11 thoughts on “Photography and the Prohibition Against Graven Images: When Artistic Expression Clashes With Religion – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. While it in no way diminshes this man’s distress at having his picture displayed, I wanted to point out that prohibiting any images of humans is far from a mainstream Orthodox viewpoint. In fact, I have never heard of it before in Judaism, despite considering myself to be a (modern) Orthodox Jew.

    Members of many Hasidic sects display pictures of their Rebbe (spiritual leader) in prominent positions in their homes, maybe most famously the Lubavitchers who have also taken to putting up pictures of the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson almost everywhere (most street signs in Israel have a poster on the back). Interestingly, some modern Orthodox and Mitnagdim (non-Hasidic Haredim) accuse Hasidim of almost idol-worhip in their reveration for their Rebbe. Are you sure that the man in this case is a Hasid? If so, do you know which Hasidic sect he’s from?

  2. The prohibition against photography is something I’ve know about going back several decades. I’m glad to hear that the view is not widespread in Orthodox Judaism. But it’s certainly widespread among Hasidim. And if you look at the Wikipedia article I link to it says that this belief derives from “Abrahamic” religions (by which I assume the author means Judaism & perhaps Islam).

    The issue of the image of The Rebbe is quite diff. than exhibiting the image of a stam Hasid. The Rebbe is God’s representative on earth & so I’m sure they relax the ban for his sake. Also, a faction with Lubavitch Hasidism views the Rebbe as the messiah and so akin to the divine. I too find such a view contrary to normative Judaism and disturbing for the reasons you mention. But is IS their belief & so we have to accord someone who practices it some small measure of respect (while we disagree with it).

    You have but to look at the man’s image to know he is a Hasid. He works in NY’s diamond district (populated mostly by Hasidic workers & owners). His attire & demeanor are entirely consistent with his being Hasidic. I don’t recall the NYT article specifically saying he was one but I have little doubt he is. It did say several times he was Orthodox.

  3. I think the artistic ramifications of ruling in favor of Mr. Nussenzweig would have been terrible for society as a whole, in its impact on artistic freedom. That said, the photographer should have been a gentleman about it and removed the photo from his exhibit, just out of respect for the man’s wishes. Winning isn’t always the most important thing.

  4. Richard,

    Your concerns of the plaintiff’s spiritual sensitivities were poignant and thoughtful. It also presented a facet to demonstrate the seemingly complex (meant as a compliment) person that you are and sheds some light on the human element you espouse in determining conclusions on issues which until now struck me (albeit simplistically) as impeccably written but strange ramblings from left field (no pun intended).

    Not that my belief system would concern you, and I’m not suggesting that the disagreements have necessarily dissipated, just that I’ve arrived at a new understanding of a humanitarian basis that acts as your guide in your determinations on a plethora of issues.

    Regarding Mr. Nussenzweig there’s an ironic component to the story.

    The Chassidic communities in the New York metro area are no strangers to the hotbed of contentious and litigious issues that makes the Big Apple what it is. The plaintiff however is a member of the small Klausenberger sect of 70 families residing in a small enclave in the largely Hispanic bustling town of Union City, NJ. Except for the obvious clothing, a municipal official who I befriended (a Puerto Rican-born Jew) tells me that the group is largely invisible and quiet. Communal relations tend to be good and aside from a request for gender-separate hours once a week at the municipal swimming pool (which works for the local Muslims as well) and to cordon off a section of a street on Simchas Torah for dancing, they are hardly heard from let alone controversial.

    Easy for one to say and in hindsight, but would it have been a higher road if the plaintiff used other avenues besides legal ones to get across the same message that you portrayed? I think that the image of his wizened face exposing simple and pure piety was Kiddush Hashem. But, he and his teachers don’t see it that way and maybe in the future an aspiring photographer might keep in mind the sincere sensibilities.

    Thanks again for making this known to a wider audience.

  5. Jake: I don’t think anyone who’s disagreed with my views on the Mideast has ever written such a touching & thoughtful comment as yours. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that. Of course, I like to think that my humanitarian, altruistic outlook is consistent and well thought out, but invariably there is someone who thinks that I’m a dolt or a supporter of terror or whatever. So that’s why your comment means so much.

    My only discomfort with the Hasid’s claim was that he demanded $1.5-million from the photographer. I’d think if it was just a matter of principal the financial demand should’ve been minimal. I too believe he should’ve tried to resolve this issue w/o resorting to the courts. But we don’t know whether this was attempted and if so which side refused to compromise its position sufficiently so no resolution could be attained.

    Your comment about the photo subject’s piety and that he represented Kiddush HaShem conveyed my own feelings even better than I did in my post.

  6. There is an important difference between “you shalt not do this-or-that” and “you shalt force everyone else not to do this-or-that, as well”. Some people forget that.

  7. re: “While I’m in no way sympathetic to fundamentalist Christians who talk about a war between secular society and religious believers, I think that incidents like this one contribute to such a perception of persecution and lack of sensitivity to the needs of religious people” clarifying…I think you may be referring to spiritual warfare that Christians believe goes on for souls between God and Satan. This is very different than a “war” as you mentioned it above.

  8. While I agree that it would be terrible indeed to destroy our conception of public photography, the thing that concerns me is that he allegedly had no right or recourse to demand the removal of his photograph.

    Religious reasons aside. It is very concerning, as you pointed out, that the court seemed to have no feeling whatsoever for his religious convictions. However, does it not invade privacy to give someone no recourse about the use of their image, whether commercially or otherwise?

    Most likely, all of the people photographed in public and exhibited like you mentioned did not care, or did not know that their image was being photographed — and I wouldn’t expect a photographer to have to go out and get explicit permission from everyone the photograph in public.

    On the other hand, however, if the subject [i]expressly demands that you take your photo down[/i] — shouldn’t they have that right? Shouldn’t someone be able to say, no, I do not want my image displayed? Just like using a camera to photograph inanimate objects, you’re free to do so — unless there’s a sign that says you can’t. A business owner, for example, may prohibit photography in his business, especially if his business is a museum or exhibit of some sort, that he charges admission to see. Why shouldn’t private people have the same courtesy on the street — to be photographed legally without explicit permission, but to be able to explicitly refuse permission and/or demand that the images be taken down or destroyed?

  9. Native Americans had similar beliefs that a photograph image would imprison their soul. Being originally from Britain, their courts are with any means native.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link