I’ve been thinking that I might write something slightly controversial regarding the Urbex mantra- ‘Take only pictures, leave only footprints’ over the last few days so here goes. I think I’ll be doing two posts, one a counter argument to the other.
Urbex is the exploration of abandoned buildings or locations of one sort or another, by its very meaning the locations are abandoned – not inhabited and mostly with little maintenance or care taken of them. Owners vacated poorly shoring up the security. Often these places are quite literally a walk in. In the UK this is classed as trespass, its a civil offence, meaning that the owner has to catch you and prove that damage was caused, hence not going to these places ‘tooled up’, but taking advantage of broken windows, doors or tunnels.
If the location is easy to get into one would surmise that the owner does not care or cannot afford to defend the property correctly. Often the places are earmarked for demolition (as is the case of two well known asylums in the South of England). One would hope that all items of value, historical, emotional or personal attachment had been removed, this is not always the case though. I have come across personal letters and medical records, even x-rays with nanes and a toe tag at a mortuary.
What’s to stop the UE enthusiast taking a memento of a visit? The owner can’t care about them, if the did they would have been removed or secured. This is of course theft – a criminal offence – totally different to being caught solely taking pictures. If the explorer takes a picture, book, magazine or letter, something of little material value is it really so bad?
If items are taken they will be preserved, all be it in a dislocated ‘urbex collection’ and it gives the explorer a small trophy, something to remember the trip by and possibly a piece of history that may only ever bee seen in a glass case in a museum.
Of course if everyone were to take something from a location there would be nothing left for others to find. This for me is one of the best parts of UE. On a recent trip we found maths books and magazines from a broken trunk, obviously once owned by a very intelligent child. These were dated from around 60 years ago – during the Second World War. aeroplane spotting guides and a hand written list of planes the child had seen locally (this was in an area of many air fields of that time). It certainly gave a sense of personality to the location. I could imagine the child running out to see the fighters and bombers when he heard the engines rumbling in the distance either going out on raids or limping home after action with the German defences. Maybe he counted them out and counted them in and was sad to find that not all returned?
If no one takes these they will be destined to end up as rubble and the record gone forever.
So should we take these things? maybe try to find out the owner and reunite them, or leave them for the next person?
Mark,
A very good point you make here! Its one to ponder on I think! If the person taking such items were to reunite them with the original owner I think it would be amazing! In reality I don’t think it would happen ;( I hear to many stories of so called urbexers taking items and I just find it sad!
Best to capture what you can and leave in the knowledge you have it in the can and not in your bag!
Best
Nick
Interesting note Mark. One would think that items left behind were just that, left behind. But, it is not yours either. Wow. What a tough one. I say, prior to demolition, people should be allowed to come and take anything they deem of value so that it does not get thrown away. Otherwise, it should stay. I don’t that might work. Great post!
Excellent and thought-provoking article Mark, your best yet I reckon, and a great photo too. It is a tricky one, and could probably be debated at length with pros and cons for each standpoint. I quite like Jim’s idea, but in practice this would probably never happen!
Hit on a really good point here mate . Jim’s idea is nice but imagine the arguments explorers would have over who spotted it first lol . It sure is a shame these things are lost to scrap or buried under a tonne of rubble .
A great read that 😀
I don’t think the issue so much lies with people taking a momento, nor preserving items for others to see in the future. The problem is the people who profiteer from such visits, those who make the visit to a site under the guise of an “Urban Explorer” but who’s eyes are firmly fixed on which items they can sell on. The collection of old industrial lampshades that disappear from site then shortly re-appear on eBay, the eye Charts previously photographed at a site and yet again mysteriously after disappearing they appear on eBay.
Everyone I have ever had the pleasure of exploring with has held the same ethos as me, leave it as you found it and regardless of how appealing a momento may be, it would never cross my mind to take it, nor to actively wander a building trying to identify where my next pay cheque is coming from.
I like to leave exactly as I found it, and for me the point of going is to see something that not everyone else does, to try and imagine how it was previously and to take photos – it’s the latter which I class as my trophy.
Luckily so far all the ways in have been open ones so I haven’t even had the moral decision to force anything at this stage. The one time I did have to remove barb wire from a fence to gain access I replaced and retied it on the way out.
I agree that it seems a shame for some things, especially those which are personal, to be left there to die under the rubble, but it’s not my job to give them a better home or try and reunite them with anyone and my life is no worse off knowing that they are going to disappear entirely in the near future. I do disagree with taking for sale though as there is nothing but personal gain here – those people may as well just be stripping lead off the roof or stealing copper.
Interesting point well made Mark. Personally I’m in the take only pictures camp but I see the counter argument. I guess my thought is how would I feel if someone sold items relating to family member without consent
Great post Mark and the others seem to have voiced an opinion similar to mine. The physical object may be lost forever, but photographs taken by folks like us means that, like moments caught in time, they will be remembered forever. Or at least till us and our hard drives cease to be. 🙂
Yeah Dan i spotted that e-bay page your on about and its really bad when you see things like that happening . I checked out the seller history on those lamp shades and they added up to well over a grand . It is best to leave items there for others to appreciate but not everyone thinks like that .Its the small things that make a great location !!!!!
I’m in agreement that the thievery corporation is VERY bad, but somewhat inevitable.
Also totally agree that the small things are what makes the explore – its awesome finding stuff over 100 years old, pieces of someone life. otherwise there there would only be empty rooms which are far less interesting, besides I wouldn’t have a chance to use the macro!
From the fb post… If you’re not seeking to define urbex then you shouldn’t make clear claims about what urbex is (“Urbex is the exploration of abandoned buildings or locations of one sort or another, by its very meaning the locations are abandoned”). It’s simply false and in my opinion detracts from credibility you’re trying to build an author discussing the topic.
On the topic itself, having met hundreds of explorers over the past 10 years doing this the common element I’ve found is that people will do what they like, regardless of their online claims. I’ve met explorers who take copper, explorers who are outright thieves, people who sell souvenirs on ebay, people who take trinkets and people who take nothing at all. In the end people will do as they please and the hobby is so large now that people can easily gravitate towards groups in which they’re morally accepted. There are groups who steal stuff routinely and groups who parrot the mantra you referred to.
Obviously removing items detracts from the experience of those who follow, yet so often people are also selfish and act as if they’ve a right to experience locations in a particular way of their choosing. We’re all small blips on the trajectory of these locations, the decline of which is caused by a number of factors – one behind human interaction. We’ve no rights to the building in any particular state. It is what it is, to be pragmatic get in early if your desire is pristine artifact filled locations.
While many talk about nobly saving artifacts, I think it’s thinly veiled justification for simply taking things. Unless the items end up being shared somehow (in a museum) then they’re no better off to society/humanity selfishly sitting on an explorer’s shelf than if they went into the landfill with the demolition in the first place.
Excellent response and I totally agree with you – it takes all kinds from the copper thieves to the trinket hoarders, and you’re right that people will move towards groups where whatever level of theft (if any) is accepted.
Appreciate your considered input to the discussion which is exactly what I was aiming to provoke.