As photographers, we have a responsibility not to misrepresent the history and culture of our subjects. An exchange on Instagram gave me a stark reminder of how easily this responsibility is forgotten and abused, especially in the world of urban exploration.
A few days ago I reached out on Instagram to a fellow photographer to tell him that his description of a historic building was inaccurate. The photograph that prompted me to get in touch was of a snow-laden Buzludzha, the memorial house and monument of the Bulgarian Communist party, a surreal structure that stands atop a mountain in the Balkans. For years it has been a classic destination for urban explorers, despite the repeated efforts of authorities to prevent visitors from gaining entry. While living in Bulgaria, I could see this incredible building on the horizon from the window of my home, and I was fortunate enough to visit it at a time when gaining access didn't require forcing our way inside.
Alongside his photo of Buzludzha, the photographer had written the caption "Soviet UFO." "This is not Soviet!" I wrote in my comment, slightly annoyed that another self-proclaimed explorer had happily trekked all the way up a mountain to photograph the building but was being extremely lazy with his research. The photographer replied with a link to Wikipedia that did nothing to support his caption. My reply was not entirely diplomatic — I sent a quote from Buzludzha's architect, Georgi Stoilov: "This is not a Soviet monument." After this, I was immediately blocked and my comments deleted. I can appreciate that not everyone's historical knowledge of Eastern Europe is extensive, but if you are going to travel and photograph something, at least do some research.
Slightly annoyed, I dug a little further. On the photographer's website, I found a self-published book, available to preview, that compiled a few of his exploration projects, including his trip to Buzludzha. Darmon Richter, a historian who specializes in Bulgarian history, identified a few of the book's inaccuracies: "I looked at page one and I have some comments. The altitude is 1432 m, not 1441 m. The tower is 70 m, not 107 m. It was abandoned in 1997, not 1989. The [architect's] name is spelt 'Georgi Stoilov.' And no, it's not Soviet."
Richter told me not to get too sniffy, explaining that a lot of erroneous information regarding Buzludzha had been circulating on the internet — including Wikipedia — for several years, something he was working hard to correct. It's likely that the photographer had stumbled upon some inaccuracies in doing his research so perhaps I shouldn't be too critical, but it does raise questions as to how photographers record (and perhaps even change) history.
A superficial preoccupation with a monument's appearance can create problems, but, as I've written elsewhere, this can also be a good thing. Like many monuments, Bulzludzha was designed deliberately to seem otherworldly and to inspire a sense of awe. Criticizing someone for being captivated by its appearance is doing a disservice to the architect and the culture that created it; its aesthetics are a fundamental part of how it was intended to function as architecture. And, arguably, the fetishization of Buzludzha over the years is now helping to find a future for a structure that has always held an awkward place in Bulgarian culture.
That said, turning culturally distinctive architecture into clickbait can come at a cost, and clumsily portraying a country's culture can be incredibly offensive, as well as politically charged. As a Bulgarian friend explained, "When a photographer is the one who misrepresents us, to me it's clear this is political arrogance rather than personal ignorance." At first, this may sound harsh, but, in a post-truth world, if your images are reaching thousands of people, you have a moral obligation to ensure that you are not disseminating alternative facts.
To any budding urban explorers — and photographers more broadly — I'd urge you not forget the importance of respecting the culture and history of what you discover. That's not to say that you shouldn't create striking, otherworldly images of bizarre locations from around the world, but please think twice before romanticizing them further by stripping them of their cultural context, and please take care to make sure you do your research properly. Scanning a Wikipedia page on the plane back home is not enough.
To learn more about Buzludzha, click here. Bulgaria is an incredible country with a rich and diverse history, and a trip to the Balkans should be on every photographer's bucket list.
To much has already been lost or changed in history. We really do need to preserve what's left. Integrity is in the most minute details.
Timely and necessary information. What I find most distressing in this new "post-truth" age is not so much the spread of misinformation––that's nothing new unfortunately–– but the avoidance (if not downright hostility) toward accepting corrections. That this photographer blocked you rather than correct the inaccuracies is inexcusable.
