judicious not to mention.
As to the photo - this is England, or at least a large part of it. Much more so that the cricket ground and the chestnut tree. An interesting thought strikes me about what 'documentary' actually means. A Brooks Jensen essay half remembered:- documentary = what you saw. Those ferns are what I saw. This flag is what you saw.
PS World Cup? What sport?
Please excuse me while I play devil's advocate for a moment; why did you take this shot? "One for the record", but was this the best way to record your feelings regarding the flag or the day?
I have a theory about people's right to privacy that runs perpendicular to many of the common arguments. If you invade someone's privacy, the shot had better be interesting. Photographers have a right to photograph, but we also have a responsibility to create something more than ordinary.
John L - I agree that the flags will come down but I can remember when one never saw this flag; in fact it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Personally, I think that, despite the more innocent loyalty displayed, there is an uglier side that has to do with uncertainty about identity etc... As to competition in sport, I am quite happy with that and, if Wales are on a winning streak, and it's raining, sit in and watch the rugby; where football has gone in UK does tend to end up in the way you describe and some of that can be ascribed to the way it is marketed but from what one sees of film made at the turn of the C20 there was huge support for football across the country.
Auspicious - again, slow in the uptake, I had thought of trying the 'no hablo' routine rather too late. In this case, I'm not sure any moves would have been successful. What I found surprising was that he hangs out this flag for people to see - and what then? Is everyone supposed to avert their eyes?
Matt - very reasonable to play devil's advocate. I'm not sure about the best way - do you mean I should have gone and knocked on his door and talked the whole thing through with him? That might actually have been a good thing to do but, in terms of a day passing by, taking 'one for the record' doesn't strike me as being such a sin, indeed, I could have recorded my feelings in many different ways. That the photo doesn't pass muster is in the eye of the beholder. If he had come out and asked 'what are you taking - is it my flag?' we could have had a discussion and perhaps I could have had a good photo of him beneath his flag (preferred option). But I can assure you that reason was not present. Life is the ordinary - we cannot pretend otherwise. In this photo you have encapsulated street after street across Britain.
Rex might be amused that in the same day he told me about the driving warning we went to a concert given by a Scottish girl last night where there was a joint Celtic laugh about the driving.
Matt, apart from the fact that you obviously feel quite strongly about this I didn't query how you apply your theory: how does it work when faced with the law for instance? Also, is this a theory or something you practice and how does it apply in this particular case? Quite how has privacy been invaded? As to the photographer's responsibility, I see no connection either morally or artistically to produce any particular type of photo to order.
The law is essentially irellevant; the cops don't know the law. They are enforcing social norms regarding children, property, security etc.
I do indeed practice this theory. When taking pictures of people I don't know or things I perhaps shouldn't photograph I go through a checklist in my head; 1. Can I make a good photo of this? 2. Will anyone notice? 3. If they do notice, is the picture worth the ramification? 4. Can I beat them in a fight if need be?
In this case, I would'nt have gotten past question number 1. To my eye there's nothing going on in this photo.
Which brings me back to the question I originally asked. Was this the best photo you could have made? You obviously have strong feelings about the flags, but this doesn't come through in the photo.
As far as obligations go, if nothing else, if you are risking an altercation with someone, you have an obligation to yourself to take a photo that means something to you. If even you find the photo ordinary, all you've done is raised everyone's blood pressure.
In case it didn't come through in all that, my initial intent was encouraging; you are a talented photographer, and you can do better.
The law can (should) never be irrelevant, unless one wishes to campaign on a particular issue and be prepared to go to prison for one's beliefs. The law can be an ass but is still binding at that point and will be acted upon by the law's enforcers even if later a different interpretation is put on the facts by a judge and jury.
My self-guidance is whether (in a shifting social and legislative environment in this country) taking a photo of a place or person does two things: is illegal or offends sensibilities. The latter is more important in other countries such as those in the Andes, or the Aborigines in Australia. In UK sensitivities vary, including over copyright. I may be wrong but I consider material objects (such as houses) in a public setting, eg a street, to be off the sensitivity scale low. Your question 4: "can I beat them in a fight", may be relevant in a court of law but will not even enter into the thinking of, for example, the landowner Auspicious quotes. It is unlikely that an 'offended' person will know whether you have taken a good photo or not. However, I wouldn't disagree with you in broad principle except for one thing: is it worth the hassle to get the picture however good?
I didn't actually admit that the photo is ordinary - I said that life is ordinary. There are occasions when time and place may be worth recording (an important function of photography in my view). On this occasion I contend that this picture says something about the UK. I don't necessarily expect you to agree with that but I know that it is not a 'bad' photo. Ordinariness doesn't get many votes.
John, I hope you don't feel that I'm picking on you. I never said it was a bad photo. The tecnical execution is fine. It just doesn't say much. We can argue about the rest of this until the cows come home, it's perfectly acceptable for us to have differnt standards for when to take a picture, but it's all tangential to the main point.
