What's new
By:
Filters

Photography

rattusnorvegicus

rattusnorvegicus

Patron
It might be more interesting to photograph current members of the Co$.

I've seen more than a few that clearly showed the strain of overwork, malnutrition, and lack of sleep.

There are also certain members whom I've seen with a peculiar glint of madness (psychosis? demonic possession? who knows?) about the eyes.

Eyes are the window of the soul, after all.

connected-graphics_1083985a.jpg


small-scientologist-dressed-as-nazi.jpg


charles-manson.jpg


(Although he's an ex-scientologist, Manson has the weird scilon eye 'thing' mentioned above)
 
Last edited:
D

Daedle

Patron
Hi CrimsonKing,

Richard and Bonnie Woods are ex-scientologists living in East Grinstead. They run a counselling service for those who've escaped:
http://www.escapeint.org/

They may be able to point you in the right direction or advise you about possible retribution and whatnot.
 
degraded being

degraded being

Sponsor
What shows someone to be an ex cult member or an ex scientologist?

I'd say nothing - because whatever was used would not be truly representative of everyone who is an ex. Please don't think I'm dissing you're project. just consider it more brainstorming.
If a variety of images showed the variation in what an ex can look like then that would avoid stereotyping or misrepresentation.
Actually normality in the image could show that there isn't a "look" an expession etc that typifies "ex -dom".
When you said you like to let the pictures speak for themselves, my first reaction was critical. I was thinking: yes but you take the shot and you place it in a context of meaning and that becomes the meaning. So you could, for example take a photo of someone showing subtle tension or angst in their expression. If the context has been announced as ex scientology or ex cult, it is implied very strongly (perhaps subtley, but nonetheless strongly) that this is the result of being in a cult. Some were not under duress in the cult and simply left when they ran out of cash to pay, or they finished a staff contract etc, and later started to look critically at the cult, never to return. People have lots of things in their lives which will affect their expression and body language, such as family and other relationships etc, so how do you show precisely "ex-dom" without just sticking that label onto a face belonging to a person with more to their personality than their "ex" status.?
 
Ted

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Crimson King said:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3235252152_117099f5ce.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3241711825_9c9da2d30d.jpg

How rude of me. Quite old work, my flickr isnt updated often because most things are being saved until completed. At the time, i was having a real thing for rembrandt and caravaggio (sp), using single lights to limit what the viewer saw. I never shot any more of these unfortunately, something i might take up again.
Click to expand...


Nice, art-see photos. Evidently accomplishing what you intended.

However, I would not shoot an ex in such a dark light. And, I would not sit for any photo that could be interpreted negatively.

My scientology friends and associates know me as a being very good auditor -- and a goldenrodded SP. My scientology enemies know just the goldenrod.

So take it from me, the only acceptable pictures would be those depicting the things the church runs on its members as a can't have. Long-term, loving relationships, family, children, grandchildren, havingness, career, money and the things money represents. It is totally not true that former members do not survive without the church and scientology.

A short story and a few photos a la "National Geographic" could work wonders if assembled on a web site. :thumbsup:
 
C

Crimson King

New Member
You have a point. Within this project, and a lot of portraiture though, you have to come to some sort of decision with the sitter, and how much control each has. What I mean by this, is coming to some agreement with the sitter on pose and environment. In that case I might ask the sitter to think about the subject in hand (in this case scientology) and then photographed their reaction. They might think of a fond memory of working within the organization, or otherwise might think of something more negative.

When your photographing any group of people, you are right that representation does become a problem, but this is often solved by the contextual way in which the work is develop or displayed, often with a 'brief' which is an explanation of the project.

My own feeling towards scientology are impartial, as i have no direct experience of what it is to be within the organization or to have left it, so I as the photographer remain objective.

This is all assuming that the sitter is comfortable being photographed and showing their face, considering the context of the images.
 
Ted

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Crimson King said:
My own feeling towards scientology are impartial, as i have no direct experience of what it is to be within the organization or to have left it, so I as the photographer remain objective.

This is all assuming that the sitter is comfortable being photographed and showing their face, considering the context of the images.
Click to expand...


Given your non-experience with scientology and my somewhat considerable experience, I can tell you fer sure the church operatives will spin your project in the worst possible light. A photo that can be interpreted negatively, will be. I doubt that you will get much cooperation, percentage wise, from the considerably populated, ex-community.

Certainly, you can get a subject to think of a shit experience they had within the church, then the picture will show the emotion. This exposure leaves the subject open to attack. Just look at how many people on this board are posting anonymously compared to those who post as themselves. Believe it or not, there are lurkers here damn near too nervous to only read in the privacy of their own spaces. They are a ways off from actually posting even anonymously.

It is a tenet of scientology, that many of us accept and still agree with, that none want to be a victim or play the victim card. The correct and only position to take, which only a very few would likely approve of participating in, is to show the people happy and prosperous with family and friends in a similar condition. This is the only safe point from which to appear. The church cannot attack that without looking like the nut-jobs they are.
 
C

Crimson King

New Member
I will only do what people are comfortable with, and what they feel is right. as mentioned earlier in this thread, the anonymous aspect could be worked into the images quite well I feel. Whatever the case, I wouldn't want anyone to endanger themselves for a photograph.

What I would ask is that people just consider the opportunity to be represented.
 
C

Crimson King

New Member


This was along the lines i was thinking. I did this for a company called hotknees which i helped to run for a while. We played around, and came up with this. The owners didn't want to be directly photographed, but wanted to have fun at the same time.
 
Ted

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Crimson King said:


This was along the lines i was thinking. I did this for a company called hotknees which i helped to run for a while. We played around, and came up with this. The owners didn't want to be directly photographed, but wanted to have fun at the same time.
Click to expand...


Okay. You don't need an ex-scientologist to do a faceless photo. You could label it anything you want. :D
 
C

Crimson King

New Member
Hahaha. I don't think i could live with myself!

I like the idea of the creative challenge of photographing people who cant be photographed. In the shower (where I do all my best thinking) I just saw an image of using everyday object to block the face, domestic items etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top