Maybe it's a product of digital communication where we can't use social cues to understand intent, and genuine attempts to correct something are seen as attacks. Or maybe our culture's infatuation with "winning" (rather than being accurate) has bred a subset of pompous, stubborn buffoons.
Either way, those who jump onto Wikipedia and claim to be experts on something, then doggedly protect their right to "their opinion" rather than address facts, do our culture, our future, and themselves a massive disservice.
Well said.
I'm sorry, what? A guy captioned a photo "Soviet UFO" and the part you took exception to was "Soviet"? Either the guy was having a bit of fun, in which case he was probably right to block some nutjob screaming at him about "historical accuracy", or he was serious, in which case I refer back to the original question... THAT'S the part you took exception to? And you thought you could reason with a guy regarding the historical nature of something he actually believes to be a UFO?
It sounds like he's not the only one deluding himself in a post-truth world. Did I miss something? Have I now fully entered the Twilight Zone? Did Fstoppers get hacked?
Well, it was identified and not flying (although it is an object) so the captioner knew it wasn't a UFO. And Andy did mention that the architect purposely designed it to look otherworldly, so I understand that description. That he thought it was Soviet is historically inaccurate, however, so what exactly is wrong with correcting him?
I see this as the equivalent of someone pointing at the Statue of Liberty and saying "Look at that Canadian lady!" We can assume they don't think it's an actual 300ft tall green woman and know it's a statue of a woman, but we can still correct them for thinking it's in Canada.
You can, but you'd still be deluding yourself in thinking you're fighting the good fight and taking an actual stand against misinformation. Seriously, if you were going to write an article about the importance of moral obligations regarding facts, would that really be the example you'd go with? A guy making an offhanded comment about the nationality of a statue that's not even in the country he's referencing? I think your example is actually a perfect illustration of my point. Some things are just so absurd you need to let them go, A) because you're not going to educate a person who is that insistent on being clueless, and B) because it's far too irrelevant to be a good example of the dangers of alternative facts. Now if it had been printed on the cover of TIME with that statement, I'd think it would be worth an article. When it's just a comment on one dude's Instagram account? Mountain out of a molehill.
"I think your example is actually a perfect illustration of my point. Some things are just so absurd you need to let them go."
Fair enough. I understand how you can see this as pointless, and you my be right. I don't how many times I've tried to correct someone who insisted on remaining clueless and thought afterward "why the hell am I doing this?" I wouldn't necessarily fault someone for trying, however.
"Seriously, if you were going to write an article about the importance of moral obligations regarding facts, would that really be the example you'd go with?"
Personally, no, this wouldn't be the example I'd go with because I'm not an expert in the subject, nor do I have a passion for 20th century Bulgarian history. I don't want to speak for the author here, but he has written pretty extensively on monuments and the region (he links to his work in the article). So it's obviously important to him.
"When it's just a comment on one dude's Instagram account?"
The photographer had published a book of the images as well, with other inaccuracies. So it's more than that. Granted, the author probably could have gone about the whole thing differently (which he does admit), but there was a lot of misinformation being spread around on a topic he cared about. I can understand his curtness.
Just to reiterate what I wrote above: I don't want the fact that this is an online conversation distort what I've wrote and make it sound like I'm being argumentative. I definitely get where you're coming from, but I also understand why the author would do what he did.
All fair points, I think, had "UFO" not appeared so prominently next to the word he took issue with. At that point, like I said, it's either a joke or the guy has bigger screws loose than mischaracterizing the national origin of a structure. I suppose I just wonder about the thought process of somebody who glosses straight past that part in order to engage in a serious discussion about something that clearly wasn't the most telling part of that description, and then write an article about it.
"Alongside his photo of Buzludzha, the photographer had written the caption "Soviet UFO." "This is not Soviet!" I wrote in my comment, slightly annoyed that another self-proclaimed explorer had happily trekked all the way up a mountain to photograph the building but was being extremely lazy with his research."
