Controversial Locations - Where do YOU draw the line?

I have taken photos in a cemetary before as I used to go to college in a campus that was almost completely surrounded by them. (the only campus surrounded my three graveyards). I found it very beautiful and I passed it every day on the way to one of my afternoon classes so I decided to take my camera with me one day and walk around taking shots of the statues, graves, trees, etc. I was very careful not to tread on the graves themselves (as that was always taught to be disrespectful by my family) and I even spent a little while fixing the objects (flowers/pinwheels) that had fallen over around the graves.

Now granted, I didn't have a doll with me and even though I touched the gravestones a couple times, the people there did not seem to care. In fact one of the older ladies present at the time expressed gratitude.

I think it might be slightly different had I a doll with me, but even so if you at least show you're not trying to be disrespectful and even clean up a bit, a lot of people will give you some leeway. If someone tells you to stop, be polite and respect their wishes. But I'm under the firm impression that walking on eggshells is going to end all that is good in the world (re: Farenheit 451), so not doing it out of the idea that you MIGHT offend someone is silly. Use common sense, don't be rude, don't interupt people, and be mindful of what you're doing but if it's something you want to do, by all means do it. Just understand it IS controversial and someone might ask you to stop.

As far as I'm concerned, the dead deserve some company, too, as long as you aren't being disrespectful. (I was talking to the buried people as I was going around snapping pictures, which might be a little weird but I would hope somebody passing through when I'm dead would say hello to me, too.)

 

i personally wouldn't take pictures in the graveyard near me, but that's only because it's a new-ish graveyard (it started when my mom was in high school) so while the stones are beautiful, there are none of those amazing chipped-and-old-this-tells-a-story stones like you see in old cemetaries.

there's one of those old historical ones across town from me... that one i would consiter using as a backdrop... there's some pretty amazing stones there too... the founders of the hartford area are burried there. i did grave rubbings there on a feild trip in third grade.
i'd also deffinatly take pictures in salem... i've done it before. i have more graveyard pictures from salem than pictures of anything else in that town.

 

well said. that's what i think too.

 

Other controversial locations than cemeteries (which don't bother me, I feel so peaceful there I take picnics in them) that I can think of are more pretentious situations. People would probably be offended if you took a picture of a doll in a disrespectful pose against something special to them. A doll crucified could be beautifully done, or it could be done in mockery. There really are no places that would be all-out offensive or inappropriate that I can think of, however, the type of photograph taken would be a big influence. Art museums, weddings, funerals, churches... Anywhere you are allowed to take pictures, provided you have the right attitude and are respectful in your bearing and in your picture content, would be acceptable to me.

Angelkitty

 

...................................................

 

This is the simplest way I can look at it; If I wouldn't take pictures of myself in that location, I wouldn't take pictures of my doll there.

I think the only reason I would have pictures of my doll at a graveyard was if she came along with me to visit, and we were both in the picture, either making our way toward the grave, at the grave, or away from the grave to capture some part of the day and what it meant. I'm not the type of person to go to a graveyard for "the mood" or to "hang out".

There are much better and much nicer places for that.

It's not wrong to go appreciate a landscape, because graveyards usually are on very large land areas and can have very nice horizon views, but I would never take a picture that would glorify the grave, or by proxy, glorify death. Pictures such as lying on graves, lying on the plot, or touching/caressing a gravestone you have no connection to would fall under glorification of the grave or what it represents. I mention these specifically because I've seen pictures of both people and dolls doing those things and they never felt right to me.

Now, photos of a doll bringing flowers to a grave, in a mournful position, or maybe a hopeful look toward the horizon- This I see nothing wrong with because a picture of a normal person doing this would not be outlandish, it would be representative of an emotion, which is normal, human, and reflects life, like art does. However, if the grave has no particular meaning to you and you just find it pretty, leave the dolls, and yourself, out of it. Unless you can honestly say you found some empathetic emotion from looking at their stone and really felt like you needed to express it through a photo.. be realistic.

