|
rob.i.am
       
Gender: Male
Carpe noctum
 |  |  | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 40 on 12/3/2010 3:32 AM >
|  | | | Posted by Axle
I thought it was a series of tubes?
|
When I was your age...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob666/ |
|
bandi
 
Lippy Mechanic Bastard
location:
Trent Hills, ON
Gender: Male
A liminal mind is all I've ever known.
| |  | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 41 on 12/3/2010 3:41 AM >
| | | | Posted by rob.i.am
It's something that revolves around me.
|
I'm starting to think it revolves around Kowalski.
hi i like cars |
|
kowalski
| | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 42 on 12/3/2010 4:47 AM >
| | | | Posted by Brind
When was the last time you actually said something constructive? All you do is rant and rave like some belligerent old man on his front porch. No one takes you seriously and it's really about time you moved on.
|
Just because you don't want to listen or don't want to think about it doesn't mean it isn't constructive.
On your website, Brind, you say this:
Every day, most people wander mindlessly through the world around them, barely noticing anything except what they have to. Unbeknownst to them, there is a whole other world around us that has been forgotten by the majority.
|
I could (and have) said the same thing about the way a lot of people on these forums approach their practice of 'urban exploration'. Dialed into decay or desolation or the thrill of breaking boundaries, there is a whole other world around them that they've forgotten, even as they attest to a great deal of interest about how things with a building or other site are, and how they came to be that way. "Each one has its own tales to tell, and it’s a shame to have such rich history fade to dust," you say on your site, but the problem is that the people proclaiming these things have forgotten to tell those stories they are supposed to be finding, or even to find them to begin with.
If you are intellectually honest, you have to admit there's truth in what I say, even if you might disagree about 'how' fair I am and 'how' true it is.
People want to believe that what they are doing is special. That's why people bother to 'ue' in the first place, and why Steed for instance is so concerned with tightly demarcating his idea of 'urban exploration' in order to avoid the idea that his activity could be confused with all the other possibilities of experience and inquiry in the city. The idea that the only 'urban exploration' is the one where people carry around flashlights and expensive cameras, hopping fences and slipping into boarded-up buildings or dank drains or rickety construction cranes is such a silly notion, and such an albatross for the activity we all, myself included, have staked a lot on.
Insisting on this kind of tight definition of possibilities makes it harder and harder to see the forest for the few special trees that self-describing 'urban explorers' have decided are what concerns them. It's a situation that makes everything that you and I and everyone we know do that much weaker and poorer, and why I feel that I do need to talk about it, incessantly if necessary.
Ten years ago, no one inside the North American 'urban exploration' community cared a wit about photography as anything more than a documentary tool. There were no artistic pretensions, no HDR, no photography forums. Ten years ago, UER didn't exist, and the two most significant mouthpieces for the activity were a text-only e-mail listserv, and Infiltration, a text-heavy zine with an interest not only in today's traditional targets but also in active buildings, active event sites, and 'exploring' things like fountains and swimming pools. I'm not saying that photography isn't a valuable, exciting, and worthwhile piece of the practice, I'm just raising it as a point to demonstrate that the kind of petrified version of 'UE' being held up by Steed and others (like those in another recent thread in Main who suggested visiting a landscape without trespassing into a building couldn't possibly be a fulfilling or even legitimate 'urban exploration') didn't emerge, virginal and glowing, from the womb of the 1990s. It has taken a lot of effort, insularity, complacency and self-deception to get us to this point, along with an inordinate focus on the camera as a story-telling tool, to the detriment and devaluing of places and experiences that can't offer the sort of photogenic scenes (especially to the ubiquitous small-form digital SLR in the hobbyist's hands) that have come to define and represent 'urban exploration'.
