• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Idea That Photos Take Or Diminish The Soul

A

Anonymous

Guest
To all:

A commonly mentioned aspect of primitive societies is the belief that having a picture taken can rob a person of their soul. There do not seem to be many records of aboriginal natives' reactions if they finally have their photograph taken, but, certainly, many in "traditional science" would insist that their souls are still theirs. Certainly, they would insist, advanced, Western civilization members have their pictures taken, and none of them experience the loss, or diminishing, of their souls. To be sure, though,Many people do seem to have a knack for talking themselves out of a legitimate feeling. Many seem capable of utterly convincing themselves, for example, that government is always telling them the exact, unvarnished truth. Absolutely legitimate sensations of loss of diminshing of their souls, then, might be something they might just lauch away as something else! The effect on the spiritual content of a creature, then, might be more legitimate if the creature were something that didn't engage in "explaining away" what they see, think or feel.

Thursday, June 10, 2004, there was an unusual sight along the borders of our garden. A clutch of four, maybe five, birds was, apparently scanning for insects. Normally, the birds here hunt individually, running or hopping in their own directions, sometimes all over the lawn, picking individually at anything they see in the grass. This group, however, was all moving together. There was what looked like a main bird, always walking at the forefront, the other birds trailing behind, but close to the sides of the other. When the main bird turned, all the others would turn. When the main bird stopped, all the rest would, too. If the main bird turned around, they would wheel around, as a group, to stay by the other bird's side, walking with them. And the others didn't eat until the main bird stopped and started pecking. It seemed utterly unusual to me. I had never seen birds of any type act like this, before. I decided to take a picture.

While getting ready, though, the primitive predilection against having a picture taken occurred to me. To be sure, we have a warmer feeling toward birds than many here do, among other things, because they get rid of harmful pests in the garden. Anything that could be harmful, in any way, to them, I would want to avoid. But I wasn't, in that way, certain of the effect of having a picture taken, and I considered what I saw as something noteworthy. I stood about five feet inside our house, with a screen door closed, between me and the birds. The day was still lighter outside than the house was inside. The birds hadn't seemed to respond to my presence before, so I thought that this shouldn't effect them, either. The camera I used wasn't set on flash, and only had a small green light on top, but it was recessed, so that most of its illumination should go straight up. The camera made very little noise, when it took a picture, too.

The birds were chattering and moving toward the house, about ten feet from the house, when I took the picture. The second the camera clicked, the birds, every single one of them, stopped in their tracks, not even moving their heads. They stopped chattering, too. After about a second, when the camera, likely, had finished processing, the birds all wheeled about, and flew off to the right. They were still silent, and I didn't hear any chattering from where they went. I accessed the picture in the camera and erased it. No more than a second after that, I heard some chattering, again.

Any information on similar experiences could be helpful.



Julian Penrod
 
Maybe they just didn't like having their pictures taken.

Chances are that the noise of the camera spooked them, and then deleting the picture coincided with when they thought they were safe.

Still, if you can reproduce the results let us know. Worth trying the experiment, and it's relatively easy to do.
 
What sort of birds were they? I'm interested in crows myself, I've begun to think over recent months that they are extremely intelligent, after news items about them and their general behaviour. (And don't limit myself to the idea that other birds may too be intelligent)

One such specific element of their behaviour is if you point your hand at them, as if you're going to shoot them. The crows will then all immediately take flight, as if you really had a gun, and they had learned that being shot at was a bad thing (although any sort of pointing seems to set them off, perhaps them being "better safe than sorry"). Perhaps these birds you saw associated the click of the shutter for something bad, or perhaps, as anome said, they really didn't like their photo being taken :)
 
Is there actually any evidence that people from indigenous cultures really believe that photography can capture the soul? Or is this just something that white western civilisation came up with to show how stupid the savages were?
 
Neville Bell: Oh no, you can't take my photograph.
Sue Charlton: Oh, I'm sorry, you believe it will take your spirit away?
Neville Bell: No, you got the lens-cap on.

I also found this about the scene:

There is a new trope of representation, an "interventionist" one, that one could perhaps call positive, and it has three or four elements in its make-up. In Crocodile Dundee Whites and Aborigines are framed in the same scene. This in itself is rare enough in Australian cinema, where the tendency has been more often to place the Aborigines as object of the camera, as, say, ethnographically real. Having put them on the same cinematic plane, we can enjoy a scene where the David Gulpilil character, dressed for ceremony, tells the Linda Kozlowski character that she can't take a photo of him.

