Photography at Auschwitz

CarlukeDave

CarlukeDave

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,048
Edit My Images
Yes
I was in Poland at the weekend and on Friday, 5 of us went to visit the Auschwitz and Birkenau camps. I had checked flickr to see images from the camps and found lots, so I took the camera along.

Nothing could have prepared me for the visit, the eerieness and feel of the place, it was very moving and emotional, something I'll never forget.

I took some photographs, externally where it was permitted, but amongst us we had the discussion if it was morally right to take photographs somewhere where some of the worst atrocities in world history had occured.

My personal view, and that of my friends, was that if photography was morally wrong there, then that would also apply to visiting the site. I feel it is important to remember what happened, to make sure it's never allowed to happen again. One of my friends sons will use my photographs for a school project, and again with many schools now taking students to visit, the same discussion could've been had with that.

I took shots of the buildings and some of the memorials and tributes, I didn't take any shots inside and didn't take any people shots.

Just wondered what everyones thoughts on this is?

I'll post my images in the forum one processed.

Dave
 
I went when I was 14, or there about, and took lots of photographs. I feel like this shouldn't be treated like a taboo. It's part of history, and it's important. I also read recently that there is a lot of argument going on as to whether or not the place should be left to rot now because funds are running out to fund the maintenance of the site.
 
CarlukeDave said:
I was in Poland at the weekend and on Friday, 5 of us went to visit the Auschwitz and Birkenau camps. I had checked flickr to see images from the camps and found lots, so I took the camera along.

Nothing could have prepared me for the visit, the eerieness and feel of the place, it was very moving and emotional, something I'll never forget.

I took some photographs, externally where it was permitted, but amongst us we had the discussion if it was morally right to take photographs somewhere where some of the worst atrocities in world history had occured.

My personal view, and that of my friends, was that if photography was morally wrong there, then that would also apply to visiting the site. I feel it is important to remember what happened, to make sure it's never allowed to happen again. One of my friends sons will use my photographs for a school project, and again with many schools now taking students to visit, the same discussion could've been had with that.

I took shots of the buildings and some of the memorials and tributes, I didn't take any shots inside and didn't take any people shots.

Just wondered what everyones thoughts on this is?

I'll post my images in the forum one processed.

Dave
Click to expand...


I think your thought and caution is commendable, but just as you highlight that it should not be forgotten, it certainly should be remembered. It can be useful I think to take images for this purpose, and certainly I can't see why it should be banned (providing 'tourists' aren't posing with a cheesy grin for shots). As you rightly said, I don't think this is any place for people shots, I wouldn't like to think of any visitors as 'tourists'.

I think you have approached it in precisely the right way.
 
I was hearing that it was planned to close and demolish the site once the last survivor has passed away, I think that would be a shame, I think the lessons of history should never be forgotten, not that the Holocaust could be forgotten, but I never really appreciate the scale of the horror until I visited.

Dave
 
I visited Auschwitz on 11th November last year (Remembrance Day - also Polish Independance Day) so the day itself had a certain atmosphere about it before we even left for the camp.

On arrival I was surprised to see it relatively quiet...great opportunity to take some good photos without people in, but the place had such an effect on me I could barely lift my camera. I was with an American and Canadian I had met in Krakow at the train station trying to find my way there...and they were pretty upset so we didn't go over to Birkenau, but I decided to revisit the next day and try and concentrate on the photography. Thinking I had got over the effect, I was feeling optomistic...I did a quick walk round Auschwitz as if to reacclimatise before walking to Birkenau, but still I took almost no photographs.

I think I took about 40 shots in 2 days...came away with 5 that I was happy with after processing them.

A truly awe inspiring place..sadly for the wrong reasons! I had a lot of trouble a few days after getting back to Manchester, it kept going over and over in my head :(
 
CarlukeDave said:
...we had the discussion if it was morally right to take photographs somewhere where some of the worst atrocities in world history had occured.

My personal view, and that of my friends, was that if photography was morally wrong there, then that would also apply to visiting the site.
Click to expand...
What could you achieve by not taking pictures on 'moral ' grounds?