Now, for churches, I personally go to a very modern church and wouldn't find anything particularly beautiful that I felt I'd need to capture myself or my doll next to. A traditional church, built a long time ago with stained glass and such, I might be able to understand. I would personally take a photo of myself, dressed appropriately to be in a church, near a stained glass window, admiring it or otherwise involving myself in it's uniqueness and artistic value, so why not my doll?

Of course, that's something I'd ask permission for first. That should be a given.

Now, I'll take a practical example of what I mean; Photos at Disney World's Epcot, specifically in China.

Photos in the round chinese theatre with the high, hand painted ceiling- A-okay
Photos in the round chinese theatre after it's identified as a temple- Maybe
Photos near or from admiring distance of the stone soldiers- okay.
Photos on or with the stone soldiers- Not quite.

Now weigh these example with both real people and dolls. Does the answer change? Why or why not? For me, the answers are the same. Dolls shouldn't do what people shouldn't do. They are extensions of yourself, because obviously, you make them move. Would you really do that if it were you and not your doll?

If you would, then that's you and your ideas about art and expression. Nobody can get you on that.

If you wouldn't, then you're poking around where you shouldn't. Dolls are not super beings, despite being beautiful and artistic in their own right. You don't have to force art out of them, they're beautiful alone, so why use them to cross lines that you yourself wouldn't cross?

 

I'm not a religious person in the common sense of the word, but I probably wouldn't photograph my dolls in a cemetery. What I find innocent or inoffensive may not apply to someone else, and if ended up upsetting a family member of the deceased with my dolls and picture taking, I'd feel pretty bad about it.

That's about the only place I can imagine being controversial. Well, I guess other than a church or synagogue or other religious establishment? But I wouldn't take pictures of my dolls in a baptismal font, either. There's no desire for me to do so. But to be honest, if someone else wants to go and do a photo shoot in these places, I have no problem with it. I don't think it's "bad", I just wouldn't feel the want to do it myself.

 

Every day on my way to my first college I used to walk past the Glasgow Central Mosque. I remember walking more of the way home in my last week because the road caved in where one of my buses used to stop. I remember looking through the fence at the garden and thinking about just how good it would've been to photograph some of the things in it. But I didn't know whether I'd be allowed to. I still don't know. But I doubt it.

Somewhere definitely controvertial for me to take a doll to would definitely be the local shopping centre. You're not allowed to video or photograph things inside it. Mainly for security reasons. However, you can ask permission to do so.

 

Ok some questions? I'm surprised people doing photography don't seem to know much about the art world o.O but there ya go.

Q1, Would it be ok if for example your mum loved the dolls too? and she died so you go to visit her and take pictures. How do you know from looking at a photo that the person taking the picture isn't related to any of the people lying there? Would this then be acceptable?

Q2, So do you know how many graves go un visited? like the person who died has no family to visit them. So you go there with your doll and take pictures for 15 minutes. With out even relising it you visited that persons grave for 15 minutes... would that not make them happy? When I go to a grave yard I make sure to have a good look at all the stones.

Q3, But life and death are what make art, art. If that makes sense. I can't remember that guys name but some guy cut a cow in half (not while alive) and put it in a tank for everyone to see. That touched on the same subject matter. Is it meerly because these things are shocking?

I have NEVER taken pictures of my doll in a grave yard. But to the people that do. I think they are doing art and I beleive that can only be a good thing. We need to step away from the fear of upsetting people sometimes in art. Thats sounds really insistive but as part of my project I have to take picture of people. Because I am obsessed with people in my art. Don't you think people will be upset? Feel violated if I take pictures of random people in the street? They will and you get a few dirty looks. And I've heard stories of people getting very angry about it. But I notice in more rural area's in other countries they seem ok with it. I think this is also a culture thing the way we have been bought up.

