Context Required?

Syncopation

MarkR

Well, context is always helpful. Looks like you might still be in Asia (?) so one can't immediately jump to conclusions about the homemade swastika flag-- I was recently in a Buddhist temple and had to gently remind myself that the symbol has meanings that predate the Nazis-- but the coloration of the flag with the dark outside and white circle certainly seem to imply a Nazi connection.

Definitely some WTF going on.

marcusrichphoto

First thing you think of when you see this symbol is hatered and evil, but when you know the history of the Swastika, context becomes quite important in this image. The Swastika is over 3,000 years old and before the symbol was used by the Nazis, it represented many things for many different cultures, for instance, it was used to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.

What was it's representation in this particular image?

Juano

I was going to ask if it was the Buddhist symbol. The lines at the end of the cross lines go to the left in the ones I've seen while the swastika goes to the right. Therefore, in your picture we are seeing the back of the flag, that's my guess.

bdcolen

Sorry, folks, this crowd ain't waitin' for the Buddha to drop by. This is a neo-Nazi gathering.

Angelo

context needed is anything besides a barricade of bodies. I think you saw the flag, thought it was a "red flag" and snapped to elicit knee-jerk reaction

two steps to either the left or right with a compensating shift in POV angle might have revealed a very different picture -
step to the left, angle right: people's faces
step to the right, angle left: see what they're looking at
and in either choice you could still frame in the flag

Richard

Well, an explanation would be helpful. Could be innocuous, but maybe not. The natural reaction of any westerner would be to think it's bad news. Besides the swastika flag--which appears to be right-facing and rotated in the Nazi style--three of the people have their left arms raised in what could be construed to be some sort of salute. Which makes me nervous, but is not conclusive. So tell us .

DonRicklin

Seems to be a little kid holding the flag. And the arms look more, to me as shading against the Sun. So :shrug

Great puzzling image.

Don

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

michswiss

Angelo wrote: »

context needed is anything besides a barricade of bodies. I think you saw the flag, thought it was a "red flag" and snapped to elicit knee-jerk reaction

two steps to either the left or right with a compensating shift in POV angle might have revealed a very different picture -
step to the left, angle right: people's faces
step to the right, angle left: see what are they're looking at
and in either choice you could still frame in the flag

Agreed. Also a landscape shot could have worked better. As it is, not a great capture.

Quincy T

michswiss wrote: »

also a landscape shot could have worked better.

+2

Syncopation

OK. First things first. The POV and orientation of the image were chosen deliberately to create uncertainty and for viewers to interpret the scene as they see fit. It is not meant to be sensationalist or a 'great capture', rather to illustrate the point that how an image is interpreted can be heavily influenced by the choices the photographer makes in deciding what to include/exclude from the frame and what viewpoint to use. Perhaps more importantly, it illustrates how easily the wrong conclusion can be reached.

The image was taken at a Balinese Kite Festival. As has been pointed out the swastika symbol has been used as a Hindu religious symbol for centuries and therefore holds no negative associations on this occasion. Furthermore, rather than saluting, the spectators are using their arms and hands to shield their eyes against the sun.

I've many more pictures from what was a fascinating day which I'll post in a separate thread. That said, I thought this was worth posting to prompt discussion.

Angelo

well, you succeeded! :lol

MarkR

I have many thoughts on this, and the concept of ambiguity in general, but it will take some time to get them organized into something coherent.

However, I will say that to some extent this picture isn't so much ambiguous as dishonest: by deliberately omitting key pieces of information you've made this appear to be something that it is not. It's rather like all those summer movies that were faddish for a while: the ones where the last 10 minutes totally invalidated the first two hours. ("they were really all ghosts! Who were crazy!). I would prefer the photographer show us what is really there to the best of his or her ability, and leave it up to the viewer as to the motivations, personalities, etc. of the people involved, rather than hide some key information to obfuscate what is going on.

I'm hoping that's the point of this little exercise.

bdcolen

Well color me red. :bash I should, of course, have figured something was up from the title, but, as Errol Morris says, "Believing is seeing." Where you really got me was by filling the frame with white men and boys, which definitely pushed me in the direction of neo-Nazi rally. (But now that I go back and look more carefully, it becomes obvious that some of those in the photo are indeed Asian. ;-))

Good lesson!

michswiss

Click on the image and look at the gallery and you'll get an idea of the rest of the scene.

Still, I think there's another approach to have captured the image itself. Leaving the context intact such that the symbol can be re-co-opted (is that a word? Not sure where to hyphenate) to it's older form while still pushing western-cultural buttons. I do think it's important to challenge people's assumptions, so keep after it.

An aside question, somewhat rhetorical: Would it be considered an insightful shot by the community portrayed?