I mean, that has crazy written all over it. ;)
"it's either a joke or the guy has bigger screws loose than mischaracterizing the national origin of a structure."
LOL
Where is the line between what is clearly satire and what is ignorant misleading? Or worse, intentional misleading?
The UFO part was, to me anyway, clearly on the satire side of the line. Only people with tinfoil hats would not get that it was satire. The Soviet part is however on the misleading side. I think most people would swallow the Soviet part in one gulp without looking back.
Satire must be intentional and such that it is clearly satire (and ideally communicating something in the process). Otherwise we are intentionally or ignorantly misleading people.
Of course it is a soviet monument, it has the bloody star on it, doesn't it? Look at the history page you linked to -- there are red soviet flags with sickle and hammer all over the place during the opening ceremony. Bulgaria was a communist country controlled by the soviet union. Apart from being built in Russia can it get any more soviet?
Despite the unfortunate reality of those times one has to recognise the efforts of many who tried to do good, perhaps Stoilov spoke about his intentions when designing it when he says “It is completely free from that association.” but the fact is it has the star on it, it was built under the communist occupation therefore it is not free from that association.
Perhaps you take issue with the exact word? In the former soviet (sic!) block 'soviet', 'bolshevik', 'communist', 'socialist' and 'stalinist' all were words used to describe the same murderous regime and were an equally damning insult.
"Apart from being built in Russia can it get any more soviet?" Er, yes. It could have been built in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus... 😂
...which were part of the same country at the time, usually referred to simply as Russia at the time; I may have used more technically correct term USSR to spare you the laughs.
I tend to agree with your take. Bulgaria was part of the Warsaw Pact/ Soviet Bloc; an extension of the Soviet Union. It was a satellite of the Soviet Union.
That's like saying France is a satellite of the USA just because USA created NATO in 1949. Both NATO and the Warsaw pact were military defense treaties. Bulgaria was a communist country but was never a soviet one. The term 'soviet' only applies to countries which were part of the USSR.
During the Cold War, France kind of was a satellite of the USA. But your point is not correct because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian entity that forcibly imposed its will on its satellites. If Bulgaria had chosen to go against the USSR, it most likely would have been crushed, like Czech and Hungary.
This is from The Calvert Journal article that is linked about:
"Western media is intent on labelling Buzludzha as “Soviet,” but locally it was viewed as an exercise in world architecture: an expression of Bulgaria’s new freedom from Soviet-style architectural formalism. The 550 square metres of interior mosaics may offer a sparkling celebration of communist ideology, but, crucially, Buzludzha celebrates Bulgarian, not Soviet, communism. “A Pantheon of Bulgaria,” Stoilov calls it. “This is not a Soviet monument,” he says. “It is completely free from that association.”
Supposedly the star on top is the logo of the Bulgarian Communist Party. None of this is my forte, so feel free to find evidence to the contrary. But the architect and the Bulgarian people do not see this as Soviet.
I don't know enough about Bulgarian history to comment about how it is or was perceived but to me it sounds like distinguishing between different types of cancer. One may be less deadly than another but they are all a disease and have a common label for a reason.
It's like saying that a building constructed under the nazis was viewed as a symbol of a particular land. That may be but it doesn't make it any less associated with the nazis. It is pointless to argue which regime was worse but, sadly, they are part of our history and neither is a laughing matter. Thank you for a considerate reply.
"I don't know enough about Bulgarian history to comment." And yet...
I understand your opinion on communist regimes (one that I generally agree with you on) but the purpose here was historical accuracy, regardless of personal judgements. To further your example, we do differentiate between Vichy France and Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy, for instance, not to make judgement calls on either governments, but to be cognizant of cultural and historical differences that defined them. I would argue (at least from the evidence posted here) that a similar differentiation should be made between Bulgarian Communism and Soviet Russia.
Also, if I had cancer I’d like to know if it were brain, lung, skin, etc. and if my doctor said “it doesn’t matter, it’s all cancer” I’d get a new doctor. :)
My point was they are all a disease and neither is good. I'll stop here as I said what I felt was necessary and any further discussion would become more and more personal opinion, perhaps more suitable to argue about over a pint.