Why this photo? What does it say about the UK? Are you effecitively conveying that message?
BTW, what's the white van?
Matt, firstly apologies as I notice that in my opening narrative I did say that the photo is ordinary even if I meant what I said later on.
Yes, the discussion could go on but I think that the original comment has been elucidated fully enough.
Coming from Wales, and having lived outside the UK for three years, I am not sure when the term 'white van man' arose but I think it was around the end of the '90s. Who this van belongs to I have no idea but its appearance ties in. Although there have been some observations from UK members it would be interesting to hear from others whether this does say anything about the country.
I only have two references for white vans:
1. Stalkers, police stake outs, and other people trying to watch from obscurity.
2. The white van that supposedly used in the Washington DC sniper killings a few years ago. The white van turned out to be a red heiring, but it stuck in my mind because at the time I was driving a white van much like the suspect one.
White vans connote a certain sort of driver. Not somebody to be argued with and somebody likely to cut you up on the road. Definitely an English reference. Early 1990s I would say.
My thoughts on this photo began to get lengthy, so I have put something on my blog HERE. JohnE has already seen it. Just something that was too long for the comments box.
your story could have happened in here germany, too...
thanks for your wishes about those english people who will arrive in germany for the world cup. thousands of policemen and security will await them. whole germany is going to be a high security zone... and I'm sure it will also take effect on photography permissions...
As a photograph it is very flat. The white sky, though forming a small part of the overall, is too devoid of detail and averts my eye. There is a story to be told and the flag is obviously it. A wider angle trying to take in more houses perhaps? This has such potential in the mold of Shore. The colours are beatifully muted yet saturated (if that makes any sense). Never noticed the van but the satellite dish remained in my mind. I like this a lot for one reason: I've been away from England long enough for this photograph to trigger many distant (and fond) memories. Personally I like this photograph a great deal. But to the wider audience...others have expressed it much better than I could hope to.
Thanks for your observations Guy. I can see what you mean by the reference to Shore; perhaps this has to sit as a small-scale British equivalent. The colours are probably explained by the fact that it was about then that the rain stopped, which also explains the grey/white sky.
For those living in the UK, you might have seen the Friday front page of 'The Sun'; for those not resident in the UK, 'The Sun' is a Murdoch-owned national(ist) newspaper that can be bought anywhere in the UK. It is anti- almost anything it can think of and certainly anything Murdoch instructs it to attack. It would appear that I have upset it!! This is a newspaper that is anti-Europe, anti-immigration and, most particularly, anti-political correctness. Anyway, I have added a picture of the front page in its totality underneath my original photo as a form of coda.
Rex - perhaps you could recategorise my grumpy old men title!!
Post a Comment
Flags on cars, I thought that bad drivers had been instructed to warn of their inability to drive by displaying the red and white flag, and if they are really useless drivers they must have two. Just drive off the road into a ditch if you see a car approaching with three flags, it is safer.
I am currently keeping my fingers crossed for a 23-0 score in the first match, hoping that will be the knockout blow and all mention of IT will disappear off out TVs.
I have been asked why I was taking a picture of a shop in Bransgore by the shop owner but he was pleasant about it. Although you are within your rights to take pics from public land and RoW I'm not so sure about shopping malls etc where the owner's permission might be required.
With this paranoia about photographing children I wonder that in 50 years historians will be looking back and images and wonder where all the adults came from and what did kids do as there will be no contemporary records of activities that kids enjoyed.
Someone I know was approached by a yellow jacketed man on the beach near Bournemouth and asked to leave the beach. He happened to have a camera (E10) round his neck. On asking if a camera was allowed on the beach he was told that there was no rule but that unless my friend left then yellow-jacket man would phone the police who would then detain him for about 3 hours whilst his camera was checked for images of kids, and possibly his home computer. My mate beat a retreat.
Liked the picture, your story kind of fitted in with my stereotype!
Rex - I enjoyed all that. No, I've never watched GOM, mainly because I can't stand J Clarkson (others listed are OK). Jana keeps a one-woman-commentary going which would rival your story about wives, so I suppose I could run my own show, but I think that my 'grumps' would not align with other people's!
Why didn't you warn me about the flag etiquette and cars?!!! In serious mode, I find simplistic hysteria about photographing children in their natural habitat something quite significant and, as you say, likely to feature in a historian's view of the country in x years time - assuming half the country isn't under water - whoops, was that another grump?!
"...fitted in with my stereotype!..." - me as a GOM or English football supporters?
About Mr Flag Angry: If I'm in a country were I speak the language I usually carry some professional looking business cards and/or have a story about the local press wanting pictures, or possibly doing a student assignment depending on context. If I'm in a country where I don't speak the language, well then shrug, no habla matey. The only time recently that I've badly misjudged things was locally. I had a getorfmyland moment with a crofter. I had wrongly guessed whose field I was in.........the fact that I have a legal right to roam and the fact that it is actually government land not his I felt it judicious not to mention.
