To begin, I am as counter-religious as they come. Growing up, I would
watch my father take great joy and liberty with physically removing
proselytizers from our doorstep...so, my background should tend to turn
my nose up at such images. However, I completely agree with Michael.
Structures of this magnitude, irrespective of purpose, demand respect.
When you add the volume of craftsmanship involved, they become works of
art. When you add the faith and the community required to raise them and
keep them standing, they become social movements. Cathedrals, mosques,
temples (pagan, judaic, buddhist, and otherwise), etc, are testimonies
to history. Built from/during times of peace or blood, they are
exceptionally fascinating places.
Take the mosque-turned cathedral in Cordoba, Spain. Or the Hagia Sophia
(and the Blue Mosque across the street) in Istanbul, Turkey. Or Baalbeck
in Lebanon...the pharaonic works in Egypt...Petra in Jordan and the
Nabataen tombs in Meda'in Saleh, Saudi Arabia...Angkor Wat and its
surrounding temples...Persian abandonments...Borges'/City of the
Immortals/. Each, in their own right, a work of art, and worthy of
documentation.
I completely fail to see any hypocrisy in photographing places of
worship. Even the violent history of houses of worship being converted
to different faiths suggest a sort of, "Wow! Cool building!" attitude
from invading armies. I suppose there are symbolic and political tones
that cannot be ignored in this observation...but still, if anything, I
think taking an effective image of such a place is a marvelous
photographic challenge.
On 11/7/11 1:36 AM, MichaelHughes7A@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 06/11/2011 11:39:56 GMT Standard Time,
palcewski@xxxxxxxxx writes:
somehow the less-religious viewer is somehow obliged to treat these
pictures with a sort of reverence or approval that other subject
material does not.
As a lifelong Roman Catholic, presently living in a city which has one
of the largest collections of medieval church buildings in Britain,
and a chorister in a Gothic style cathedral that was built a mere 100
years ago I am in no position to contradict Mr Palcewski if he tells
us what his personal feelings are when confronted by images of church
interiors. I would suggest however that he is unlikely to be able to
offer us a consensus of the views of all the 'less religious' in these
circumstances.
Respect is demanded by those responsible for such buildings, of all
users, and often there are bans or restrictions on photography. Even
in circumstances like weddings with a photographer commissioned to
record the event there may be restrictions imposed. All users of the
cathedral or church facilities are entitled to respect for their privacy.
Great works of art, however defined, be they images or constructs,
demand our respect both for the effort that went into them and the end
result. Many sculptures for instance are amazing examples of craft as
well as depicting something of beauty.
Cathedrals demand awe and respect for what they are, (their purpose),
for how the building has been achieved, for the lives of all who
played some part in the continual building and maintenance processes
which ensured their survival through the centuries. In this respect
they are similar to mosques, synagogues and ancient temples.
In contemporary life in Norwich the RC and Anglican cathedrals are
places of welcome available to all, irrespective of their state of
belief or unbelief. They can provide an oasis of calm for those whose
life is in turmoil or can be a place of reinforcement of belief in
the company of like minded people.
For the less philosophically inclined all major religious buildings
are monuments to all 'who put their money where their mouth was'
Michael