"perhaps more suitable to argue about over a pint." As all good arguments are! :)
In the context of historical accuracy, it doesn't matter whether or not you feel that "they are all a disease and neither is good". What matters is accuracy.
The person calling the building a "Soviet UFO" had inaccurately described the building. Since the building was not constructed by the Soviet Union, but by the Bulgarian Communist regime, the statement was inaccurate.
Since many folks won't bother to read an encyclopedia or other source of accurate data, accurate descriptions matter. Simple as that. Arguing your subjective opinion in the context of matters of fact is unacceptable.
Nothing new there. This photographer might have done it as a results of ignorance but there are many working 'professionals' who would have no issue changing and skewing facts as a result of their ideology.
Although the world press and all its associates should thrive for objectiveness they are probably furthest from objectiveness than most.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, Andy. Ignorance has always been available in abundance, and it reflects on Instagram and other parties - not you. Since we can never get rid of them, we have to ignore them and move on. A problem is something you can only do one of two things with - solve it, or keep having it, and if you can't solve it, there's no point in wasting time worrying about it.
well said.
Another issue I have, not so relevant to this topic, is seeing "blog traveller" taking the amazing 10k likes pics while riding elephants and camels.
And how those animals are treated is pretty straightforward, beaten in front of you if they don't collaborate for the ride, you can see the abuse mark on them, and yet they have no problems to continue and fish likes with it
This article is in itself dishonest and an attempt to distort history and language.
Firstly, the term "Soviet" can be used in a multitude of ways. In this case it was arguably being used to refer to the PERIOD. And yes, the building was constructed when Russia was the USSR and Bulgaria was its satellite. The "Soviet UFO" that the author of the article so pompously objects to is entirely justifiable on these very fair grounds.
Secondly, the quote from the architect is not a statement of fact but of an ideology:
>>locally it was viewed as an exercise in world architecture: an expression of Bulgaria’s new freedom from Soviet-style architectural formalism. The 550 square metres of interior mosaics may offer a sparkling celebration of communist ideology, but, crucially, Buzludzha celebrates Bulgarian, not Soviet, communism. “A Pantheon of Bulgaria,” Stoilov calls it. “This is not a Soviet monument,” he says. “It is completely free from that association.”<<
No one is obliged to accept this - it's ***branding,*** not history. And in fact the monument would look completely at home next to it's Russian contemporaries, and most Bulgarians would laugh at the idea that the Bulgarian party ever had the sort of independence claimed in this statement from the Russians. (I almost married a former aide to the president of the country - so I think I probably know more about how Bulgarians think than the author.)
..You can certainly make an argument that the building is not Soviet (I think it would fail) but to ***assume*** that argument is dishonest. This article is entirely pompous and self-serving. Except where it is downright stupid - which it is when it accepts a politically-charged, self-serving statement from the architect as fact. Especially as that statement concerns something isn't actually factual but a question of viewpoint. And not only that but architect who was high in the favour of the Bulgarian Communist Party, which is a virtual guarantee that he lacks any close adherence to the truth...
To show how silly it is to claim that this building even represented a distinctive non-Soviet architectural style:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/04/article-2242738-1657CC70000005...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/soviet-buildings-from-the-mid-20th-century...
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=...
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/73/7a/bb/737abb4c17dcef5644b415db357d4111--geo...
In fact Soviet Russia was littered with bus shelters that in this whacky UFO style -
https://www.google.co.uk/search?cr=countryUK%7CcountryGB&biw=1252&bih=53...
And let's look at another way that the author mis-represented his social media feud:
>> Darmon Richter, a historian who specializes in Bulgarian history
Well, you COULD call Richter a historian - to the same extent you could me one. I.e. I've read a book or two on the subject. But I don't have a recognised research degree in the subject, which is what most people would assume - ie I don't have an qualifications to show that I have a reasonable standard of objective knowledge and competence. Neither, so far as I can tell, does Richter. In fact, he seems to be just a guy with a blog, who organises tours. Presenting him simply as "a historian" specialising in this area is misleading - most people will assume a Phd in a Bulgarian history.