'Why not?' she says, assuming that the camera will steal the other's soul.

The laconic answer comes back: 'You've got the lens cap on.'

This trope has the features of: (A) Blacks and Whites in the same scene, (B) Display of romantic primitivist assumptions on the part of the White who is then made a fool of because (C) The Aborigine shows mastery of the bicultural situation and "normal" technological mastery.

http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/8.2/Muecke.html

Interestingly it is the basis of "Project Zero" which has the two main characters not armed with shotguns and chainsaws but a camera which can capture the souls of attacking ghosts:

http://www.eternal-legend.com/zero/camera.shtml

The sequel has just been released "Crimson Butterfly" and I think has appeared ina couple of ads in the mag. Here is some more info onhow the camera works in the sequel:

Project Zero introduced players to the concept of a survival horror without weapons. The sequel carries on that thread with the return of the ‘Camera Obscura' a camera capable of capturing spirits on film. With no weapons this is the only defence Mio has against the apparitions she will encounter. Photos taken of ghosts are given points depending on the positioning of the shot and the proximity of the spirit. More points can be obtained by capturing two or more spirits in a shot. For hostile spirits these spirit points are also converted hit points, doing a certain amount of damage to them. They will only disappear if their hit points reach zero, often requiring several shots of them while they try to attack

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/mag.dyn/Reviews/2753.html

Emps
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Is there actually any evidence that people from indigenous cultures really believe that photography can capture the soul? Or is this just something that white western civilisation came up with to show how stupid the savages were?

Indeed, this puts me in mind of the suggestion that nobody ever really beleived the world was flat, and that it was simply a "joke" of some sort made up by the Victorians, who found it highly amusing to make things up about what came before them being "savage" or such. (A suggestion I agree with, although don't really know much of the Victorians myself, it just sounds like something they'd do :D )
 
Originally posted by Emperor
Interestingly it is the basis of "Project Zero" which has the two main characters not armed with shotguns and chainsaws but a camera which can capture the souls of attacking ghosts
I also read a piece of pulp fiction some years ago which featured demonic entities called "Leyaks" if I remember correctly. The way to destroy them was to take their photograph with a Polaroid camera then burn the photograph before them. But you had to be quick... :monster:
 
I was thinking about this the other week actually. I was thinking in particular about celebrities and people who have their photograph taken all the time.

I have also heard a similar thing about mirrors, and wondered if it had anything to do with vanity. I mean, people who are more obsessed with appearances and so on seem to have less "soul" or at least spirituality to me than those who are not. But then I have a mirror and two cameras so I would have to count myself among them!
 
Doctor Gateau said:
I also read a piece of pulp fiction some years ago which featured demonic entities called "Leyaks" if I remember correctly. The way to destroy them was to take their photograph with a Polaroid camera then burn the photograph before them. But you had to be quick... :monster:

You would indeed - I can't find much on any actual link the leyak/leak sounds a lot like the, wonderfully named, Aswang of the Phillipines - a complex entity with vampiric/shape shifting abilities who can separate their soul/spirit from their body (like the soucriant/soucouyant of the Caribbean):

http://www.baliforyou.com/bali/withchraft.htm

http://www.balivision.com/Article_Resources/WitchraftAndMagicInBali.asp

There does seem to be a great film on them:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/uzumaki/reviews/mysticsinbali.htm

I suppose if you could capture their soul while it is away from their body then they'd find themselves in quite serious trouble ;)

Emps
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Is there actually any evidence that people from indigenous cultures really believe that photography can capture the soul? Or is this just something that white western civilisation came up with to show how stupid the savages were?

i'm afraid that i can't provide any particularly good evidence, but i remember seeing a news item or somesuch including footage african children hiding their faces from the camera. the reporter claimed that they were worried that the camera would take part of their soul, but i suppose he could easily have been lying or mistaken.


on mirrors: a friend's extremely catholic grandmother used to chastise her daughter (my friend's mother) for looking in the mirror before she went out, saying that if she kept looking the devil would appear. one day my friend's mother asked why, if mirrors were so dangerous, did she have one in her house? :laughing:
 
Emperor: delighted to hear that such a thing exists in mythology, old chap! Come to think of it, there was most definitely an Indonesian connection in the novel I read. All I remember about the Leyaks themselves were their glowing eyes...
To digress briefly, it also featured a psychopathic character who committed suicide at the end leaving a note with a single word on it. "Fish-hook." Which always puzzled me.
 
fluffle said:
on mirrors: a friend's extremely catholic grandmother used to chastise her daughter (my friend's mother) for looking in the mirror before she went out, saying that if she kept looking the devil would appear. one day my friend's mother asked why, if mirrors were so dangerous, did she have one in her house? :laughing:

Anyone read the Gerald Durrell short story that was the last one in a collection of his short stories? It was about mirrors and scared the piss out of me (and all the family when they read it) - you'll never look at a mirrir in the same way again (in more ways than two ;) ).

