Might our pretty pictures be doing more harm than good?

Paul Leverington said:
Animals need to be humanized before most people accept their sovereignty I think.

What????? No matter how you try to anthropomorphize, animals will never be sovereign to humans. That's just plain ridiculous!!! Respected and treated humanely is much different from putting them on a pedestal as sovereign!

Joe

 
 Perhaps sovereign is the wrong word, allow me to do a rephrase:
 
 
The philosophy of animal rights demands only that logic be respected. For any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human beings implies that other animals have this same value, and have it equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans to be treated with respect, also implies that these other animals have this same right, and have it equally, too.
 


 It is true, therefore, that women do not exist to serve men, blacks to serve whites, the poor to serve the rich, or the weak to serve the strong. The philosophy of animal rights not only accepts these truths, it insists upon and justifies them.


Until we change our ways in these regards animals and environments will continue to go the way of history.....
 
 

Paul Leverington said:
Until we change our ways in these regards animals and environments will continue to go the way of history... 

Have you ever felt like the ant that was trying to subdue the anteater??? I do!!! The energy required to move one step forward is doubly offset by the energy required to fight the propaganda put forth by the ones who benefit from destroying the earth and it's critters!!! We can change our ways, but to change the world is a daunting task!

Joe

Kind of why I started this thread in the first place Joe.....I just don't think our pretty pics do much or at least as much as photography is capable of doing, in helping to slow down the plight of nature.


Many of the masters in history worked their magic by using ugly elements in their compositions....


Pieter Bruegels


Hieronymus Bosch


Vincent van Gogh


Impressionists and modernists also avoided "pretty" in their works very often because they knew that "pretty" can be a distraction when something more important needs to be said.

Found this slideshow this morning which  has quite a few artfully done environmental damage images. Not all but quite a few. The slideshow also illustrates what my thoughts were that it's not just about blood and guts and death images.

http://www.geeksvip.com/g/20-haunting-p ... _Pollution

A few of my  favorites:

I wouldn't tell people how and what to shoot, and again this is not about whether the image would sell necessarily or be the most enjoyable to shoot, BUT, maybe I would say we as photographers and self professed nature lovers rather have an obligation and a responsibility to image and portray whats happening to our nature when we are out there and experience such things. At this point, the image would be for the animals or environments themselves more than anything else. Putting as much creativity into it such composition and lighting can add a lot of artfulness to anything, and therefore attain a much more palatable  image. The key is to not necessarily shock, although that might be best in some images, but more to awaken the viewer. Any image that grabs an individuals heart and mind will stay with them forever..

Just think about it next time your out in the field, and look upon it as another way to not only to take pictures, but a way your pictures might do more to help those things you love..

Maybe you can understand what the paintings you posted are saying about the plight of man, but other than the first one, I don't get anything out of them that makes me think! I guess I'm just not an art connoisseur. There are many things that I observe in nature, but don't photograph because I don't see how it helps to document these things. For example, this past summer there was an infestation of caterpillar tentworms in the mountains above Santa Fe. This has become an annual occurrence, it seems. They destroy the leaves of the Aspen trees and leave the mountain bare. To a major extent, it affects the fall colors on the mountain. In one of the streams, there was a place where the carcasses of thousands of the worms had accumulated in a pile and there was a dog's water bowl close by. It was a striking scene to witness! Hundreds of other worms were being carried by in the water, as well. This stream flows into the Rio Grande, which now provides much of SF's drinking water. If I exposed the scene, what would be the reaction to it? Would people demand that the forest be sprayed with poisons to kill the worms? What would the toxins do to the environment when used to control a naturally occurring infestation? What effect would be worse, the toxins or the worms? Everyone knows about the worms from newspaper articles each year, but if they knew that the worms were in the water that provides the source of drinking water for the city, what would be the reaction? I think some things are better left alone!

There are other times that I feel that a photographer can expose wrongdoing. This week in ABQ, there was a news story about a dog dying in his own back yard and the carcasses of dead doves present. The story indicated that someone was poisoning the doves and the dog ate one and died. I think that is an occasion where photos may have an impact. It's mostly a matter of "Where do these images get published to reach an audience that cares enough to make a difference?". People who don't care about the environment are not going to be reading magazines that focus on the environment. The people who care about the environment are already involved and aware of the plight of nature. The question really is "How do we reach the mainstream media and general public with these images and how can we, thus, effect change?". Ugly doesn't sell and we all know that money is the driving force in this country! So how can we accomplish our goals with our imagery?