Infiltration was the zine about going places you weren't supposed to go, not simply to those places you were forbidden to go, and I don't care if people think I'm being pedantic about this, there is a tremendous difference between these two ideas and what they mean. Places you're not supposed to go can mean all sorts of things: in our society it can mean anywhere where you don't have the opportunity to buy something, or where you're choosing not to buy something when you're supposed to (like at a shopping mall). In Toronto right now it can mean going into a bike lane or some other politically unwise space or idea. It can mean using the other sex's bathroom when yours is out of service. It can mean bringing politics to the fair (as in Toronto's QAIA vs. Pride flap this year) or the fair to politics (as in your typical raucous leftist demonstration/riot, or hell, the Tea Party thing in the U.S.).
And as Ninjalicious enthusiastically demonstrated, it can mean exploring any place that you haven't been invited to but at the same time have not necessarily been forbidden to enter: for instance, controlled access events and 'backstage' spaces, hotels and other spaces where you're not a paying guest, areas of buildings under construction, renovation or disuse, and places like fountains, gardens, rooftops and margins of the city where people (and especially inquisitive, creative, explorative people) are not supposed to belong, but where, goddamn, we feel so much better being.
The differences between abandoned and active, legal and illegal, building and landscape, fun and useful, and so forth are not so black and white as so many 'urban exploration' practitioners would like today to believe. Abandoned and active is a particularly glaring example of the blind spots of UEers, who seem all too ready to believe that any building not being used must therefor be abandoned, and doubly so if there is a broken window or an unlocked door. Property owners make all sorts of decisions about what extent they can and are prepared to maintain and use a building, as some of this forum's intrepid house explorers know only too well from their experiences being chased off of seemingly abandoned properties either by residents, family caretakers or watchful neighbours.
There's another aspect of this false dichotomy between active and abandoned that's worth acknowledging and unpacking, and that is the subject of who we allow to have respectable interests in the property or structure or landscape in question. Contemporary 'urban explorers' take for granted the idea that the only people who are interested in the place are themselves and maybe, depending on the circumstances, the landowner. This is rarely the case. It may make us feel special, but I think we use 'abandoned' as a way of hand-waving away any responsibility on our part to understand better the current disposition of the site and the ways it might matter or figure in the ambitions of other people and communities.
As I said somewhere last week, places are rarely as forgotten or neglected as we believe they are, and it's high time we all made a better effort to understand who else these places might matter to. There are other people in the communities that surround these places who always retain links to a site both in memories and in their contemporary relationships, perceptions and sometimes uses of it. There are also former workers, current caretakers, and the property owners themselves, who all form direct relationships with the place through their employment and investments there.
The meaning of a place is never just some kind condensed historical record you can uncover by trolling wikipedia or by spending an afternoon amidst the decay. It evolves, ebbs and flows with the community around it. This gets especially neglected, or reduced to cliche, when urbexers become intercity or interstate tourists, hitting up 'explores' often long distances from the communities and landscapes in which they regularly live and with which they have their own established relationships, ties and responsibilities. I perceive a tremendous lack of respect for people and for place in the activities of a lot of urban explorers -- rather than providing the opportunity to learn about and engage with places, 'urban exploration' seems too often concerned with denying the idea that they exist at all.
If there is anything particularly 'forbidden' about the activities we do under the label 'urban exploration', then we have surely laid those conditions and forfeitures upon ourselves. 'Urban exploration' can be whatever you want it to be: it doesn't have to be particularly urban (just built or human-impacted, I should say), it doesn't have to be particularly photogenic, and it certainly doesn't have to be illegal. But more than that, if we are truly exploring, then the boundaries we are pushing should be more than just the physical boundaries of a site: we should be exploring the limits of our established interests, and the possibilities and intersections that lie beyond, not simply digging the same rut a little deeper each location, each visit, each photograph, each year.
Maybe I can work at communicating a little better with you Brind and with everyone else, or maybe this post can serve as a downpayment towards that end. Regardless, I think articles like Neil's, and the ones in the mainstream and college media that everyone here gets to hate on once or twice a year, are incredibly useful in reflecting some light back on the activity as practiced. The best way to read articles like these is not to immediately freak out at each statement that feels wrong, but to stop and think about why it feels wrong. Is it truly an inaccurate description of what you or the people on this and other forums are doing? Or is the problem that you don't want to be described or perceived as acting in the way described in the article? Sometimes the writer really does get it wrong, as I'm sorry, but Steed really did in this thread and Neil does in several places in his article. And other times the truth hits a little too close to home, and we feel the need to respond in the same way we would if it was a point of information.