...To be fair to Richter, he doesn't seem to call himself a historian! He refers to himself using descriptions like blogger, independent traveller, and "dark tourist". But of course saying that a blogger has agreed with you isn't nearly as ego-soothing after you've acquired a case of Teh Internet Butt Hurt as claiming that a historian has...
He is a PhD scholar of Bulgarian communism, and he's completing his dissertation on representations of monuments in Eastern Europe at the University of Central Lancashire. So no, not just "a guy with a blog who organizes tours."
>>He is a PhD scholar of Bulgarian communism,
Do you mean that he HAS a Phd or that he is WORKING on a Phd? If so, where and in what subject?
>>and he's completing his dissertation on representations of monuments in Eastern Europe at the University of Central Lancashire.
Ok: so he is WORKING on a dissertation. Which means that, if and when he completes it and if and when it is accepted, he can THEN be called a "historian" without deception. In the mean time you can honestly call him "A Phd student."
In the meantime I suggest that you do what the author of this pile of dung should have done and read this article by Richter -
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-forgotten-communist-monoliths-...
>> It’s interesting (and perhaps unsurprising) to observe now, how Bulgaria’s pro-Soviet monuments have been allowed to fall into the worst states of repair — neglected, defiled, graffitied. Meanwhile, monuments built in the same years, by the same hands, in the same style, and yet dedicated to Bulgaria’s own history, are cherished to this day.<<
This is why it is ingenuous - brutally, ***stupid*** - to rely on the architect's claim. If he says the building is Soviet, then he is labelling himself a collaborator. If he says that it un-Soviet, he is claiming to be a Cool Guy. So only an idiot would ask him. Instead you'd look at the architectural style, which was in fact a common one throughout the USSR and it satellites, and how symbolic elements used - which were the common red star and guys-with-beards motif of, wait for it, Soviet official architecture.
To dumb this down all the way -
- This was a building built in a Soviet satellite
- During the Soviet era
- By a loyalist Soviet party
- In a Soviet approved style
- And adorned by with entirely typical Soviet imagery, including a bloody red Soviet star at the top of the bloody tower and a bloody hammer and sickle at the top of the inside of the dome...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Buzludzha_Monu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bouzloudja02.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Buzludzha_vatr...
...To say that the building is definitively un-Soviet is absolutely Orwellian.
A published author working on a dissertation is considered a historian. So no, it's not deceptive to call him a historian. I work with historians on a daily basis that have yet to complete their terminal degrees or have gone through different research and career routes that are still experts in a given subject. So you're obviously oblivious to this and talking out of your ass.
And I'm not relying on the architect's claim. I merely brought it up with the caveat, that "None of this is my forte, so feel free to find evidence to the contrary." Which you have brought up some compelling evidence. Cool.
Just stop acting like a dick about it.
>> A published author working on a dissertation is considered a historian.
No, he's considered a student who has done some freelance journalism. Or if the article was in a historical journal, he's considered, well, still just a student.
>> Just stop acting like a dick about it.
Classy. Can I suggest that you take a big dose of Grow Up? Mommy will help you open the bottle if the childproof lid is too hard...
>> And I'm not relying on the architect's claim.
No, you just presented it as evidence. That a building built by a Soviet party and covered with Soviet iconography wasn't Soviet. This is a distinction without a difference.
Oh I didn't realize you were a troll. Apologies.
I can't imagine why didn't it work out with that former aide to the president of Bulgaria. You seem to have a such a wonderful personality...
And to be clear, this architecture style was not Soviet-specific (although there are a number of examples of the style as you've shown). It was used throughout Western Europe and the Americas in the 60s and 70s as well (a neat combination of brutalism and the space-age). Here are two examples: the first in Paris and the second in the Netherlands.
>> And to be clear, this architecture style was not Soviet-specific
No, ***round buildings*** were not specifically Soviet. Well done!
