What strikes me immediately are the vibrant colors of the houses.
Walk through most any suburban American neighborhood and you'll primarily see neutral shades of white, gray, beige, or the occasional muted blues and greens. Sometimes someone will be daring and paint their house in a deep, dark blue or purple (or even black) but that feels relatively rare.
If near the ocean, typical "seaside pastels" come into view.
What's the backstory to the Faroes' colors? Are they set by some local entity/government? Left up to the homeowners? Was there a push to make them colorful? Do the locals have a particular eye for color composition? Did someone help them?
Why are American homes so bland and the Faroes' so delightfully colorful?
Certainly a huge part of the color choice in the US is to increase sales. A neutral color is just easier to sell. In the Faroes, this probably doesn't matter. Just pulling a guess out of my rear.
My first thought was that given the rather inclement weather perhaps having a vibrantly colorful house may have historically helped to easily identify one's particular domicile during times of poor visibility.
Nice write up and great photos. But I have to nitpick- the claim that there are no sandy beaches is false- Tjørnuvik Beach is a cool black sand beach. You can even take surf lessons there.
I was in the Faroe Islands just 3 weeks ago, including the walk to the Kallur lighthouse. Spectacular beautiful place, already planning my next visit and to explore many more places than I reached this time around.
I was there 8 weeks ago! I'll be posting pictures soon (stay tuned on IG @dheeranet) as well but quite a magical place, you see multiple seasons a day. Super place for introverts, you can book a place in Torshavn for a week and daytrip pretty much everything from there.
The only downside was that you had to pay for most of the hikes, and the money isn't actually going towards any real work getting done.
Unfortunately home to grindadrap [0], one of the most cruel traditions in the world where hundreds of white dolphins are hunted with high speed motor boats and painfully slaughtered for sport.
I dislike Sea Shepherd as an organization, due to their distasteful methods (and personal bias, being a Faroese resident). But I spoke with several of their volunteers during one of their campaigns, and was pleased to realize that, as individuals, their hearts are mostly in the right place. Nearly all of them claimed to be vegan, which I feel does give you legitimate ethical grounds from which to criticize grindadráp.
However, if you don't oppose the general consumption of meat, I don't find the argument against grindadráp compelling. It yields more meat per killed animal than most, and the slaughter itself is arguably no less humane than most commercial meat production (not a high bar, I admit).
In terms of publicity, grindadráp suffers from being inherently more visible than commercial meat production. Personally, I think this is a positive thing. It confronts you with the fact that meat doesn't magically appear in a supermarket freezer - if you want to eat meat, then by definition a living animal has to die. The visibility of grindadráp has prompted conversations with my young son about where meat comes from, and the animal welfare consequences of eating it.
Most animals these days are killed as efficiently as possible - a quick stun for chickens, a bolt through the skull for cows, etc.
The problem with commercial meat production is pretty much always the mega-farms that have them in horrible conditions during life. It's just cheaper, easier, and results in tastier meat to quickly perform the slaughter.
Whaling is pretty weird these days. On the one hand you got Japan, which is well known for it, and on the other is Norway, with a similar operation, but remains pretty unknown. They also spend loads of money researching "beneficial effects of whale products" (or something along those lines), to justify the continued whale hunting
Not as cruel as factory farming though. I find it weird how people obsess over grind when pigs are treated a lot worse at a hugely larger scale. Maybe the problem is it is out in the open?
Whale hunting (and dolphin hunting) tends to come up any time the Faroes are mentioned, and I don't understand why it's such a cause celebre. I don't see how this is worse than any other form of hunting or fishing, and frankly I prefer it to most forms of animal agriculture.
Industrialized whaling has done massive damage to global whale populations, but the Faroes are tiny and (to my knowledge) their hunting practices do not have a significant ecological impact.
It's probably because a lot of people see whales and other large sea mammals (and some large land mammals) as much closer to humans than say, tuna. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that's a correct take.
And yes, there are plenty of very arguable inconsistencies (eg: eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not) in how people look at animal consumption, but I don't particularly think that invalidates ethical concerns over whaling.
What do you mean eating horses is not OK, in Switzerland we have plenty of horse butchers, you can find horse meat products like salami in all bigger supermarkets.
Its not consumed in same amounts as beef for sure, but its not shunned by most. And yes there is no logical reason to eat beef (especially calves if we consider the cuteness factor) but not horses, horse meat is even healtier.
I'm not sure how "it's okay in <country x>!" is really relevant, TBH.
There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.