There is tremendous opportunity to learn and grow as a practitioner and a person when you're willing to set aside your ego and recognize the times when offensive characterizations fit into that latter category, when they are uncomfortable truths rather than inexcusable misrepresentations. I encourage everyone to embrace those opportunities, rather than railing against them.
Many people are right, I have been an asshole in a number of threads over the last few weeks. But so have all the people who took issue not with what I said, but that I was saying it to begin with. I hope we can carve out some more common ground, and yes that might require including the fences and parking lots and drainage ditches, and the former lunch box down the street in our vision of that ground.
Best wishes.
[last edit 12/3/2010 5:03 AM by kowalski - edited 2 times]
|
|
team haymaker
location:
Burlington, Ontario
Gender: Male
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 43 on 12/3/2010 5:00 AM >
| | | | I actually have some of those old Infiltrations. My older brother was really into them was i was younger
|
|
Brind
location:
Kitchener, ON
Gender: Male
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 44 on 12/3/2010 6:22 AM >
| | | |
TL;DR
Instagram
"Adventure is worthwhile in itself." -Amelia Earhart |
|
Azazel
location:
British Columbia
Gender: Male
| | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 45 on 12/3/2010 7:06 AM >
| | | | Having lurked here for longer than I care to mention, and observed the way the UE hobby has evolved over the years, I'm going to come out of the woodwork here and support Kowalski's master thesis just above mine. The man has a point, a very solid point, and it's a brutal truth that since Ninjalicious died the UE community has fragment and suffered from branching off into numerous sub-groups of the hobby with no cohesive whole and too much armchair infighting in places like UER, and even between the various forums themselves. What are we, children?
That being said, Kowalski's fears are mostly negated by a point: There are the people who do it for photography, and the people who do it to explore. The former are the ones you see all over the web posting, and the latter you don't hear from much anymore. Either because they all got tired of seeing their sites stripped and vandalized by dumbass kids (Heard Wraiths dropped off the radar due to this)or are out, you know, actually exploring.
UE does have a set definition, and that is to Access All Areas. You can do this by breaking your way in, by talking your way in, or by sticking a zoom lens in through a window. But above all, it's about the mystique of finding somewhere that nobody else has trod in years. This is why I've never contributed to the database or posted photographs myself, why would I want to ruin the adventure for those who come after me?
Now, seeing as I've used up my quota of text for the next few years I have two questions before I return to lurking: Is the old mineshaft off Penzance Drive in Burnaby real, and what's the best way to get into the basements of the Marine building without getting arrested. Obfusicated PM's involving satanic rituals will be expected and relished.
[last edit 12/3/2010 7:07 AM by Azazel - edited 1 times]
|
|
Steed
location:
Edmonton/Seoul
Gender: Male
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Race Traitor
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 46 on 12/3/2010 8:54 AM >
| | | | Posted by s.l.o.t.h
Okay, trying to avoid my natural urge to blurt something like "in b4 lock" and then leave. I am going to provide some constructive criticism instead.
Get the fuck over yourselves.
Now, I know that first time I said it, it probably just offended you. So I'll say it again. Get the FUCK over yourselves.
All you two have been doing is clashing egos and being annoying drama whores. I'm not trying to get banned for mocking a moderator, or trying to pick on some recent user who's been shitting himself in rage at the drop of a hat. I'm just saying get the fuck over yourselves.
This is a hobby, it means different things to different people. The only reason any of this has gotten as out of hand as it has is because most of you here are taking things entirely too seriously, or as personal attacks.