Can't see that you can decide on what you photograph by the numbers of deaths anyway. In WWII there were huge numbers killed in sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad (@ 800,000 in the winter of 1941), in the fire bombing of Tokyo (@80,000 on the 9 March 1945), The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (90,000 and 45,000 in a moment) and Dresden (@35,000 on the 13 and 14th Feb 1945) - if 'photography was 'morally' wring would you not photograph there? Or any first world war battlefields? Where would you draw the line? Would you photograph in the Tower of London where people were beheaded for 500 years?
 
I shot a video there in 1993 - very moving experience - the shot I remember over everything else was of a butterfly trapped inside one of the buildings and flying against the window in a bid to escape - summed up the feeling of the whole place for me.
 
Voyager said:
What could you achieve by not taking pictures on 'moral ' grounds?

Can't see that you can decide on what you photograph by the numbers of deaths anyway. In WWII there were huge numbers killed in sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad (@ 800,000 in the winter of 1941), in the fire bombing of Tokyo (@80,000 on the 9 March 1945), The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (90,000 and 45,000 in a moment) and Dresden (@35,000 on the 13 and 14th Feb 1945) - if 'photography was 'morally' wring would you not photograph there? Or any first world war battlefields? Where would you draw the line? Would you photograph in the Tower of London where people were beheaded for 500 years?
Click to expand...

Some people just 'feel' things differently than others, it's a big argument to get into! If I get something into my head that someone has died there...particularly in the numbers they did (that could be a WWI battlefield or Auschwitz or anywhere) then my mind just numbs and I stop doing most things, apart from thinking.

Fionab said:
its the one and only place that i really really want to visit to photograph.
Click to expand...

I'm going back.....4p flights from Ryanair to Krakow for me and my other half...door to door to Auschwitz it'll cost me about £22 :)
 
This is a place I intend to visit one day, I'm a fan of World War history and this place is definately history. We should never forget what happened there, and we should never let it happen again.
 
I haven't been to Auschwitz, I went to Dachau once and was so disturbed by the experience I wasn't sure I ever wanted to go to Auschwitz.

I've read a lot about it, and perhaps one day I will visit.

Without pictures and news footage the world would never have known much about what went on. I can't see how your taking photographs can do harm if it is with a view to increasing the awareness of what happened and why we should be vigilant to stop it happening again. (more vigilant than we have been, as we haven't been entirely successful so far)

See it as an opportunity to contribute to that aim, which I'm sure you do given your considered approach to the subject.
 
I'd love to go back too - I know that sounds weird but I'd like to shoot stills there.
 
Remember, there are certain areas that are dedicated to being a memorial too, particularly the crematorium on Auschwitz camp, which is still very much intact...you have to bear in mind a lot of visitors are Jewish people who are highly religious so it is only right to be respectful and not have shutters firing off at every little thing.

It isn't the end of the world if you don't get a photo of a particular brick...that's not what Auschwitz is about, it should be a place to reflect on life on a very personal and intimate level. Most people I know who have been have come away with a totally different outlook on life...seeing how their problems are nothing in comparison. That is greater than any photo sat on a hard drive ever will be!
 
It's somewhere I've always wanted to go, my ignorance lets me down though as I thought it was in Germany... :shrug:

Kinda related- I have been to the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam (its not all dope and hookers ya know!) which is quite amazin, its all exactly the way its was when the family left. For anyone who has read the book it is a must visit.

Will be interested to see the pics from Auschwitz, dont forget us!!
 
purpleclouds said:
Remember, there are certain areas that are dedicated to being a memorial too, particularly the crematorium on Auschwitz camp, which is still very much intact...you have to bear in mind a lot of visitors are Jewish people who are highly religious so it is only right to be respectful and not have shutters firing off at every little thing.

It isn't the end of the world if you don't get a photo of a particular brick...that's not what Auschwitz is about, it should be a place to reflect on life on a very personal and intimate level. Most people I know who have been have come away with a totally different outlook on life...seeing how their problems are nothing in comparison. That is greater than any photo sat on a hard drive ever will be!
Click to expand...

I felt like this after visiting the Imperial war museum, & seeing the Auschwitz exibition their.
I found it a very moving & thought provoking experience.

Even though you are not allowed to take photo's , I dont think I would have wanted to anyway.