Another factor we have to overcome is the unreal expectation that we want others to have the same concern for nature as we do. I have a neighbor that had a critter in his shed that was chewing up his extension cords. He set a trap thinking it was a rodent. He caught a ground squirrel in the trap by the tail and it was screaming. He took it out and killed it! He is an older man raised in the ranching country of NM. To him, it was just getting rid of a pest. The same squirrels are digging up my tulip bulbs (I have planted about 1600 over the last couple of years). I guess they are hungry, but sometimes they just leave the bulb exposed on top of the ground. I know they are just doing what a squirrel does and leave them alone. It's hard to make the older generation understand this. It's much the same with the Mexican Gray Wolf. Ranchers hate them. I think that the key to helping the environment is in reaching the younger open minds, if you can get their attention away from themselves. There are a few still listening, I think!

Joe

pleverington wrote:Found this slideshow this morning which  has quite a few artfully done environmental damage images. Not all but quite a few. The slideshow also illustrates what my thoughts were that it's not just about blood and guts and death images.

http://www.geeksvip.com/g/20-haunting-p ... _Pollution


I wouldn't tell people how and what to shoot, and again this is not about whether the image would sell necessarily or be the most enjoyable to shoot, BUT, maybe I would say we as photographers and self professed nature lovers rather have an obligation and a responsibility to image and portray whats happening to our nature when we are out there and experience such things. At this point, the image would be for the animals or environments themselves more than anything else. Putting as much creativity into it such composition and lighting can add a lot of artfulness to anything, and therefore attain a much more palatable  image. The key is to not necessarily shock, although that might be best in some images, but more to awaken the viewer. Any image that grabs an individuals heart and mind will stay with them forever..

Just think about it next time your out in the field, and look upon it as another way to not only to take pictures, but a way your pictures might do more to help those things you love..

These images are much the same as in the links I have posted regarding plastic pollution and oil spills, but again, the question is "Where can these images be published to reach the general public?". Many people just turn away. I really feel that the only hope is in reaching the younger generation. These images have an impact beyond a doubt, but mostly to those who are already aware of the plight of the earth or care to research it! Here in SF, there is a ban on plastic bags at the checkout stand. Paper bags cost a dime apiece. Part of the reason this was done was because a child brought up how plastic was polluting the earth! This was to encourage the use of reusable bags. The reusable bags are made from recycled plastic that breaks down anyway and enters the waters, so what do we do now?  The point being that a child helped make a change. They are the hope for the future. We must reach them!!!

Joe

Joe sometimes your an enigma. But do what you can with your camera, when you can, is all I can say.. Like I made point of, I in no way am trying to tell people what to do. However if you don't see much other than the negative then surely that's all you'll ever get...not much IOWs. I don't see all the sales for nature images as any kind of great benefit for that nature either...usually the money goes into someone's pocket. So how can that be an argument?

But everyone is different and looks at things in a different perspective. As far as where to publish start on your own websites if you have them. Again my emphasis was to get images that are made with as much artistic zeal as your pretty pics. Documentary images fail to grab the viewer enough past a record and a shock, which has it's place, but an image that reaches a viewer on a deeper level could change a lot of things.




I think you have proved my points earlier when you started this thread:



http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/view ... 7&t=248409

Did not Chris Jordans images help motivate you to take action? Don't you understand this is my point?? You did cite his links and images. You did get aware and awake by your own admissions...Here are your very own words from that article:

The last one shows the birds, including the Laysan duck and albatross caught up in plastic or worse (mostly dead!)!!! It is something I was totally unaware of and makes me hate plastic containers, especially water bottles, even more! Of course, it's not the fault of the plastic, but rather the fault of humans. IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT TO VIEW FOR ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE EARTH!!!!!! PLEASE READ!



Sounds to me like you were indeed very highly affected and motivated by those sad images of dead birds and animals. You prove my point exactly Joe. You sure your not just arguing for arguments sake....?  You know if I say up you say down...If I say left you say right?? At least look for what truth might be in what I am saying Joe..please..

What I find for one so intriguing about Chris Jordans images are that I find myself studying them to identify what all those plastic things are that killed the bird. And what I see is mind blowing. Truly a good example off what I started this thread for.