But I take pictures of people. They do not go in my exhibitions but my personal refence folder and only my tutor see's them. *shrugs*

I think the whole thing about this is like taking photo's of anything. You need to be careful. Life and death are part of art and if you care about art as much as you care about the dolls then you'll do it right ^_^

 

Places where I wouldn’t take my dolls for pictures and I’m not too keen on if people take their dolls to are clinical/biological laboratories that are in use, surgery rooms in hospitals and places were food is prepared for commercial purposes. (I don’t mean your own kitchen, but restaurant and canteen kitchens.)
This because I find it unhygienic and unprofessional to bring a doll in those places as a certain degree of hygiene is needed at those places.
It’s okay to have a photo shoot at those locations when they are not in use and will be cleaned/disinfected before being put (back) into use. It’s not okay to risk your doll contaminating cell cultures, samples, food, rooms and whatnot. Maybe that’s where I draw the line, because I have worked under sterile conditions at a clinical lab. It’s a pain if you do everything to keep things sterile and still end up with "unknowns" growing in your cell cultures. The thought of something from "outside" being brought into the lab is unpleasant.

If you put a doll on a grave, you may hurt people’s feelings. If you put your doll at a place where certain hygiene codes apply, you may hurt people’s health (or just their work). I’m not saying dolls are dirty, but you can’t really disinfect them with alcohol (and light it) or high temperatures.

 

My maternal great-grandparents are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. This is one of many places that honor those who not only once lived and were part of the human experience, but who had served their country or contributed to society. I have been to Arlington in the dead of winter, when nobody goes because the snow is hard to traipse through and the walk is long and cold. I had a doll in my bag, but he stayed in there the whole time. When I got to my relatives' graves, I took pictures of the graves themselves only because I had been asked to do so by my family. The thought of whipping out my doll for a picture with their resting places was in my mind for about a split second before I wanted to kick myself for being so selfish. I don't care how long it might have been since they had been visited, if I were to arrive and discover some doll collectors, or anyone really, taking photos of a testament of my relative's existence for something as frivolous as "art," I would be furious enough to start hurling punches. We can argue about art all day, and how important or universal or all-encompassing and untouchable it is, but art is not NECESSARY for your survival, or your physical well-being, or the health of your psyche.

As such I am inclined to think that to juxtapose your doll with any sensitive sort of location, be it a place of worship, a memorial, a grave, or anything built to honor or in remembrance of a person or event, for the sole sake of uploading them to the internet to show how nice your doll might look next to complementary shades of gray or the wide range of emotions your favorite piece of high-end plastic can imitate, is unspeakably petty. We do need to remember that in reality that's all dolls are, no matter what backstory and personal character we imbue them with. Is a few hundred dollar's worth of jointed sculpture of more value than a human life and its legacy? And as a history major I find it incredibly arrogant and rude to assume that because a particular person no longer digests a sandwich for lunch every morning they are rendered inconsequential to everyone who comes after them and therefore do not deserve that same courtesy the living should be treated with. What a place the world might be if no one were particularly mindful of the impact of Martin Luther King Jr., for example, simply because he was underground in a box.

"The dead" are not untouchable, unknowable, no-longer-among-us-or-existing forces in every culture or faith. To you a grave may be a piece of rock that just names a pile of dirt on top of a box, but to the person next to you it may be where the essence, spirit, or manifestation of the human being who now rests there resides. I am not overtly religious, nor do I identify with any particular denomination or faith, but at the core of just about everything I believe is my conviction that all people deserve courtesy. Respect may be earned and deserved or not deserved and whatnot, but that does not change the fact that in instances where it is either art or a human being, total free expression or deference to others' sensitivities, or even either my doll or your dead relative, a line does indeed have to be drawn. And for me that line should always be placed safely on the side of humans, living or not, rather than my customizable playthings.

 

I've always felt like the dead should be given respect... and I don't think many deceased persons would like a doll owned by someone they don't know at all on their tombstone. IMHO, It's like saying "oh, you're dead so you don't matter anymore." I wouldn't want anyone treating me like that... those bodies were once living, breathing people... just because their soul is not in their body is no reason to disrespect them. It's just part of my religion to believe in souls, so I'm saying this as it pertains to how I feel, not doll collectors in general so no one gets it mixed up... And though I would love to take a picture of my doll inside a pretty church, I don't think any relgious person in charge of a church/other place of worship would let me do it... my priest gave me and a friend permission to film a movie in our church but that was because it was religious-themed... so just doing a photoshoot with your doll in a place of worship just because it looks pretty... that's really disrespectful.