Emps
 
Gerald Durrell ? I thought he wrote stories about alarming incidents with animals, not mirrors.
 
Colin said:
Indeed, this puts me in mind of the suggestion that nobody ever really beleived the world was flat, and that it was simply a "joke" of some sort made up by the Victorians
I'm pretty sure that the belief attributed to the Christopher Columbus nay-sayers is false. When they told him that he'd never make it, they didn't believe that it was because he'd fall off the edge of the world. They knew that the world was round. They also had an estimate of its radius and were pretty sure, based on this, that it would be too far to sail if Columbus headed west. They were probably right. (Columbus only survived because he landed somewhere completely different...)

On the other hand, I also remember being taught that according to traditional Jewish, biblical, cosmology, the earth was flat with a large dome above it, etc.
 
By the end of the 15th century, not only was it known that the world was round, but they also had an accurate estimate for how big it was.

Columbus believed it to be somewhat smaller than the conventional estimate, and that sailing West to the Indies would be quicker than the normal (Eastern) route.

He was wrong. As Fortis said, he wouldn't have made it if he hadn't landed in the West Indies, although there is some evidence to suggest (despite spending some years as governor of a Spanish settlement there) that he never worked out he was wrong.
 
Obviously, the birds were spooked by the noise of the camera.

I don't really see (to put it mildly) how selectively letting light onto a photosensitive peice of plastic could steal someone's soul... let alone some birds'.

I've only heard that story in regards to Native Americans... supposedly Sitting Bull or someone never allowed their picture taken, supposedly for that reason.
 
i for one, doesnt like being photo'd or filmed

whether or not is "primative or superstious thinking" i dont care

[edit] maybe there is truth in the idea of losing ones spirit etc to the photographer/filmer. control over the person whos been photo'd etc? (just like "real names" ?) [edit]
 
I just don't look good in photographs. I haven't seen one that I've liked in years.

What's worse is people keep insisting on taking my photograph, despite me explicitly asking them not to, and then imply that my consent was given.
 
I hate it when people want to take "sadistic" photos of me, such as when I'm under the weather or have just woken up. When I tell them I look like shite and try to fend them off (sometimes physically) they insist I look fine and snap away. (I'm talking about relatives, mostly) There's something very intrusive and violating about that. I guess I'm agreeing with anome and adding that people can imply that consent is unnecessary, or that their desire to take the photo overrules any objections I might have.
 
I have to admit that I was thinking of a particular photograph from a work function which is of me politely asking the photographer to not take my photo as I didn't like it that got put up on a DB with a stupid caption that implied I was enjoying myself. (I had a stupid grin on my face which was me trying to be polite rather than ripping the camera from her hands and shoving it somewhere.)

The consent thing is an issue, though. Some people seem to assume that it's OK to take your picture because they have a camera. They don't ask, they respond to polite requests not to with "Don't be silly", and get offended if you try ruin the picture by obscuring yourself or moving.. Why don't I have any right to decide when and where I have my photo taken? I accept that it has to happen occasionally, but I'd rather it didn't.

(I did once get a big laugh from someone at a dinner party when I put a napkin up in front of me when they tried to get a picture of the person next to me. At least they respected my rights.)

But in general, I don't like the way I look in photographs which is why I haven't put one up on the members' photo thread. Maybe once I've lost a lot of weight. But probably not.
 
Philo T said:
Gerald Durrell ? I thought he wrote stories about alarming incidents with animals, not mirrors.

Yes its very odd - I haven't tracked down my copy to check but I've Googled it and I am right. Its called "The Entrance" and is the last story in his collection of short stories "The Picnic and Suchlike Pandemonium" (1979) and apparently is also available some anthologies: David Hartwell's "Foundations of Fear" (1992/1994) and Richard Dalby's "Twelve Gothic Tales" (1998).

