'Entitled brats.' Getty
Photographers have long had an uneasy relationship with the sacred. There is the age-old anxiety that a photograph can steal a soul. And last week, more than 900 wedding photographers signed a petition complaining that “problematic vicars” can be “rude, humiliating, aggressive and abusive”. The fact is, the sacred has a deep and visceral distrust of the whole business of taking photos, which — in our Instagram-addled age — has resulted in a colossal culture clash.
One photographer, Rachel Roberts, who launched the petition, took a pop at problematic vicars. “They basically forget the fact that two people are getting married, and it’s the most important day of their lives. They put their own objectives and their own rules first and forget the reason why we’re all actually here.” Talk about getting things the wrong way round. The reason we are all there is for two people to enter into holy matrimony, not for wandering photographers to get the best angle for the album.
The problem is that photographs don’t just record reality — they change it. Quantum physicists talk of the observer effect: the very act of observing reality causes a disturbance within it, and thus changes it. Something similar is true of wedding photography. We pose for photographs. We behave differently when we are being captured on film. We may feel awkward or self-conscious; we may pout or posture. In extreme cases, reality is bent around the presence of the photographic: lighting is enhanced, people are asked to stand in different places and look in different ways. Reality becomes a stage set.
And while photographers might like to describe themselves as a near-invisible presence, they are not. They set up stands, fiddle with their technology, wander around, distract the congregation and interject themselves into the scene that they are supposed to be silently capturing. No wonder vicars and photographers have an awkward relationship, especially at weddings.
Their feud is heightened by the fact that too many photographers don’t know the difference between a church and a secular hall. They don’t appreciate that a sacred space is often structured around graduations of holiness; that certain bits of the church are dedicated to specific liturgical functions. Taking cameras into the sanctuary, for instance, disturbs the sense that the couple is entering into something holy. The Hebrew word for holy is kodesh, which means to be set apart, and it is this setting apart that lies at the heart of a service of holy matrimony. In the sacred sanctuary, with the priest, the couple make their vows to almighty God — but someone ambling in with a camera undermines this moment completely. And photographers will do this even if you have specifically asked them not to. They wager that if the service is in progress, the vicar will not have the front to call them out on it. I tell couples at the rehearsal that I will do precisely that if their photographer doesn’t behave. And I have done.
Photographers buzzing about like entitled brats, thinking the service is all about them make weddings less special. But it’s more than just behaviour. Susan Sontag wrote in her brilliant exploration of the philosophy of photography: “To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves… it turns people into objects that can be symbolically processed.” This is soul-stealing redescribed for the acquisitive society. The Marxist critic György Lukács called it “reification” — that is, turning something living into an object. In other words, the transformation of living, breathing human love into a visual commodity, something frozen and dead.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe photogs who treat weddings as fashion portfolios are certainly like this. But most of us workaday ones are not. We’re trying to stay out of the way, trying to catch that moment of that glance, that shy smile, that glow. Or we’re working the party afterwards trying to make sure we get a pictures of the families and relatives who will rarely get together ever again due to age, distance, or acrimony briefly set aside. It’s true, some photogs are clods in the churches (or are bloody prima donnas) – but the good ones check with the clergy to make sure they know where they can be out of the way, and out of everyone’s minds so that the wedding remains the focus.
To present the other side of the case: Many years back I was forced to interrupt a wedding service I was leading in order to force the photographer to get out of the way and allow the guests (who are ALL witnesses) to see what was taking place. And it wasn’t as if I hadn’t been clear as crystal with them beforehand. The family and guests were very grateful to me for doing so.
Husband and I had the most arrogant, officious b*tch of a wedding photographer – she actually tipped over the table on which our wedding cake was the centerpiece, smashing its five tiers of real yellow roses to the floor. (My mother cried). And that was in 1982.
Better to have a bunch of friends take candids on their phones.
Awful for you at the time I’m sure but this was so hilarious for my birthday 😉
My least favourite two inventions are the camera and the mirror, so many thanks, Giles, for this piece. In my denomination (Church of Scotland) photographers are just as bad at Christenings. But what is even worse is when those attending are all holding up their smartphones to capture the moment.
Incidentally, some photographers continue to be intrusive, even at the reception. At a recent wedding reception here in Scotland, we were dancing an eightsome reel (a vigourous Scots dance, involving rapid circular motion of each eight). I happened to be in the same eight as the bride and we had the photographer running around outside our circle poking his selfie stick between the dancers.
—the photographer running around outside our circle poking his selfie stick between the dancers
He might have got KIA, faithful to his duty to the last breath 😉
Had he been KIA, I would have done a Paddy Barr on his grave, not to mention his selfie stick
Have just imagined it vividly And this without you showing me the photos!
I suspect that some couples are more focused on the appearance rather than the meaning of the event and that this explains the behaviour of the photographers. After all these days it’s all about ‘me’ and how ‘I’ appear. This explains the endless obsessional pursuit of perfection in the things that are superficial; the venue, the catering, the dress the flowers. So, sadly the photographer is just doing what the couple want. Though that does not excuse him/her.