 

I know you were hoping not to actually get any argument about this, but I can’t let this rest.
Yes, art is unnecessary for physical well-being. No, art is not unnecessary for the health of everyone’s psyche. Just as there are some people who can go through life with very few friends and be happy, there are also people who can live completely fulfilling lives without art. But just as there are some people who would be crushed not to have a certain level of social interaction in their lives, there are some people for whom the ability to enjoy or create art in some way is vital to the health of their psyches. It may not be vital to you, but that doesn’t mean people are fooling themselves when they say “This is important to me!” You can tell me all you want that I don't need art in my life to be mentally and emotionally healthy; I have journals of my own personal experiences when parted from my artistic pursuits that say otherwise.

For me, I find it quite strange to see photographing a doll near a memorial to a person’s life as putting the doll, or even art, somehow above the human being. I understand that it’s possible to take a disrespectful photo—and I would find that in poor taste in all sorts of contexts, not just when the person is dead. For example, I don’t want to see a photo of somebody’s doll standing next to my mailbox making fun of my name, any more than I want to see the doll perched on my grandparents’ memorial bench making fun of theirs. However, I find it strange that for you, a very respectful photo that might be trying to capture some of the enormity of human life, that might be aiming precisely to show respect for people who have been part of this whirlwind we call life, is no different from a poor-taste “lookit my dolly’s bum next to teh angel!” photo.

I also find it shocking that you consider taking a photograph in someone's personal space to be equivalent to saying they are "inconsequential" and deserve no respect. I would be happy for someone to photograph me with a doll in life; I would be equally happy to have it happen in death. That's also true for other hobbies--I don't mind being caught in the background of someone's photo of a beautiful garden, either (so long as it's not for commercial purposes), or ending up in someone's fashion scrapbook because my hair is cool. Whether or not it’s respectful really doesn’t depend on which state of being I happen to be in—it depends on the person taking the photo and how they go about that.

As I think I have mentioned before, this depends very much on the particular place of worship. As a choral singer, I have been in churches where even applauding at the end of a piece was considered iffy and a little disrespectful, where the religious leaders requested that we sing only sacred music. I probably would not ask to photograph a doll there, even if I had a religion-appropriate photoshoot in mind. I have also been in churches where things are very relaxed, and although I have not actually tried bringing a doll in to ask about taking some photos, I very strongly suspect that so long as my request was phrased respectfully, they would have no problem with it at all. Many churches happen to be very pretty, and the people who work and worship there are not unaware of that fact--the beauty is supposed to be a testament to God, and it seems to me that many people would see an attempt to capture the beauty of the place as an affirmation of the beauty in God's world, rather than an affront to their beliefs.

Of course, judging by this thread, that attitude is obviously not as widespread as I might like...!

 

I agree about it being what sort of place of worship it is, very conventional or more broad-minded... I go to a rather conservative church so I know the priest would say bringing my doll in would be a no-no. But I also believe that what kind of photoshoot one is planning on doing puts a different spin on things. Say someone who wasn't a Christian wanted to take their horned/demonic-looking doll in a church for some photos with a Christian vs. Anti-Christian theme. While the photos may be very artistic and well-done, I would find them beyond offensive, like a slap in the face. However if one wanted to take some pictures of their doll looking peaceful and spiritual inside a church, that wouldn't be very offensive.

 

Why do you consider art "frivolous? I certainly don't and neither do many other people. It is possible to take pics or behave in a way that is disrespectful, but creating art is not frivolous and it is important to many individuals as well as society as a whole. You might take the arts for granted, but imagine living in a place where there was no art. I also do consider it important for my well being and psyche--that's not actually an uncommon feeling.

I think you might be assuming that everyone has the same goal in mind when they're taking pictures. Sometimes it's just about showing off the doll, and sometimes it's to use the doll and surroundings to make a statement, evoke certain emotions etc. It's not really any different than taking pics of a person or anything else.

What dolls are or aren't isn't actually the point. They can, however, be used very successfully as creative vehicles which is really more to the point here. You also again assume disrespect and that everyone does or should hold the same ideas as you do. There is no black and white answer to how one should use a cemetery--just as a place of remembrance, also as a park like area, a historical place, some thing that has aesthetic values that a person wants to capture. Viewing a cemetery as more than just a place to bury the dead does not mean that the individual automatically doesn't have any respect for those who have passed on. I think you should let your strong feelings determine what you do when you enter a certain place, but you can't speak for everyone else.