Stop taking over relatively innocent threads that would be flamed of their own volition and stupid content, and get over yourselves. The entire internet does not revolve around you
|
Guilty as charged. Kowalski, aren't you tired of all this bullshit yet? Before you post another one of those thread-derailing epic novels of yours, I recommend you think about how much of it you really need to say.
(PS: That movie theatre page looks cool, and reminds me of a few places I've visited here, but I'm not convinced it benefits by being labeled urban exploration.)
|
|
aurelie
location:
pacific northwest
Gender: Female
high tech:: low life.
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 47 on 12/3/2010 11:26 AM >
| | | | Finally deciding to weigh in at five in the morning, as usual.
I see that some of us seem to have a pessimistic outlook on "the exploring scene today" (or however you want to term it, you know what I'm referring to) and don't get me wrong, I've seen my fair share of what I consider narrow-minded, ignorant, and downright malicious behavior from my fellow "explorers".
I just want to remind everyone that in most cases, all we know of each other are a few select posts on a website- we don't know the extent to which other members of the board know or care about the history and impact of the structures they visit.
It would be a wonderful thing if everyone documented/appreciated a place was intimately familiar with even a fraction of the effects it had/is still having on the lives of others, but this is simply not possible in most cases. Because we rarely get an idea of the full history of a place, we can only appreciate them aesthetically. This shouldn't be something people should be made to feel guilt over. We can, however, show respect for the structures we visit by not sensationalizing the hobby.
It would also be a great if most of us could find something proactive to do with the hobby- because yes, seeing the same photos, stories, and mindset generally devoid of higher meaning and repeated over and over again both on the boards and offline tends to get very tedious. This is much easier said than done, though, and it's not just the thought that counts.
I'm not trying to wave my minuscule e-penis around here, but I can say that I am one of many explorers I know who lurked around long enough to pick up the history of the hobby as best I could (my notion of the 'good old days' comes from both reading all of the old zines and nearly every archived thread on the forums.)
Also, like many people I know, I am not picky in my categorization of what is and isn't "urban exploring", and I do many things that others may or may not lump in with their personal definition of the word. Legal or illegal, difficult or easy, public or hidden- i consider this merely a pursuit of structures I find aesthetically appealing. The only thing that defines the hobby for me is that it generally revolves around things that are man-made (not that nature can't be just as beautiful/exciting/comforting/etc).
Finally, I take minor offense (something I mildly disagree with on the internet! stop the presses! this is serious!) at the separation of "people who are in it for the photography" and "people who are in it for the exploring". I speak for a pretty large number of people when I contend that there are definitely those who will leave their expensive camera behind at the drop of a hat and just go climb something for the view instead of experiencing it entirely through a viewfinder.
Yes, they take photos of manmade structures and post them on the internet. But they also embody the original spirit of infiltration- just going where you can go, where they tell you that you can't, where you never thought possible, with fluid boundaries and no set expectations.
This hobby's always going to be filled with pedantry and immaturity- they're inescapable in a large internet community. This one in particular is a magnet for them with its illegal aspects and tendency to attract those who consider themselves to be "out of the ordinary" or apart from the rest of society.
All I ask is for us to just think before we react to differing opinions (however ignorant or misguided they may seem) and realize that we don't know what's going on in other people's heads as to the meaning and value of their hobby. Also, too consider that there was a time when we all found those peeling paint hallways/ drain silhouettes/ gear threads and ethics debates interesting, and that the new people haven't seen enough to be jaded, irritated or disillusioned yet.
...no, I don't have any better to do right now.
tl;dr:
stop it, guys.
reckless thoughts abide; anachronistic and impulsive.
loosely jacketed against the cold and ten thousand worlds for the choosing. |
|
metawaffle
King of Puns
location:
Brisbane!
Gender: Male
Purveyor of Fine Lampshades
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 48 on 12/3/2010 11:39 AM >
| | | | I've always maintained that no matter what you might be into, someone else will get it too. I mean, I've posted threads on dam spillways, tree roots, and tiny brick huts.
As long as you're doing what interests you, what do definitions of 'urban exploration' matter?