Spence
 
As part of the collective human psyche it is important that we remember and respect these places.Photographs can be an important part of that process.The emotional power of camps like Auschwitz necessitates great personal integrity from the photographer------It is not a place for taking snaps and casual pics.
Pete.
 
TheWombat said:
It is not a place for taking snaps and casual pics.
Pete.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that statement
It suggests that the casual snap is somehow disrespectful
and / or "not worthy" What about all the casual snaps of "the war " ?
I guess we all have them Dads, Grandads, and other family members.
There were a few "proffesional" 'togs about at the time but there are also a
great many pictures taken by amateurs that record moments in time
"Lest we forget"
they are just as important IMO
 
I visited Auschwitz and never took pics because the daughter of a survivor who was taking us around asked us not to. We were also asked by a man who had been in the camp not to take pictures. You could see the hurt on his face when people were snapping everything and anything.

Whatever my view on it may be, the bottom line is that 2 people directly involved in the suffering asked my group not to. That was good enough for me at that time.

I myself was particularly offended when some people began taking pics of the crematorium & shrine with candles and went through the cordon to pose. There was a lot of anger about that.

The emotion of seeing school children from Israel marching through the camp holding their flag above their heads was something that stayed with me for a long time.

Chris :)
 
Cobra said:
I'd disagree with that statement
It suggests that the casual snap is somehow disrespectful
and / or "not worthy" What about all the casual snaps of "the war " ?
I guess we all have them Dads, Grandads, and other family members.
There were a few "proffesional" 'togs about at the time but there are also a
great many pictures taken by amateurs that record moments in time
"Lest we forget"
they are just as important IMO
Click to expand...

The trick here though, is that there is already millions of photographs of the place should one need to see it, and plenty of books available for purchase there, or anywhere!

The fact of the matter is, is that for millions of people (perhaps even a big enough number to outnumber us Brits, Frenchies etc) this is a place of huge significance to their people and their religion...and snap snap snap can not only be annoying to a non-photographer, but may to them show disrespect. To you it may not...but you are not the only visitor there, and you aren't really going to be that upset if you don't get many photos. Whereas a Jewish visitor for example, is going to be upset if they are constantly disturbed by shutter sounds..when they are on one of the most important pilgrimages of their lives.

I do think however there are 2 seperate lines here though, inside and outside. Outside is fine for photographs I think, as you are in the open and can take photographs relatively anonymously, but inside there is a certain echo, and a shutter can be heard from opposite ends of the buildings...trust me, I took 2 shots inside and decided that was enough, and that was without anyone else on the same floor as me.

Until you have visited, all you can do is speculate...it cannot be compared to the Tower of London for example, as that is portrayed to be touristy (despite the thousands that were killed there)..and is generally accepted to be that way. Auschwitz on the other hand is not a tourist attraction. It is a memorial to those who died there, a place of rememberance, a place of peace...if you can't respect that, then perhaps you do not understand the significance of the place to other sections of society. It'd be like walking round shoving your camera in the faces of, and snapping war veterans during the minutes silence...it's just one of those things that isn't done.

Plus, if a place is deamed to be out of bounds for photography (which all interiors are) then shouldn't you be sticking to those rules anyway?
 
toto8462 said:
I think your thought and caution is commendable, but just as you highlight that it should not be forgotten, it certainly should be remembered. It can be useful I think to take images for this purpose, and certainly I can't see why it should be banned (providing 'tourists' aren't posing with a cheesy grin for shots). As you rightly said, I don't think this is any place for people shots, I wouldn't like to think of any visitors as 'tourists'.

I think you have approached it in precisely the right way.
Click to expand...

I think that answer just about sums it up. I have two children (10 & 5) and I'd like to think that they will know and indeed feel what terrible acts took place there. If the place is to be left or demolished then a photographic history would be a good thing in my opinion.

A very good thread and answer.
 
purpleclouds said:
Remember, there are certain areas that are dedicated to being a memorial too, particularly the crematorium on Auschwitz camp, which is still very much intact...you have to bear in mind a lot of visitors are Jewish people who are highly religious so it is only right to be respectful and not have shutters firing off at every little thing.