You are correct. I moved to a new congregation where I ‘inherited’ a wedding from the previous minister. At the wedding practice, the evening before, I commented to the couple that although everything almost certainly wouldn’t go exactly as planned it didn’t matter – and the important thing was that they were marrying each other. She glared, scowled, and spat out “It had better be perfect.”
A year or so later I happened into a local shop where she was pouring her heart out to the shopkeeper because her marriage had collapsed. Surprised? No. I wasn’t.
I totally agree. Photographs suck memories into a static pose, one no longer can remember much of the event, just what’s in the photograph. I don’t have family photos on display, I want my own idiosyncratic memories.
Indeed. And it’s true not only when it comes to events. I have never been the one who takes pictures of the places I visited. Recently, I was describing to a colleague a beautiful street I discovered during a recent trip. She immediately asked me to show a photo. This was so strange for me. When you listen to people, your imagination is working. Even if the picture in your mind is completely different from what it is in reality, so what? It’s not forensic evidence…
Still, so many people believe in a phrase often used in social media, “A picture or it never happened” 😉
“A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” Ludwig Wittgenstein
“He’d once drawn an old Hueco’s portrait and unwittingly chained the man to his own likeness.” Cormac McCarthy
“As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.” STC
As always, there is a balance to be struck and it seems that too often neither side (photographers or vicars) seem willing to discuss and agree a modus operandi.
For once I agree with Giles, though. If you want your £25K plus wedding (what a waste of money and exercise in conspicuous consumption) to be a theatrical performance for Instagram, have it in a non-religious location. And 99 times out of 100 neither bride nor groom actually goes to church any other time.
The photographer has no rights in the church. It is a worship service, in the presence of God. He or she does what they are asked by the pastor, or they can sling their hook.
This is so true!
‘Instagrammable’ v authentic
If the hall, church, mosque, or wherever is charging for the privilege of holding the ceremony then they are at exactly the same level of sacredness as the caterer, photographer or dressmaker.
Even sacred buildings have to pay for heating, lighting and maintenance. Even the most spiritual of clergy neeed to buy groceries and all the rest. For what reason should wedding couples not share in the cost? In a £25k wedding the cost of a church ceremony is way down the list below catering, wines, photographer, dresses, disco, flowers etc.
Touché! I like it. When money changed hands we are in a different domain. I think Jesus had an issue once with commerce in a sacred place.
Demanding a fee for religious services is called simony: it is sinful in the eyes of the Catholic Church (and, I assume, other churches and religions). However, that does not stop churches from “suggesting” “donations” of a certain amount for the use of the church building and the clergy member’s time. However, if the couple getting married is genuinely hard up, the church will allow reduced “donations”. (I believe the same is true when the couple getting married has been active parish volunteers for years.)
Good article, however the church do charge so its not quite as simple unless they are willing to accept they will ‘earn’ less from wedding services, if people boycott. Maybe they should stipulate Photos can only be taken outside if a service is in process?
Have you seen the oriental craze for wedding photos?
So exactly right.
But it’s not the photographer, per se, as interloper/reifier who reduces the sacred ceremony into imaged transaction. He is but the mechanism, the lens, the shutter-click that captures micro-instants of the whole.
Rather it is the Couple (most typically the Bride, speaking bluntly) and the Culture itself which is corrupting.
A marriage, this sacred union of man & woman, the pledging of troth before God & Family, this indissoluble, eternal Covenant has been transmogrified to mere Party… a DJ’d dance contest & open bar: too loud & pounding to even think…or talk…or meet…everyone become a Caricature in this the last Hurrah of so-called Singlehood, even though they’ve lived together for the last 4 years (So when are they gonna play, “Save Horse, Ride a Cowboy!?”).
But even more than Party, the Wedding is now the Celebration of Me (and, of course, my spouse…wherever they went). The so-called narcissism of the Photographer is but the moon’s reflection of the narcissistic couple’s gleaming strike-a-pose event. Watch us strut into the Reception! Look on our works, ye Mighty (our flowers, our centerpieces, the size of those speakers!) and Despair!
No longer do they play dress-up Barbie…they dress up Mom & Dad, & Mom & Dad in-Law…and a line of Bridesmaids and Groomsmen…and pretty much anyone who’ll be sitting close to the stage and become a part of the imaged action. This is not a family event; family is but the backdrop there to make the crowd scenes lively. This is not a Godly event — as the curtains rise and the orchestra swells, and the perfectly coiffed beautiful people follow their choreographed marks, nudged by Wedding Planners right on cue. (Can we even spell Humility?) This is a RomCom Musical (wait for the embarrassing speeches!) with Cake and lots of beer (or champagne…depending on the size of the purse and the nature of the venue)…and TikTok uploads.
Gosh she looks just like JLo in that movie, what’s its name?
And of course, given that parties inevitably end…and bills inevitably must be paid…and accounts always come due…is it really surprising that half of all these galas become divorces?
