To be aware that albatross eat and choke
on waste is fundamentally different from being confronted with a point-blank
image of a dead albatross, its stomach sliced open to expose an eruption of red
and blue plastics. Or the de-tusked elephant, left to die but with eyes that were
the most alive thing I have ever seen. I do not know if this is a failure of
the written word-or a success for visual communication-but images always seem
to define and popularize environmental movements.
 |
| Harper's magazine. January 24, 1885. |
This is conservation photography-a mixture
of art and activism. While it was not technically a photograph, we experienced
this combination in the images that Rachel passed out during Monday’s class.
Conservation is a recent demarcation but I believe it to be fitting and
necessary as its goal is not for its viewer to be awed or entertained but to
bear witness. A critical view of conservation photography could see it as advertisements
for the natural world where the individual’s personal narrative is far more
critical to the success of the piece than the circumstances that allowed for
the picture. Because responsibility for the context that lead to the image
cannot be explained by the photo alone, I question if the ends of social
concern and action justify the means of possible misinformation and unfair
blame.
Conservation photography cannot accurately
exist alone without a previously or simultaneously informed public. As we
learned in The Adirondacks, the image
of a decimated and scorched earth that was published in Harper’s magazine and used to garner support for a protected region
did so by pulling on popular anti-logging industry sentiments despite their
practices in the region rarely causing such damage. As Schnieder put it, “it didn’t
really matter who had actually cut down the trees” because the public already
had their bogymen (Schnieder, 219). The fundamental problem being that with
images, a narrative is written entirely by the viewer, a blame is placed and
the actual context of that photo is of no consequence in comparison to what is
within the frame.
The motivation behind the photograph is
critical in separating conservation photography from more traditional nature
photos that someone might take on a hike. Nature photography and conservation
photography are as similar as paintings by the Hudson River School and the one
published in Harper’s. According to the International League of Conservation
Photographers, their “goal is to use the art of high-quality photography to
encourage people to take action in support of tangible and meaningful
conservation measures” (iLCP).
The poached rhino without a tusk, the
logged land without trees; both are consequences of intersecting paths with
humans. So should we care if the right humans are blamed? If the motivation is
honest and the photo genuine, should it matter if the conclusion of the public
is not entirely accurate? Can the conclusion of the public ever be entirely
accurate? I have transitioned into expressive questioning because I am out of
answers but I hope that, as the field grows, some conclusions will be made and
standards set so that we can trust those images used to tap into our most human
emotions.
Below I have included a link to a 15 minute video (downloading to the blog took to long) that explains the
field from the mouths of its pioneers, coupled with beautiful images. Feel no
need to watch the whole thing but if you are in need of procrastination
material-it does the trick.
Works Cited
ILCP. "About Us." International League of
Conservation Photographers. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.
Schneider, Paul. The Adirondacks: A History of America's
First Wilderness. New York: H. Holt, 1997. Print.
Witness: Defining Conservation Photography Feature. ICLP, 2011. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you make some really good points here, especially regarding how a narrative is written by the viewer of these kinds of photographs. In a lot of ways, the context of the photo is lost and it is easy for the viewer and photographer to use a photo in order to promote conservation or any other activation efforts. Seneca Ray Stoddard was a prominent photographer in the late 1800's and his photos were also designed to advertise different movements related to the park. He was hired by Verplanck Colvin in 1878 as the head of the photographic division of the New York State Topographical Survey of the Adirondacks and his photos provided evidence of the decreased water levels in the park that Colvin stressed in his survey of the Adirondacks. Yet, Stoddards photos were also used to promote tourism in the region and he was actually hired by many railroad companies to take pictures of potential rail routes and the surrounding terrain. I think this example of Stoddard points to the issue you bring up in this post. The photographer can choose what narrative to tell, what aspect of the Adirondacks to describe, and what movement in the park to assist. Stoddard played a critical role in advertising tourism in the Adirondacks and he helped raise awareness of the need to conserve Adirondack land and it was his choice to focus on these specific facets of the Adirondack Park. Thus, the question becomes, what are photographers leaving out and how does this skew public interpretations of issues surrounding the park and even lead to false conclusions as you point out. I think this is a very interesting subject to explore and it's eyeopening to consider the power held in the hands of photographers.
ReplyDelete