As to the photo - this is England, or at least a large part of it. Much more so that the cricket ground and the chestnut tree. An interesting thought strikes me about what 'documentary' actually means. A Brooks Jensen essay half remembered:- documentary = what you saw. Those ferns are what I saw. This flag is what you saw.
PS World Cup? What sport?
I have a theory about people's right to privacy that runs perpendicular to many of the common arguments. If you invade someone's privacy, the shot had better be interesting. Photographers have a right to photograph, but we also have a responsibility to create something more than ordinary.
Auspicious - again, slow in the uptake, I had thought of trying the 'no hablo' routine rather too late. In this case, I'm not sure any moves would have been successful. What I found surprising was that he hangs out this flag for people to see - and what then? Is everyone supposed to avert their eyes?
Matt - very reasonable to play devil's advocate. I'm not sure about the best way - do you mean I should have gone and knocked on his door and talked the whole thing through with him? That might actually have been a good thing to do but, in terms of a day passing by, taking 'one for the record' doesn't strike me as being such a sin, indeed, I could have recorded my feelings in many different ways. That the photo doesn't pass muster is in the eye of the beholder. If he had come out and asked 'what are you taking - is it my flag?' we could have had a discussion and perhaps I could have had a good photo of him beneath his flag (preferred option). But I can assure you that reason was not present. Life is the ordinary - we cannot pretend otherwise. In this photo you have encapsulated street after street across Britain.
Rex might be amused that in the same day he told me about the driving warning we went to a concert given by a Scottish girl last night where there was a joint Celtic laugh about the driving.
I do indeed practice this theory. When taking pictures of people I don't know or things I perhaps shouldn't photograph I go through a checklist in my head; 1. Can I make a good photo of this? 2. Will anyone notice? 3. If they do notice, is the picture worth the ramification? 4. Can I beat them in a fight if need be?
In this case, I would'nt have gotten past question number 1. To my eye there's nothing going on in this photo.
Which brings me back to the question I originally asked. Was this the best photo you could have made? You obviously have strong feelings about the flags, but this doesn't come through in the photo.
As far as obligations go, if nothing else, if you are risking an altercation with someone, you have an obligation to yourself to take a photo that means something to you. If even you find the photo ordinary, all you've done is raised everyone's blood pressure.
My self-guidance is whether (in a shifting social and legislative environment in this country) taking a photo of a place or person does two things: is illegal or offends sensibilities. The latter is more important in other countries such as those in the Andes, or the Aborigines in Australia. In UK sensitivities vary, including over copyright. I may be wrong but I consider material objects (such as houses) in a public setting, eg a street, to be off the sensitivity scale low. Your question 4: "can I beat them in a fight", may be relevant in a court of law but will not even enter into the thinking of, for example, the landowner Auspicious quotes. It is unlikely that an 'offended' person will know whether you have taken a good photo or not. However, I wouldn't disagree with you in broad principle except for one thing: is it worth the hassle to get the picture however good?
I didn't actually admit that the photo is ordinary - I said that life is ordinary. There are occasions when time and place may be worth recording (an important function of photography in my view). On this occasion I contend that this picture says something about the UK. I don't necessarily expect you to agree with that but I know that it is not a 'bad' photo. Ordinariness doesn't get many votes.
Why this photo? What does it say about the UK? Are you effecitively conveying that message?
BTW, what's the white van?
Yes, the discussion could go on but I think that the original comment has been elucidated fully enough.
Coming from Wales, and having lived outside the UK for three years, I am not sure when the term 'white van man' arose but I think it was around the end of the '90s. Who this van belongs to I have no idea but its appearance ties in. Although there have been some observations from UK members it would be interesting to hear from others whether this does say anything about the country.
1. Stalkers, police stake outs, and other people trying to watch from obscurity.
2. The white van that supposedly used in the Washington DC sniper killings a few years ago. The white van turned out to be a red heiring, but it stuck in my mind because at the time I was driving a white van much like the suspect one.
My thoughts on this photo began to get lengthy, so I have put something on my blog HERE. JohnE has already seen it. Just something that was too long for the comments box.
thanks for your wishes about those english people who will arrive in germany for the world cup. thousands of policemen and security will await them. whole germany is going to be a high security zone... and I'm sure it will also take effect on photography permissions...
For those living in the UK, you might have seen the Friday front page of 'The Sun'; for those not resident in the UK, 'The Sun' is a Murdoch-owned national(ist) newspaper that can be bought anywhere in the UK. It is anti- almost anything it can think of and certainly anything Murdoch instructs it to attack. It would appear that I have upset it!! This is a newspaper that is anti-Europe, anti-immigration and, most particularly, anti-political correctness. Anyway, I have added a picture of the front page in its totality underneath my original photo as a form of coda.
Rex - perhaps you could recategorise my grumpy old men title!!