But where lines are drawn depend on the individual and how they view death and the dead. Courtesy is a two way street, and you want very much for people to see you point of view and live by it, but you need to step into the shoe of others and realize that they don't necessarily have bad or disrespectful intentions at heart, and that their own views on death, cemeteries and art are also valid. People who are using someplace like a cemetery should try and be respectful for the sake of any living people that may be around, but you can't say that people have different attitudes about the dead and then get angry when someone's views don't match your own. It's one thing if people are behaving in an obviously rude and/or destructive way, but it's quite another when they're just going about their own business. I think this is one of those times to step back and ask yourself "even if this might annoy me, is this really as big of an issue as I'm making it out to be?"

As a side note, I think it's very interesting that people insist that these dolls are not just toys but works of art and means for us to create things...that is until this topic where they are simply relegated to the role of 'plaything' again. My dolls are more than playthings--they are a creative outlet for me and other people who aren't just 'playing' when they go out to take pictures.

I agree completely--very often is isn't just what a person does (in this case taking pics), but how one goes about doing it.

No one is ever going to completely agree on what is appropriate in certain instances, but it would be nice if people had the flexibility to realize that a person's intentions are not automatically disrespectful and that they are trying in their own way to take other people into account.

 

The semantics of this are pretty simple for me. If It's public enough a place that I can photograph a person there, I can photograph a doll there. Both doll photography and human photography are, strictly speaking, figurative art. So the limitations and liberties apply to both equally.

Churches, graveyards, shops, libraries, restrooms, museums, restaurants... Unless it's private domain, I am free to film my doll without having to feel bad about it. The Keyword here is "public" It may upset others, and I would regret that. But it wouldn't keep me from doing it if I wanted to.

IMO--Graveyards, like funerals, are about what the living need, not what the dead do. So it isn't disrespecting the dead to film your doll there. No matter how nice the grave/memorial, it doesn't sum up or symbolize the worth of the individual when they were among the living. So filming your doll next to the grave doesn't detract from either the worth of the deceased individual or their grave's value as a place of tribute or respect. A grave is where your corpse is stored, not what your life was about. No one filming just their doll at a grave site is doing any harm, no matter if the reason is personal, artistic, or just for a whim. The deceased person in the ground beneath a grave marker is a part of the ground. No less so than the grass you are walking on or the dirt underneath it.

As for churches... I consider my doll to be sculptural art...so I don't think if I were to wander into a church that I would feel it was any different than any effigy, reliquery statue or any other figurative art you woud find in a church. Just figurative art I brought along with me. LOL!

But then I am way, WAY layed back about most things revolving around areas that can be considerd controversial by others. *snicker* I once visited the Scottish Rite Cathedral wearing a t-shirt that featured one of Mapplethorpe's gay nude photographs. (It was an understandably short visit. LOL!) So of course I am not gonna mind anyone who wants to take their dolls out and film them somewhere like a church or graveyard.

Both sorts of places have irrefutably unique ambiance for photographic work. No reason not to use the locations to best advantage. If people get upset while you are there, come back later when there are less people. I would avoid confrontation if I were filming someplace sensitive to others, but I wouldn't avoid doing it at all.

 

I believe that I made it clear that I was stating only my own opinion on the matter at hand. Everyone is of course entitled to disagree with it, but that does not nullify my right to have that opinion. This is the Debate subforum, where users post when they usually have an argument for what their point is. As such I was arguing my position, and will now attempt to clarify some of my previous statements. Additionally I think I was also clear in expressing my disagreement with taking photographs in such places "for the sole sake of uploading them to the internet." That is rather specific, if read in context.

I would like to say that my statements were not intended to extend to ALL PEOPLE who should ALL be required think as I do. I was supporting my argument with the logic I thought was appropriate, and in no way did I mean to just make generalizations about how everyone should think. This is partially why I prefaced my comments by stating "I am inclined to think," "I find," "I believe."