SantaFeJoe wrote:

pleverington wrote:Found this slideshow this morning which  has quite a few artfully done environmental damage images. Not all but quite a few. The slideshow also illustrates what my thoughts were that it's not just about blood and guts and death images.

http://www.geeksvip.com/g/20-haunting-p ... _Pollution


I wouldn't tell people how and what to shoot, and again this is not about whether the image would sell necessarily or be the most enjoyable to shoot, BUT, maybe I would say we as photographers and self professed nature lovers rather have an obligation and a responsibility to image and portray whats happening to our nature when we are out there and experience such things. At this point, the image would be for the animals or environments themselves more than anything else. Putting as much creativity into it such composition and lighting can add a lot of artfulness to anything, and therefore attain a much more palatable  image. The key is to not necessarily shock, although that might be best in some images, but more to awaken the viewer. Any image that grabs an individuals heart and mind will stay with them forever..

Just think about it next time your out in the field, and look upon it as another way to not only to take pictures, but a way your pictures might do more to help those things you love..

These images are much the same as in the links I have posted regarding plastic pollution and oil spills, but again, the question is "Where can these images be published to reach the general public?". Many people just turn away. I really feel that the only hope is in reaching the younger generation. These images have an impact beyond a doubt, but mostly to those who are already aware of the plight of the earth or care to research it! Here in SF, there is a ban on plastic bags at the checkout stand. Paper bags cost a dime apiece. Part of the reason this was done was because a child brought up how plastic was polluting the earth! This was to encourage the use of reusable bags. The reusable bags are made from recycled plastic that breaks down anyway and enters the waters, so what do we do now?  The point being that a child helped make a change. They are the hope for the future. We must reach them!!!

Joe

True enough. I would add we must do all we can so that they even have a chance of accomplishing just that!!

pleverington wrote:Sounds to me like you were indeed very highly affected and motivated by those sad images of dead birds and animals. You prove my point exactly Joe. You sure your not just arguing for arguments sake....?  You know if I say up you say down...If I say left you say right?? At least look for what truth might be in what I am saying Joe..please..

You must be misunderstanding me, Paul. The only argument I had with you in this thread is when you said animals were "sovereign" which you backtracked on, or more properly, clarified. As far as the rest, I don't disagree that images we create of not so pretty things, be it animals or the environment, can have a powerful impact like I stated of the images by Chris Jordan and others. My question throughout this thread is "Where is there a place that receives the traffic to expose these images to the general public on a large scale??????". I found the images regarding plastic waste when I was researching another environmental subject, the Laysan Duck. The reason I found them was because I do have an interest in what goes on in the world we live in . Most people do not have that level of interest in the environment other than on a casual basis. Even on these forums, when something is posted about global warming, it is disputed by  the deniers! People are more into the beauty of nature, so we must, IMO, combine the beauty with the ugly so that people can see what we are losing, such as the glaciers receding and the newly exposed ground. Maybe people will understand that way. The problem, as I continue to state, is in reaching the masses and not just those who are concerned with the environment. They already know about many of the problems the earth is facing. If I hadn't started the thread on plastic pollution, would you have come across those images on your own? And BTW, did those images make you think twice about using plastic products and of ways to lessen their use in your life, or only make you open your eyes that there was a problem. I still use plastic products to an extent, but am very torn about how to dispose of them. I think we have to post links here (and anywhere we know people will see them) when we find them to make others aware of the problems the earth faces. I probably would not have been aware of the extent of the plastic problem if I hadn't done some research on the Laysan Duck. So, in effect, E.J.s thread opened up my eyes to a different problem than the Laysan Duck, but both are important and tied together. If we can continue in this way, it becomes a web of knowledge that all ties together. The problem is that the mainstream magazines and other publications are hesitant to publish controversial matter, so where do we go? I continuously post links to environmental issues that we should be concerned with, but I'd bet that most here do not even open up the links! They want more info posted in the thread, instead of simply clicking on a link. To me, that's lazy! Whatever I post links to can express things in a clear way, much more than my paraphrasing them. But the thing that I get more resistance to here is when I fact check and post links to support what I say. We don't need anymore falsehoods published as the truth. I like facts! If we publish falsehoods, why will anyone believe the rest of what we are saying? And why should they?

Joe

Joe I'm sympathetic to your frustrations. But your still an enigma to me..I feel you need to make more of a definite stand on where your at. You seem to dance all over the dance floor. I made some good points why not acknowledge that?

My thread is only one to plant a seed perhaps in your mind and maybe others. We just don't post nearly anything in the regards of the subject of the thread. We can start right here on the site and work from there perhaps. Like most endeavors, being out there and working makes all the difference. Naturescapes is about 99.9 % pretty, pretty, pretty.....would you not agree?

I don't have all your answers, that's why I rely on you and others to bounce off my thoughts and perhaps something might come of it....