And now, just to take the moral high ground, I shall go explore something.
(or not, depending on your definition)
http://www.longexposure.net |
|
Neil T
location:
Toronto
Gender: Male
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 49 on 12/3/2010 2:25 PM >
| | | | I think all of this discussion is great.
I suppose that UE is like everything else -- there's evolution and change, and some will embrace it, others won't. Perhaps the reasons why "things were so different back in the day" was because explorers didn't have the resources as they do now to share their stories (and photos). The availability of inexpensive cameras, cell phone cams, etc. combined with all sorts of different social media forums creates this perfect storm where people can share their experiences on a grander scale without keeping everything behind a velvet rope.
I started this hobby mainly because of the photography, but I am showing a greater appreciation for the explore itself. I've actually taken some of Kowalski's words and have tried to be more cognizant of the spaces I am in and the relationship I have with them, be it abandoned, active, or under construction. The thing is, other than sharing my stories with others, I ultimately don't know how useful my explores will ever be. The only thing I have is my very personal relationship with the city and places within it.
I am Bidong blog. Traveler. Urban Explorer. Gentle Lover. http://www.iambidong.com |
|
EVmAN
location:
Mississauga, ON
Gender: Male
and I-- I took the path less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.
| | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 50 on 12/3/2010 2:41 PM >
| | | | Yeah, Kowalski's definitely touched on a good point here. The idea that urbexing has to be forbidden is kind of childish. It should be about going places you want to go regardless of legality (with ethics considered.)
I myself have found great fulfillment exploring rivers, dams, trails, parks, even clubs and malls. The point was that I went to these places just to see what was there, and not just because I was shopping/going for a walk/taking pictures/etc.
The sign said "Anybody caught trespassin will be shot on sight"
So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house,
"Hey! What gives you the right?" http://www.flickr.com/photos/evman/ |
|
KingCrouton
Gender: Male
| | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 51 on 12/3/2010 3:10 PM >
| | | | I only participate in rural exploration. This thread is now moot.
|
|
dsankt
location:
live and in the fresh
| |  | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 52 on 12/3/2010 5:05 PM >
| | | | I'll go on the record and say that I find Kowalksi's insights and posts about this subculture to be excellent reading and very thought provoking. Sure from time to time my eyes start to glaze over a touch but his points are well thought out and I find myself agreeing with many of them. I recognise their academic nature and almost surgical disection and interrogation of what we do and how we do it offends lots of people but so what, I know someone should be saying it.
I'm more than willing to sacrifice a few derailed threads to hear it.
sleepycity.net: watch out for the third rail baby, that shit is high voltage. urbex and urban exploration photography |
|
Steed
location:
Edmonton/Seoul
Gender: Male
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Race Traitor
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 53 on 12/3/2010 7:10 PM >
| | | | Posted by EVmAN
Yeah, Kowalski's definitely touched on a good point here. The idea that urbexing has to be forbidden is kind of childish. It should be about going places you want to go regardless of legality (with ethics considered.)
I myself have found great fulfillment exploring rivers, dams, trails, parks, even clubs and malls. The point was that I went to these places just to see what was there, and not just because I was shopping/going for a walk/taking pictures/etc.
|
So, for instance, you would consider a bunch of pictures of the mailbox on your street corner to be UE? Why not? It's urban, and maybe you're exploring it. It fits his definition.
I will say this: I would consider the label of "urban exploring" to only apply to things that are not available to the general public. So, for instance, the Starbucks down the street, or the other Starbucks on the other side of the street, are not UE-worthy. Even if you get really cool pictures. That's just photography, which itself is a worthy pursuit, moreso than urban exploration. It doesn't automatically become "urban exploration" just because you found fulfillment there. So if you're photographing rivers, dams, trails, parks, even clubs and malls, why would you claim that's urban exploration? I go to the same types of places all the time, and don't consider it UE. It's interesting, maybe, but it's just places that anyone can go. It seems limiting to say "Everything I photograph is UE." Well, at least limiting regarding other people who are doing things differently from you.