Evidently I tried to sneak contentious material into my argument and hoped against hope that nobody would pick up on it. Please do not assume what my intentions were, you cannot really "know" what my thought process was when I penned it. A question, or series of questions, was posed in this thread. I answered that question from my perspective, with my experience, which reflect my beliefs.

Additionally, I did not mean for art to be the issue here, but rather how users feel about controversial photo locales. In my original post I was using art as an example of how in my opinion you cannot justify, or use art as a scapegoat for, deliberately traipsing through people's remains if your purpose was not to come visit or appreciate those who are buried. Enjoying the ambiance of a place is an entirely different matter, what I was referring to was the occasions on which photos were not intended to pay homage to the location or person, but rather to use the place as merely a backdrop. I am not saying all photos are taken with such intentions in mind, I am merely referring to a scenario that falls under the category of "photos taken at specific places." In other words I disagree with going to a cathedral just to take pictures of yourself in it for your Myspace photo gallery and not to appreciate the art or religious objects inside. That is the sort of situation I was referring to, I was not trying to say that all cemetery art should be completely forbidden.

Despite this I will concede that my art comments were too all-encompassing and general. I failed to clarify that I meant the statement in the context of someone saying to themself "I HAVE to take pictures at a cemetery or else I will just die." In my opinion there is usually an alternative creative outlet that generally works just as well that does not run the risk of stepping on someone's proverbial toes. Honestly I tend to write in a stream-of-consciousness sort of fashion and collect my thoughts when I'm finished, and while this does not excuse that I'm sorry to say that that bit of explanation was lost in translation so to speak. I apologize if my argument has offended anyone, and I hope this clarifying post is acceptable as an attempt to reconcile previous remarks that can be perceived as offensive.

 

But all those places are not public domain - they are open to the public which is different. Graveyards (unless historical) are plots of land that are sold like real estate. You own the deed to that lot. Resturants, shops have owners. Churches are non profit but not public. Even government offices and parks have rules.
Having access to something doesn't give a person legal rights to do as they please. Nor is art. There are artists who's art has been to take a poo on things, it doesn't mean they can walk into a graveyard, restaurant, etc and perform their art.

 

Every graveyard that I have ever been in has clearly had its rules posted for visitors to read and abide by. The one that my mother is buried in encourages photography so long as it is done during the cemetary hours and is in a non-destructive fashion. It's a fairly old cemetary with some amazingly beautiful mausoleums and statues in it. When a cemetary plot is purchased, the owner is generally made aware of the cemetary policies. If they are not to the person's liking, I would imagine they would move on to a different cemetary. No point in choosing someplace to be your final resting place if you are offended by the thought of someone taking pictures of your grave when you know they allow people to do just that.

So long as a person is following the rules of the cemetary, I see no problem with photographing dolls there, the same with any other sort of building.

 

A graveyard would be fine for me. But out of respect, I wouldn't go near any graves that are not family... unless they are the very large monuments from the 1800's or so and earlier... I'm sure they don't have visitors, and I'd treat it with utmost respect if I was taking any pictures near one. Mostly, I'd just have tombstones in the background or find an area that's open and unused.

I wouldn't do any photographing of dolls in a church. I'm wondering if our dolls could even be considered "idols" to some people. Which out of respect, I would not take a doll to a church, not even hidden in a bag or something.

Resturants, well... I've been to resturants in cosplay and have taken a few pictures. Not something I'd do randomly anymore with friends UNLESS we were at a convention. So I'd have no qualms with taking dolls to one at a convention or meetup. But out of respect, I'd be sure that no other patrons would be in the background.

I wouldn't take pictures in a hospital. Although I DID take my girl to one. That was just because my 3 year old niece likes her a lot and she was rather sick. So I took her in when we visited to cheer her up a little. I just plopped her down on her bed table where she was coloring and watched carefully. n_n I should've taken a picture because it was very cute but out of respect, I didn't.

Personally, unless I'm with others who are doing the same, I prefer to take pictures in private. Which is usually around my backyard. It's not the best area, but I can make do with it for now. I'm sure once warmer weather comes along, I'll be taking more pictures.