It isn't the end of the world if you don't get a photo of a particular brick...that's not what Auschwitz is about, it should be a place to reflect on life on a very personal and intimate level. Most people I know who have been have come away with a totally different outlook on life...seeing how their problems are nothing in comparison. That is greater than any photo sat on a hard drive ever will be!
Click to expand...

I totally agree, it is such a personal thing. The 5 of us hardly spoke to each other the whole time we were in there, there were parts of the exhibition where I was holding back tears, never mind taking photographs.

Dave
 
I was there a few years ago and it is an incredible site to see. I did notice that there was no wildlife there at all, not even birds. It's like they knew or could sense what had happened there.
 
KayJay said:
I went when I was 14, or there about, and took lots of photographs. I feel like this shouldn't be treated like a taboo. It's part of history, and it's important. I also read recently that there is a lot of argument going on as to whether or not the place should be left to rot now because funds are running out to fund the maintenance of the site.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's right...last I heard they had received a huge grant of some sort to keep the demolished crematoriums at Birkenau intact...that was on a BBC Sunday morning religious program a while back...forget the name!

The place is growing in popularity year on year, and it is classed as a World Heritage site by UNESCO, pretty much guaranteeing it's future!
 
purpleclouds said:
The trick here though, is that there is already millions of photographs of the place should one need to see it, and plenty of books available for purchase there, or anywhere!

The fact of the matter is, is that for millions of people (perhaps even a big enough number to outnumber us Brits, Frenchies etc) this is a place of huge significance to their people and their religion...and snap snap snap can not only be annoying to a non-photographer, but may to them show disrespect. To you it may not...but you are not the only visitor there, and you aren't really going to be that upset if you don't get many photos. Whereas a Jewish visitor for example, is going to be upset if they are constantly disturbed by shutter sounds..when they are on one of the most important pilgrimages of their lives.

I do think however there are 2 seperate lines here though, inside and outside. Outside is fine for photographs I think, as you are in the open and can take photographs relatively anonymously, but inside there is a certain echo, and a shutter can be heard from opposite ends of the buildings...trust me, I took 2 shots inside and decided that was enough, and that was without anyone else on the same floor as me.

Until you have visited, all you can do is speculate...it cannot be compared to the Tower of London for example, as that is portrayed to be touristy (despite the thousands that were killed there)..and is generally accepted to be that way. Auschwitz on the other hand is not a tourist attraction. It is a memorial to those who died there, a place of rememberance, a place of peace...if you can't respect that, then perhaps you do not understand the significance of the place to other sections of society. It'd be like walking round shoving your camera in the faces of, and snapping war veterans during the minutes silence...it's just one of those things that isn't done.

Plus, if a place is deamed to be out of bounds for photography (which all interiors are) then shouldn't you be sticking to those rules anyway?
Click to expand...

1st point, there are millions of pictures of "just about everything" so we should stop taking pictures of everything?

Ok if they don't want pictures taken of the "death camp" ( lets be honest about what it is)
Then there should be a "blanket" NO PHOTOGRAPHS signs.. fair enough.
I would respect that

BUT they allow visitors in ( for what ever personal reason the visitors have) which perpertuates the memory and yes what took place there should never be forgotten
the memories fade or become distorted, photographs don't ( well actually thats not quite true,)
After the surviviors, have "gone" that only know the true horrors that took place there,
and could never really discribe the atrocities, or indeed probably wouldn't want to, all "we" have left are photographs.
So rightly or wrongly I guess ultimately its a matter of personal conscience



 
Cobra said:
1st point, there are millions of pictures of "just about everything" so we should stop taking pictures of everything?

Ok if they don't want pictures taken of the "death camp" ( lets be honest about what it is)
Then there should be a "blanket" NO PHOTOGRAPHS signs.. fair enough.
I would respect that

BUT they allow visitors in ( for what ever personal reason the visitors have) which perpertuates the memory and yes what took place there should never be forgotten
the memories fade or become distorted, photographs don't ( well actually thats not quite true,)
After the surviviors, have "gone" that only know the true horrors that took place there,
and could never really discribe the atrocities, or indeed probably wouldn't want to, all "we" have left are photographs.
So rightly or wrongly I guess ultimately its a matter of personal conscience



Click to expand...