Posted by dsankt
I'll go on the record and say that I find Kowalksi's insights and posts about this subculture to be excellent reading and very thought provoking. Sure from time to time my eyes start to glaze over a touch but his points are well thought out and I find myself agreeing with many of them. I recognise their academic nature and almost surgical disection and interrogation of what we do and how we do it offends lots of people but so what, I know someone should be saying it.
I'm more than willing to sacrifice a few derailed threads to hear it.
|
Please explain it in a rational way so the important parts of his viewpoints can be debated. Am I a threat to Korea for going into abandoned neighbourhoods? If something is forbidden, can I go there without offending the whole nation? Bonus points if you can explain your answer without directly slagging me.
And dsankt: Kowalski's main point is that he does it the right way, and everyone else who does it differently is doing it wrong. Which viewpoint is more restrictive? Who has committed more text trying to refine the limits of urban exploration?
PS) everybody who agrees with Kowalski, enjoy the can of worms that has just been opened up. I'm specifically not going to use my moderator powers to solve this, just because I think Kowalski is a piece of shit for bitching at me about these points, without having any reasonable argument other than troll tactics.
|
|
KingCrouton
Gender: Male
| | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 54 on 12/3/2010 7:52 PM >
| | | | I love debates!
1) I abhor that people associate Exploring with photography. Is it a subset of photography? I take pictures RARELY. Why? Because if I'm out and about and I see something, I look at it. Taking pictures is the last thing on my mind, as I don't actively seek anything.
2) The term urban exploration literally means, to traverse or range over pertaining to, or designating a city or town. I fail to understand how this applies to taking pictures of just abandoned property.
3) I didn't read Kowalski's post. Can we subset all questions to make it easier to read? I'm all hopped up Monster Zero.
|
|
Steed
location:
Edmonton/Seoul
Gender: Male
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Race Traitor
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 55 on 12/3/2010 7:57 PM >
| | | | Posted by KingCrouton
2) The term urban exploration literally means, to traverse or range over pertaining to, or designating a city or town. I fail to understand how this applies to taking pictures of just abandoned property.
|
Yes, it literally means that. However, we probably spend 99.9% of our lives within the limits of some city. So should, for instance, the simple act of catching a school bus so we can go to school for the day constitute urban exploration?
|
|
KingCrouton
Gender: Male
| | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 56 on 12/3/2010 8:00 PM >
| | | | Touche!
But if you alternate and look out the windows of the bus, are you not exploring your surroundings? Looking under the seats? Vehicular Exploration?
|
|
Steed
location:
Edmonton/Seoul
Gender: Male
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Race Traitor
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 57 on 12/3/2010 8:04 PM >
| | | | Posted by KingCrouton
Touche!
But if you alternate and look out the windows of the bus, are you not exploring your surroundings? Looking under the seats? Vehicular Exploration?
|
Maybe you are. But please, do not share it on this website. Because that sounds pretty lame. Unless you find something actually interesting. Like Narnia. But without the anti-self-determinationist lion.
|
|
KingCrouton
Gender: Male
| | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 58 on 12/3/2010 8:08 PM >
| | | | Posted by Steed
Maybe you are. But please, do not share it on this website. Because that sounds pretty lame. Unless you find something actually interesting. Like Narnia. But without the anti-self-determinationist lion.
|
Why not share my vehicular explorations on this website. Doesn't it fall under Urban Exploration, if I do it when we get to town?
|
|
Steed
location:
Edmonton/Seoul
Gender: Male
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Race Traitor
| | | Re: I Will Probably Get Flamed for This
<Reply # 59 on 12/3/2010 8:11 PM >
| | | | Posted by KingCrouton
Why not share my vehicular explorations on this website. Doesn't it fall under Urban Exploration, if I do it when we get to town?
|
Just make damned sure you do it within city limits, then.
(and I say this knowing Kowalski is going to launch himself down my fucking throat upon reading this)
|
|
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 93 ms
|
|
Ethics