Just makes it look like people jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon when they espouse opinions that aren't broadly consistent with their actions. Like eating beef several times a week, but feeling compelled to bring up the killing of pilot whales in amounts that are not at all concerning from a species conservation point of view.
I think a lot of it has to do with how they do it. I believe a lot of other whaling operations catch and process whales at sea. In the Faroes, whales are driven into shallow water and killed near land in sight of people who aren't accustomed to such things.
Traveling to other cultures involves being exposed to seeing things you aren’t accustomed to. In many ways, that is the whole point.
I’m not defending the Faroese here (nor casting aspersions on them, either), more just saying that it’s your responsibility to research the customs of the places to which you travel, and to not go if you think you might not like what you see.
There are cruel practices in almost every country, including the US or [wherever you are from]. Society evolves over time. Different countries overcome different problems at different points in time, and the time differences are just noise on the grand timeline of history.
The developed world has more or less eradicated slavery, but it was commonplace just 0.5% ago on the human civilization timescale. Some countries eradicated it at 0.4% and others at 0.6%.
The photos generally looked like all of the other photos I've seen posted from tourists visiting the Faroe Islands, but I was impressed by the presentation of the tall portrait-orientation image of people atop a cliff. At least on my device, all of the previous images on the page had been entirely in frame at once, but that image required 3 scrolls to reach the bottom, really driving home the height of the cliff.
IMO these images are not average tourist shots. They all have basic rules of composition. The OP is at least an enthusiast photographer who shoots with intention. Good editing too.
> There are no guardrails, no warning signs, and definitely no liability waivers - just you, the weather, and whatever route the sheep decided made sense.
I absolutely love places like this; places that treat you as a discerning, rational adult. The sense of being responsible for yourself feels freeing. It is an invitation for you to experience something entirely in your own way.
I feel the same way. I've hiked a few times at one of the locations in these photos with my 8 year old son (under close supervision). I think it's a great way to build a sense of responsibility and humility.
Unfortunately, that also makes it inherently more dangerous. Just a month ago, three tourists went missing at that location. [1]
Instinctively I often think I'd like to live in such a place, I'm not quite sure though why I think that. I'm fairly sure I would in fact not after a while.
No trees at all on any of these photos, except for one photo which seems to be part of a garden (and maybe it is only larger bushes). I would feel very depressed by that alone.
It's too windy for trees there, similarly to large parts of Iceland. People could probably plant trees that are not high - I don't know what species will feel good in this climate though.
While I was there I did some search around and it seems that the wind, weather and soil is just part of it. The largest reason is sheep. They'll eat any tree before it has any chance of growing. So you get naturally sparse growth already, add the sheep, you get grass everywhere. Which makes everywhere very walkable and surreal at the same time. Plenty of trees on cities and gardens.
That’s because the sheep graze everywhere and eat sprouting saplings. The only trees are in areas fenced off from the sheep. I agree this is a bit depressing.
There are almost no trees. It's one of the most striking things about the landscape and has its own beauty. What they have instead is incredibly lush grass. It looks very green and beautiful but quite different from a typical temperate landscape.
Stunning pictures - thank you for sharing these. And I thought October on the Olympic Peninsula was darks & rainy! The sheer cliff faces brought to mind so many cinematic moments - seems like a Herzog film waiting to be made. How many of the islands did you visit?
Not the poster, but it's my blog, funny seeing it posted here. This was actually from June this year, which is supposed to be the sunniest month. I got to see just five islands, so there's still plenty more to explore. The cliffs and the rough sea are a mesmerising sight, I remember sitting for an hour just watching the waves crash along the base.
What strikes me immediately are the vibrant colors of the houses.
Walk through most any suburban American neighborhood and you'll primarily see neutral shades of white, gray, beige, or the occasional muted blues and greens. Sometimes someone will be daring and paint their house in a deep, dark blue or purple (or even black) but that feels relatively rare.
If near the ocean, typical "seaside pastels" come into view.
What's the backstory to the Faroes' colors? Are they set by some local entity/government? Left up to the homeowners? Was there a push to make them colorful? Do the locals have a particular eye for color composition? Did someone help them?
Why are American homes so bland and the Faroes' so delightfully colorful?
So many questions!
Certainly a huge part of the color choice in the US is to increase sales. A neutral color is just easier to sell. In the Faroes, this probably doesn't matter. Just pulling a guess out of my rear.
My first thought was that given the rather inclement weather perhaps having a vibrantly colorful house may have historically helped to easily identify one's particular domicile during times of poor visibility.
Nice write up and great photos. But I have to nitpick- the claim that there are no sandy beaches is false- Tjørnuvik Beach is a cool black sand beach. You can even take surf lessons there.