Sacred liturgy indeed; let’s get this party started!
Fortunately I don’t remember the days of having everyone at the wedding freeze for hours on end to give time for the artist at his easel to catch up.
On the Sabbath and holy days, no electronic device can be used. No phone, no camera, no computer, no car – nothing. The purpose is to separate oneself from worldly things and connect again to God and to one’s fellow man, family, loved ones. The very TIME is considered to be sacred.
I think many married men (perhaps all) have experienced an elaborate, expensive wedding, and decided it was best to not say anything.
Families want wedding pictures. To a disappointed family, it’s no good saying, after the event, that you weren’t given the time/space to do what was desired.
Some photogs go too far, but the reality is that after the day, most people don’t remember that ‘little event by the altar’.
“In 20 years time, these are all I’ll have to remember my beautiful petal’s perfect day” and you missed that non-existent dewy eyed ‘I Do’ moment.
Sadly, in my experience, the church + vicar is generally no more than nice backdrop to a wedding.
Now, photographing funerals is quite a different set of problems altogether…..
“Marriage is a gift from God”
Does the reverend author actually believe that, or is he just repeating a mantra that’s been handed down to him from previous generations of vicars in order to make himself feel a bit more special and the central character in a wedding ceremony?
He’s railing at photography and its practitioners; not just at weddings – although we’re all familiar with his musings about their conduct at such events – but in general, as if they’re taking something sacred away from all our selves. He may well be right; we’re also familiar with the inanity of the selfie and missing what’s in front of us by weilding our phones instead of looking.
But i suspect what he’s really railing at is the loss of the sense that those couples standing before him no longer have reverence for the reverend. He’s there to facilitate a process and he doesn’t like it.
Marriage is a holy institution. Without the presence of G*d, it is nothing more than a contract.
And what of the unions of all those countless generations stretching back into pre-history? We remain the same species, inclined to coupling for obvious reasons.
That alone renders the concept of “marriage without god” meangingless, except to those who can’t see beyond this particular layer of our recent past.
Agreed. I’m pretty sure that the church actually appropriated the pre-existing contractual version as a way to extract rents and enact control. Marriage was primarily about allocating and determining property rights. There is a far more established history of bridewealth/dowries than there is of a religious veneer over monogamous unions.
I agree that marriage without the presence of G*d is nothing more than a contract but it’s not much more with G*d either.
it’s classic conservative thinking that puts the “way things should be” as some cherry-picked version of the relatively recent past.
‘Marriage without God’?
That is the Christian English name, of course, so naturally there have been countless couples ‘weddings’ over the millennia which have not evoked the Christian/English ‘God’. The real question would be how many ‘weddings’ have there been which were not marked by their particular culture as sacred?
I would suspect that number to be exceedingly tiny, wouldn’t you?
In any world civilized enough to recognize the critical importance of ‘husband/wife’ (to the society…to the life of the tribe…to the family, past & future), the marriage of same would ordinarily be a sanctified & celebrated event.
As Julian notes…marriage is, indeed, a holy institution. It would be difficult to find a culture which did not treat it as such.
There was no mention of the almighty during my wedding and it’s worked out fine. My marriage is just as meaningful as yours or anybody else’s
Interesting point. And it raises a whole slew of questions. We might ask what you mean when you say ‘it’s worked out fine’. We’d want to know whether the wedding was in a Church…or performed by a preacher/pastor/priest? Or was it a civil ceremony in someone’s office, officiated by a Clerk? Was family present? What worlds were actually said? And we’d want to know what you mean by ‘meaningful’….and how you know it’s just as meaningful as anyone else’s?
But beyond all that, we’d want to know what was in your heart at the moment of the ceremony? (And that’s something that you may not even actually recognize…most of us probably wouldn’t)
That no mention was made of God during the ritual itself does not mean that God was not present…or that the marriage was not — in other ways — sanctified. When we fully promise each to the other, a love that is faithful, permanent, exclusive, self-sacrificing, and life-giving, we do so before God, whether we nod in His direction or not.
No, it’s that – if you happen to be religious, and want it to be that. Otherwise it is indeed a contract. And not “just a contract”. it’s an extremely important one.
Of course, what matters most, is what we then make of the marriage. And the essence of that is probably little to do with either the contract, or any religious belief.
The way Rev. Fraser feels about wedding photographers not appreciating or respecting the sacred institution of marriage and the sacred temple which is the church is a lot like how I feel about all the girls in yoga pants at mass on Sunday. While my sister says, “well, at least their coming to mass,” I say, “coming to mass and showing your a** isn’t necessarily better than not coming to mass.” I think it was the second Sunday of Lent that the Gospel reading was Matthew 21. That’s the one where Jesus turns over the tables of merchants who are using his “Father’s House” (the Temple) for their own purposes. That sorta works for the wedding photographer’s insensitivity to the notion that making the bride look super hot for her wedding TikTok while standing at the altar might be a perversion of the Temple’s purpose.