Not easy to get hold of apparently but check your libraries or have a nose around online:

The Picnic and Suchlike Pandemonium:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/000216731X/revenantmagaz-21
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/000216731X/wwwrevenantmc-20
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006363121/revenantmagaz-21
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006363121/wwwrevenantmc-20
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0851197000/revenantmagaz-21

Foundations of Fear
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312850743/revenantmagaz-21

12 Gothic Tales (prices start at 70p!!):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192880942/revenantmagaz-21

There is some discussion here from a thread originally on alt.books.ghost-fiction but it contains spoilers and the story is much better read without knowing what is happening (preferably on your own at night ;) ):

http://www.prairienet.org/~almahu/entrance.htm
 
Julian, you read too many 17th century French romantic-style novels.

Or one could pretend, at least in regards to word choice, that your style seems to be overly archaic. Of course, certainly, it is comprehensible; that is not the question. Rather, it seems, at least partially overly dramatic. Of course, it could mean nothing; however, the fact remains that your mode of speech when communicating, vis-a-vis with the current paradigm, is highly unusual. One could even say that your speech is highly idiosyncratic.

^^ Sort of like that. I tend to like the writing style, but it's a little unusual to come across. I've only seen one contemporary author who uses it. I like it, but it's quite strange.

Do you tend to read old Romantic works? Just a question. I know if I read a lot of one particular author/style I tend to speak/write in the same way.

Disclaimer; I find your style interesting, this isn't meant as a flame. So please don't take it as such.
 
Considering the technology that's available to enhance or completely change photographs, I'd say the concept of pictures stealing one's soul to be incredibly stupid.
That the idea was derisive propoganda would not surprise me if it were true.

However, imagery such as paintings, mirrors and photographs and it's "powers" is a very ancient and widespread phenomena. Take vampires (and their lack of reflection) for example. Oscar Wildes Dorien Gray was successful because it touched on the subconcious importance we give to imagery. Celebrities that complain about photographers intrusion ... then descend into depression when their pictures stop appearing in the papers.

Birds have no such belief in the photograph removing part of their spirit. Their central belief is that the flocks spirit is collective, slightly diminished when a member dies but enhanced upon the birth of a chick.
Eggs just think eggy thoughts.

I know because the birds talk to me. And the trees. Rocks are too stand-offish to reply to my enquiries ...
 
I don't know the piece of gothic fiction that's referred to earlier, but there's a Stephen King story in Skeleton Crew about a cursed mirror where a person can look into it and see a distorted figure over their shoulder. Then they run out of the room in a panic, never to be seen again.

One of the old portmanto horror movies (with Peter Cushin?) had a segment with a cursed mirror too, that had the soul of a murderer hiding in it.
 
At my nephew's wedding reception, his father and the photographer nearly came to blows, it was terribly funny.

The happy couple were posing and the Da tried to take a photo, only to be told 'No photographs please, I own the copyright on this scene!'

Dunno about the legalities of it but it had me in stitches. As Bro-in-law is one of those snap-happy sods who upset the likes of Anome by taking pics of whatever they want, with or without permission, high umbrage was taken and lapels were grabbed.
:laughing:
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
I don't know the piece of gothic fiction that's referred to earlier, but there's a Stephen King story in Skeleton Crew about a cursed mirror where a person can look into it and see a distorted figure over their shoulder. Then they run out of the room in a panic, never to be seen again.

One of the old portmanto horror movies (with Peter Cushin?) had a segment with a cursed mirror too, that had the soul of a murderer hiding in it.

Cheers for the recomendations - the discussion of the story I mention recommends these along similar lines to some of the themes in the tale (I've removed the comments as they might be cosnidered spoilers ;) ):

"The Sin-Eater", Elizabeth Walter, in the book of the same name

"The Pipe Smoker", Martin Armstrong, in Hitchcock's BAR THE DOORS

"It Came to Dinner", R. Chetwynd-Hayes, in THE 14TH PAN BOOK OF HORROR STORIES

Emps
 
only the most arrogant people think that they actually look good in photos. on the other hand, 9 times out of 10, the only person who thinks a photo of you looks bad is yourself. i mean you can't *possibly* look any different! it's just a rule of nature that everyone with a normal ego thinks that photos of themselves look crap, but that doesn't mean everyone else does.

i personally think it's really rude and annoying when people won't have their photo taken. you know, if it's my friend, i want a photo of them. i'm not going to laugh at them looking stupid - i'm not even going to think it. as far as i'm concerned they look exactly the same in pictures and in real life. it seems really self-involved, like girls who are always asking "does my bum look big in this?"

so for people who won't have their photo taken: get over yourself, nobody else thinks you look crap.
 
Back
Top