Thanks for pointing it out. Need to visit again and explore more. I'll fix it in a bit.
I was in the Faroe Islands just 3 weeks ago, including the walk to the Kallur lighthouse. Spectacular beautiful place, already planning my next visit and to explore many more places than I reached this time around.
Edited to add: I put a handful of pics on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/p/DO0mTX3DE1I/?img_index=1 (and some videos on my profile too). I was lucky to have sunshine almost the whole time I was there.
I was there 8 weeks ago! I'll be posting pictures soon (stay tuned on IG @dheeranet) as well but quite a magical place, you see multiple seasons a day. Super place for introverts, you can book a place in Torshavn for a week and daytrip pretty much everything from there.
The only downside was that you had to pay for most of the hikes, and the money isn't actually going towards any real work getting done.
Unfortunately home to grindadrap [0], one of the most cruel traditions in the world where hundreds of white dolphins are hunted with high speed motor boats and painfully slaughtered for sport.
[0] https://www.seashepherdglobal.org/latest-news/slaughter-dolp...
I dislike Sea Shepherd as an organization, due to their distasteful methods (and personal bias, being a Faroese resident). But I spoke with several of their volunteers during one of their campaigns, and was pleased to realize that, as individuals, their hearts are mostly in the right place. Nearly all of them claimed to be vegan, which I feel does give you legitimate ethical grounds from which to criticize grindadráp.
However, if you don't oppose the general consumption of meat, I don't find the argument against grindadráp compelling. It yields more meat per killed animal than most, and the slaughter itself is arguably no less humane than most commercial meat production (not a high bar, I admit).
In terms of publicity, grindadráp suffers from being inherently more visible than commercial meat production. Personally, I think this is a positive thing. It confronts you with the fact that meat doesn't magically appear in a supermarket freezer - if you want to eat meat, then by definition a living animal has to die. The visibility of grindadráp has prompted conversations with my young son about where meat comes from, and the animal welfare consequences of eating it.
Most animals these days are killed as efficiently as possible - a quick stun for chickens, a bolt through the skull for cows, etc.
The problem with commercial meat production is pretty much always the mega-farms that have them in horrible conditions during life. It's just cheaper, easier, and results in tastier meat to quickly perform the slaughter.
Whaling is pretty weird these days. On the one hand you got Japan, which is well known for it, and on the other is Norway, with a similar operation, but remains pretty unknown. They also spend loads of money researching "beneficial effects of whale products" (or something along those lines), to justify the continued whale hunting
> one of the most cruel traditions
Not as cruel as factory farming though. I find it weird how people obsess over grind when pigs are treated a lot worse at a hugely larger scale. Maybe the problem is it is out in the open?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think dolphin hunting is not a tradition. It was not possible until faster motor boats were available.
They are not “painfully slaughtered for sport”.
They are killed and butchered by trained people only with specialized tools that minimize suffering, and the meat is distributed to all participants.
Whale hunting (and dolphin hunting) tends to come up any time the Faroes are mentioned, and I don't understand why it's such a cause celebre. I don't see how this is worse than any other form of hunting or fishing, and frankly I prefer it to most forms of animal agriculture.
Industrialized whaling has done massive damage to global whale populations, but the Faroes are tiny and (to my knowledge) their hunting practices do not have a significant ecological impact.
It's probably because a lot of people see whales and other large sea mammals (and some large land mammals) as much closer to humans than say, tuna. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that's a correct take.
And yes, there are plenty of very arguable inconsistencies (eg: eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not) in how people look at animal consumption, but I don't particularly think that invalidates ethical concerns over whaling.
(edited for missing words)
What do you mean eating horses is not OK, in Switzerland we have plenty of horse butchers, you can find horse meat products like salami in all bigger supermarkets.
Its not consumed in same amounts as beef for sure, but its not shunned by most. And yes there is no logical reason to eat beef (especially calves if we consider the cuteness factor) but not horses, horse meat is even healtier.
I'm not sure how "it's okay in <country x>!" is really relevant, TBH.
There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.
Horses also eaten in Iceland
And Belgium.
Just makes it look like people jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon when they espouse opinions that aren't broadly consistent with their actions. Like eating beef several times a week, but feeling compelled to bring up the killing of pilot whales in amounts that are not at all concerning from a species conservation point of view.
I don't think many people live entirely ethically consistent lives. I sure don't.
That doesn't necessarily make every ethical boundary they try to have "virtue signaling".