1st point - of course not, but I go on to explain in the second part (albeit not directly) that photography outside is fine...inside is a no no...as per the rules, which I said about...and will repeat:

There is a blanket no photography rule on interiors, there is not one building without a sign as you enter, and a good few more as you go around!

What I meant, was do not treat the place like a photo shoot, as it is not a tourist attraction, it is a memorial. It isn't advertised, like the Tower of London, people go because they want to go...not because it is 'something to do.' Many of the people who go, are on a religious pilgrim of sorts...however I won't go comparing it to Mecca etc, because it is not a pilgrim in that manner.

With this in mind, visitors should be respectful of those who wish to remember, and to think. Would you enjoy listening to some photographer snapping away whilst at the grave of a loved one? Which is where my 1st point comes back round to complete the circle...save upsetting people, buy the book if you want photographs of inside. It isn't such a great loss to not have your own photographs is it? Inside there isn't even much scope for photographs, it is very small and cramped and the light is pants.

Outside...knock yourself out, just be respectful and courteous as you would on any other site!
 
purpleclouds said:
1st point - of course not, but I go on to explain in the second part (albeit not directly) that photography outside is fine...inside is a no no...as per the rules, which I said about...and will repeat:

There is a blanket no photography rule on interiors, there is not one building without a sign as you enter, and a good few more as you go around!

What I meant, was do not treat the place like a photo shoot, as it is not a tourist attraction, it is a memorial. It isn't advertised, like the Tower of London, people go because they want to go...not because it is 'something to do.' Many of the people who go, are on a religious pilgrim of sorts...however I won't go comparing it to Mecca etc, because it is not a pilgrim in that manner.

With this in mind, visitors should be respectful of those who wish to remember, and to think. Would you enjoy listening to some photographer snapping away whilst at the grave of a loved one? Which is where my 1st point comes back round to complete the circle...save upsetting people, buy the book if you want photographs of inside. It isn't such a great loss to not have your own photographs is it? Inside there isn't even much scope for photographs, it is very small and cramped and the light is pants.

Outside...knock yourself out, just be respectful and courteous as you would on any other site!
Click to expand...

I am not argueing the point about being allowed "inside" shots if the rules say no,
then that is fair enough (as I said above)
My original point was, that anyone should be allowed to take photographs
where "the rules allow" and not be "stopped" from taking what wombat classed as snaps.

BTW if I was at a grave side and someone was taking pictures it wouldn't actually bother
me. I am there for one reason only they obviously have their own agenda.
Like recording their families burial plots for posterity perhaps or "recording the area for local historical value....

I think that we both agree on the main points and are just arguing the minors.
I for one am done on that score :thumbs:
 
Cobra said:
I am not argueing the point about being allowed "inside" shots if the rules say no,
then that is fair enough (as I said above)
My original point was, that anyone should be allowed to take photographs
where "the rules allow" and not be "stopped" from taking what wombat classed as snaps.

BTW if I was at a grave side and someone was taking pictures it wouldn't actually bother
me. I am there for one reason only they obviously have their own agenda.
Like recording their families burial plots for posterity perhaps or "recording the area for local historical value....

I think that we both agree on the main points and are just arguing the minors.
I for one am done on that score :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Of course no one should be stopped from taking any photos, where they are allowed...when I was there, there were plenty of Israeli children with point and shoots taking photographs of themselves with their flag, banning that would be quite wrong!

I think so too...crossed wires somewhere :lol: :thumbs:
 
purpleclouds said:
Some people just 'feel' things differently than others, it's a big argument to get into! If I get something into my head that someone has died there...particularly in the numbers they did (that could be a WWI battlefield or Auschwitz or anywhere) then my mind just numbs and I stop doing most things, apart from thinking.
Click to expand...
I do understand that - but to me that is exactly what I think photography is capable of - you endeavour to capture that feeling as an image so others can think too.
 
Interesting discussion.

I went to the US cemetary in Normandy and was surprised by how quiet it was. No birdsong at all.

I'd planned to take some photo's but only managed a few, one of which I entered in last novembers POTY comp. Instead I got talking to 3 Old US soldiers on a visit to old fallen comrades and then got caught up with the atmosphere of the place.

I think these sort of places need photography and publishing as a reminder.
 
If you don't take pics and show them to as many people as possible you are indirectly aiding those who would deny it ever happened.