However, ***round buildings with huge red stars on and murals of Marx and Lenin were.***
More, the Bulgarian apparatchik who built the thing claimed that the building was un-Soviet because he had ****broken with Soviet style.*** Well, no - if the style was one commonly used for official Soviet buildings, then he hadn't, regardless of whether other people used the style to. I.e. your attempt at an argument is logically invalid as well as factually - you don't actually understand the architect's argument or my rebuttal.
Saucer-shaped brutalist-styled buildings built in the mid 20th century are what I was referencing, not just "round buildings". The fact that they were prevalent in other countries makes them not Soviet specific architecture.
You're starting to sound a little defensive and prickish. Chill with the attitude, pal.
Apparently, David, you really have no idea about the history of Brutalism and modern design.
Architects and architectural scholars would tell you that the design in the Warsaw Pact nations were part of the wider Brutalism movement that was part of the architectural scene in the West from the end of World War II to the 1970s. As with what was then West Germany and France, Brutalism was a particular feature of Warsaw Pact nations because of the rebuilding efforts after the Second World War, which was overseen primarily by governments in the midst of economic collapse. [https://www.ft.com/content/9df4d364-110f-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.]
There is no "Soviet architecture" other than what certain ideologues want to argue as part of their debate over the first Cold War (which they won). There is Brutalist architecture, and while architects in certain nations put their particularly idiosyncratic spin on those designs, the features (including use of reinforced cement) is pure Brutalism, plain and simple. In fact, many of the buildings constructed in Bulgaria would look familiar to any resident of Albany who passes by Empire State Plaza and the Egg.
You may want to tone down the sophistry, David.
Careful: David went on a date with I.M. Pei’s niece once, so he’s obviously much smarter than you! :)
As a Bulgarian myself i can say only three things: It's nicknamed "The Flying Saucer". It was built by the Bulgarian Communist party but it was never "Soviet". We all wait the day when all remaining communists will board it, fly away and leave our country. :)
Been there as a kid and it was really beautiful inside (if you don't count the propaganda posters). I never understand why they didn't make it a museum or something...
Veselin this whole discussion seems to have been derailed and turned into a discussion of "us" vs "them" - of the dreaded "communism" vs "the free world". As if any red star automatically EQUALS Soviet Russia, with a supercharger. That's not the way it works. Many countries have "socialism" in varying forms, some claim to be "communist", too - but that doesn't necessarily mean they're run by the KGB or the Kremlin.
And in any case, quite what that discussion - which relates to politics, and is just a side issue - has to do with who designed and built the building is a complete mystery. I think I'll stop tuning into this. If I want to debate politics I'll do it elsewhere, not in a photographic group.
Your article might very well be a strawman (logical fallacy).
A photographer put’s a caption to a photo on Instagram and you pretend he is some sort of historian writing a thesis with alternative facts.
To get some perspective on writing history Mark Twain might be a good starting point. He once said: “The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.”
Journalists should be accurate. Change your first inaccurate sentence. Photographers use cameras to do anything they want to do and that includes art, which is what I do and Ansel Adams did. Photo journalists do have a responsibility to be correct and accurate. But a camera is merely a tool and can be used any way you want to, Period. That means Photoshop and any post work as well with any tool is ok to get your vision out there. Accuracy is only needed to tell an accurate story. Screw these narcissistic purist psychos.
I actually start to love reading comments more than reading the articles lately!
It seems to me that the problem here is not that mistakes were made in the original research, that can happen, but that once those mistakes were pointed out, the author declined to investigate and correct them. Which is egotistocial, lazy and, most significantly, unethical. The real message here is be an ethical photographer. We can all benefit from that.
So much is just sloppy editing or research. My wife and I were watching an architecture show on Netflix that was UK-based and clearly a bit on the low budget side. While focusing on the Lincoln Memorial in DC, a sidebar outlined the Washington Monument and identified it as the "Vietnam Memorial"... we just looked at each other and cracked up. And of course then wondered about the accuracy of all of the information we saw about other countries.