I think a lot of it has to do with how they do it. I believe a lot of other whaling operations catch and process whales at sea. In the Faroes, whales are driven into shallow water and killed near land in sight of people who aren't accustomed to such things.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45209587
Traveling to other cultures involves being exposed to seeing things you aren’t accustomed to. In many ways, that is the whole point.
I’m not defending the Faroese here (nor casting aspersions on them, either), more just saying that it’s your responsibility to research the customs of the places to which you travel, and to not go if you think you might not like what you see.
There are cruel practices in almost every country, including the US or [wherever you are from]. Society evolves over time. Different countries overcome different problems at different points in time, and the time differences are just noise on the grand timeline of history.
The developed world has more or less eradicated slavery, but it was commonplace just 0.5% ago on the human civilization timescale. Some countries eradicated it at 0.4% and others at 0.6%.
I first heard about these islands when they built a roundabout under the ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVD0hG-_5gQ&t=47s
The photos generally looked like all of the other photos I've seen posted from tourists visiting the Faroe Islands, but I was impressed by the presentation of the tall portrait-orientation image of people atop a cliff. At least on my device, all of the previous images on the page had been entirely in frame at once, but that image required 3 scrolls to reach the bottom, really driving home the height of the cliff.
IMO these images are not average tourist shots. They all have basic rules of composition. The OP is at least an enthusiast photographer who shoots with intention. Good editing too.
Were there photos? All I saw was a few paragraphs of text.
There are, but you have to run enough of the javascript on the page and from the cdn for them to to show up.
It's full of images. Works on my phone
> There are no guardrails, no warning signs, and definitely no liability waivers - just you, the weather, and whatever route the sheep decided made sense.
I absolutely love places like this; places that treat you as a discerning, rational adult. The sense of being responsible for yourself feels freeing. It is an invitation for you to experience something entirely in your own way.
I feel the same way. I've hiked a few times at one of the locations in these photos with my 8 year old son (under close supervision). I think it's a great way to build a sense of responsibility and humility.
Unfortunately, that also makes it inherently more dangerous. Just a month ago, three tourists went missing at that location. [1]
[1] https://local.fo/three-persons-missing-after-visiting-vagar-...
I feel the same way, I am a social Darwinist too.
Wonderful photos.
Instinctively I often think I'd like to live in such a place, I'm not quite sure though why I think that. I'm fairly sure I would in fact not after a while.
Great photos and blog post. I hope other locations on the site would be populated with similar content in the future.
I intend to! I didn't post this here but all these comments have inspired me to flesh this out a bit more.
No trees at all on any of these photos, except for one photo which seems to be part of a garden (and maybe it is only larger bushes). I would feel very depressed by that alone.
It's too windy for trees there, similarly to large parts of Iceland. People could probably plant trees that are not high - I don't know what species will feel good in this climate though.
While I was there I did some search around and it seems that the wind, weather and soil is just part of it. The largest reason is sheep. They'll eat any tree before it has any chance of growing. So you get naturally sparse growth already, add the sheep, you get grass everywhere. Which makes everywhere very walkable and surreal at the same time. Plenty of trees on cities and gardens.
There are a few sheltered spots on the islands with manmade 'forests' like Kunoy Park.
That’s because the sheep graze everywhere and eat sprouting saplings. The only trees are in areas fenced off from the sheep. I agree this is a bit depressing.
There are almost no trees. It's one of the most striking things about the landscape and has its own beauty. What they have instead is incredibly lush grass. It looks very green and beautiful but quite different from a typical temperate landscape.
Stunning pictures - thank you for sharing these. And I thought October on the Olympic Peninsula was darks & rainy! The sheer cliff faces brought to mind so many cinematic moments - seems like a Herzog film waiting to be made. How many of the islands did you visit?
Not the poster, but it's my blog, funny seeing it posted here. This was actually from June this year, which is supposed to be the sunniest month. I got to see just five islands, so there's still plenty more to explore. The cliffs and the rough sea are a mesmerising sight, I remember sitting for an hour just watching the waves crash along the base.
> Faroe's name comes from a combination of fær (sheep) and eyjar (islands).
I have always thought it came from "fjær" (far). According to Wikipedia it is debated, and it may even come from "fara" (to travel).
There is similar uncertainty about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fårö#Etymology
"fara" appears to be cognate with English "fare" (which used to mean "journey" and now means how much you pay for one)
And “journey” comes from the Latin diurnum, for day, which also has the same root as per diem.
Time (and distance!) are money.
Wow. I've moved away from places because of constant grey skies. The photos are beautiful, but while I'd visit I'd never be able to live there.
Beautiful photos, thank you.