In memory to those who perished, or at risk of perishing in the future, none of us should ever let what happened at Auschwitz and elsewhere be forgotten. Nothing immoral about taking pics in there.

The nazis banned photography there, although a few pics did get out.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about tourism to the place full stop actually.... You see a lot of stuff going on there which I am not sure really is befitting to the dreadfulness of the thing itself anyway.

Bored school children running rampage and people on coach holidays who stop off in between brewery tours isn't exactly what I'd suggest is respectful.

To be honest when they talked about its saving or destruction recently I couldn't tell you which I am in favour of, there are (sensible, reasoned) arguments for both.

A few photos? Well, why not, but like just about every other famous place in the world you are going to be hard pushed to pull something earth shattering out of it though.
 
Indeed an interesting discussion.

I recently visited S21 and the Killing Fields outside Pnom Pen, sites of similar atrocities of more modern times (rather topical currently gieven the trial of one of the alleged perpetrators).

Having been in such a place I understand the feeling that such places evoke but absolutely disagree to any notion that photography there is inappropriate. On the contrary the more people share the horror and starkness of it the better. It is important that these things are not forgotten and to make it a part of a living person's life and memory is surely a good way to ensure this?

I took many pictures and feel that several of those do show the place as they should. I can look at them and remember how I felt, see what the inmates saw, understand what took place.

I cannot think of a more powerful reminder that I could have.

Though I absolutely agree that if my taking pictures appeared to disturb or upset another visitor that I would move on and return later, or sit quietly and wait for them to move on. As this thread shows, different people experience things differently. It is possible to both take pictures and be sensitive.
 
I think visiting the place is fine though quite harrowing (my great grand-dad - a Polish journalist - was starved and was then given a lethal injection - he died in the same cell as St. Maximilian Kolbe [if anyone's heard of him?]).

Whether or not it is right to take photos is another matter. I did take some both inside and out but I think it might be a bit disrespectful if you walk in with a whole kit and are too blatant about it. Just my opinion... :)
 
pchidell said:
I think visiting the place is fine though quite harrowing (my great grand-dad - a Polish journalist - was starved and was then given a lethal injection - he died in the same cell as St. Maximilian Kolbe [if anyone's heard of him?]).
Click to expand...

:'( I know exactly of the episode of which you write... :'(:'(:'(:'(
 
Cobra said:
I'd disagree with that statement
It suggests that the casual snap is somehow disrespectful
and / or "not worthy" What about all the casual snaps of "the war " ?
I guess we all have them Dads, Grandads, and other family members.
There were a few "proffesional" 'togs about at the time but there are also a
great many pictures taken by amateurs that record moments in time
"Lest we forget"
they are just as important IMO
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with the bulk of your statement the phrase "casual snap" was chosen carefully and deliberately within the context of this thread.
Restrictions were placed on photography at many of the camps because flocks of tourists were treating the sites as just another stop on the tour.I certainly would not advocate a ban on photography at these sites but I do think photographers have an obligation to seriously think about the shot they are taking and more importantly why they are taking it.
A picture of Corporal Smith standing outside the gas chambers in !945 is hugely different to a similar pic of Elroy and Wilma taken during their 2008 European tour.I just think that if you have a camera in your hand at a camp you need to ask yourself the question is what Im doing appropriate ? If the answers yes--then no problem.
Pete.
 
Never visited but have visited Pearl Harbour and taken many shots on the USS Arizona memorial which effectively straddles the ship as it still lies in the harbour. A very eery place and trange but had no qualms taking photographs there.
 
This a very interesting discussion.

My good lady is Jewish although she is not particularly religious, like many, she lost a lot of relatives in the holocaust.
She has always wanted to visit Auschwitz but just can’t bring her to do it.
I posed this question to her and she totally agrees with people taking pictures as she believes it need documenting by as many people as possible and even more so as they are thinking about demolishing it.
She also said that photographs should be allowed to be taken within the complex as well.
 
When I went I left the camera in the car. I was there to appreciate the place, not to mess about with my camera.

Having said that each to there own, I don't have problems with others taking photographs.
 
I am off to Krakow tomorrow and will visit Auschwitz. Food for thought before I arrive I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top