Seeing the Light
While photography books have always taught me the importance of “seeing”—it seemed like perhaps there was a significant blind spot in my vision as an artist. My emotional attachment to the natural world, coupled with self-interest, had left me with a shortness of vision—making any hopes for a distinct style or a resolved purpose impossible. I have since removed the cognitive blinders, and the following essay shares this process of discovery.
I began my journey as a landscape photographer because of my unyielding passion for the outdoors. Taking pictures and being outside made me feel good. As I tried to develop my own personal style, I looked at the work of my contemporaries and practiced their methods and techniques. I went to distant lands, and justified the long drives and expensive equipment by believing that I was maturing as an artist, and promoting environmental stewardship through my pictures.
I operated under this logic until very recently, when I realized that despite my passion for the natural world having always been very real and compelling, I was moving towards a disingenuous relationship with nature. Capturing a “wow shot” seemed to drive me more than my own artistic expression. And as I continued to study the works of other popular photographers, I felt a bizarre compulsion to mimic their compositions and processing techniques. It felt as though my passion for presenting nature’s beauty was being misplaced.
This started my thinking.
Perhaps I was exploiting the beauty of the landscape. I feel good connecting with nature, but in the end, does nature benefit from this exchange? The feelings seemed reminiscent of an experience that I had in San Diego as a young boy when I went to SeaWorld. The animals, especially the Orca whales, fascinated me. But when my mother explained to me that those whales had been captured in the wild, wonder and amusement was quickly replaced by disappointment and a sense of deceit.
Do I, as a landscape photographer, portray nature in the same manner that SeaWorld does? Exploiting facets of our natural world in order to derive fleeting moments of admiration?
While we are all comforted by the beauty of nature, and her infinite ability to inspire and renew the soul, perhaps we have been lulled into a false sense of security, a state of complacency where our images no longer tell a story about nature, but instead reflect cultural projections, and hyper-stylized versions of the natural landscape. This summarizes the dilemma for me, and perhaps for other landscape photographers—diverging motivations and misplaced efforts that end up taking energy away from the real struggle. I am reminded by a quote from photographer Peter Henry Emerson.
“Nature does not jump into the camera, focus itself, expose itself, develop itself, and print itself. On the contrary, the artist, using photography as a medium, chooses his subject, selects his details, generalizes the whole way we have shown, and thus gives his view of nature.”
By giving our view of nature as inexhaustibly nourishing, do we run the risk of distorting or misrepresenting the environmental reality? And does this distortion encourage change, or simply desensitize the viewer? Whether we know it or not, perhaps landscape photographers are missing key opportunities to create a substantial and transformative environmental narrative and dialogue as a direct result of our photography and the process we enjoy to create it.
It is important that we not underestimate the power of the photograph to convince. Ansel Adams harnessed this ability, using his photographs as a powerful tool to fight increased levels of urbanization and development. And like Ansel, I’m sure most photographers today have some type of environmental perspective, but do our images share that viewpoint? My photographs didn’t prompt any profound conservation efforts. Instead, the images represented my own self-interests, an exploitation of nature, and an idealized version of the landscape that failed to create meaningful dialogue. The photos portrayed nature as inexhaustibly nourishing, despite our environmental reality telling a completely different story.
If there was ever a time in the history of photography to become engaged in the issues plaguing our environment, now is that time. The threats against nature are unprecedented, so I believe now is the moment to advocate on nature’s behalf. Let’s renew our allegiance to the natural world by vowing to create images that are didactic, spur meaningful dialogue, and go beyond the simple “wow shot.” It’s difficult to truly transcend the conventional, but I believe it is becoming increasingly more important.
Both SeaWorld and landscape photography are joined in a common cause of promoting the beauty of nature. This is a noble and important mission—but perhaps the animals and the photographs aren’t removing our cognitive blinders, but distorting the view. Now is the time for self-reflection, now is the time for change, because no longer can we afford to be diverted by what we wish to believe.
Category: Photo Essays 45 comments »
October 18th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
As I was reading this I came across, “Perhaps I was exploiting the beauty of the landscape. I feel good connecting with nature, but in the end, does nature benefit from this exchange?” Ben, nature will never benefit from you driving and flying all over the globe while emitting thousands of pounds of greenhouse gases for the sake of a picture. Don’t get me wrong, your work is amazing. But I have come a long way from the tree cutting moron you once knew. I dont drive a car because I love this world too much. There are so many places I WANT to go to, but should our Earth have to pay the price? I care about the environment enough to know that my entertainment isn’t my top priority. I am vegan so I can respect our fellow beings and live healthier for myself. You would not believe what going Vegan can do for the world you and I love so much. So keep in mind that your amazing work comes at a small global price, which after a lifetime becomes a global waste. Farewell.
October 18th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Brittin — thanks for reading. I mostly agree with your comment. I think we can run a cost-benefit analysis on certain things, and realize that the “means justify the ends.” Al Gore has flown around the world hundreds of times, supporting airlines that emit thousands of pounds of CO2. But he has also spurred landmark environmental legislation that completely offsets his carbon footprint.
But that’s Al Gore, I don’t think I will ever come close to his influence and contribution to the natural world.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Very nicely written, Ben! I think you did a great job at eloquently and succinctly summarizing your thoughts and questions (it came a long way from the drafts you sent me!). I agree with all you’ve said; the question that remains is, how do you possibly make that change happen on a grand scale? Preferably from the bottom up (as opposed to a governmental top down approach, which can be effective to some extent, but with the corporate influence on our politics it will never truly work).
October 18th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Beautiful article, Ben–thanks to Floris for referring me to it. I can totally relate, because I continue to struggle with these issues on a daily basis.
I gre up in Southern California–some of my ealiest memories are of Sea World and the zoo. I’m not horribly optimistic about the future, and I wish I could be, but that’s hard when you’ve witnessed firsthand the ideals of folks like Ansel and John M laid by the wayside by our ever materialistic society. I hope you can share more with us what our strategy should be to evoke positive change.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Interesting thoughts Ben.
It is interesting that you should dissmiss beautys power to persuade. You mention Ansels work which would be an example of using beauty to persuade.
There is most definitely a place for images of the harsh reality and uglyness particulalry where it makes a strong piont.
Both beauty and uglyness are relative perhaps to full appreciate either they have to be seen together to get the full picture maybe a body of work needs both.
But beyond this your style should speak for itself not what or how your peers or critics want or feel it should.
Photography is not reality its a form of abstraction and on its own it will never change the world yes it can play a part but lets not fool ourselves on this score.
October 18th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
I’ve been preaching this for years. I’ve also infuriated a few photogs as I explaining my position. Welcome to the other side of nature photography, where nature is once again in control. BTW, love your pix!
October 18th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Stan – a new set of images will be posted to my website within the next few weeks… It is the best strategy I can think of about generating a meaningful dialogue.
Rodney – I can’t dismiss nature’s beauty as a way to persuade. You’re right, Ansel did that. But it’s important to note what he did with the images, after he made the prints. He wasn’t complacent, he didn’t sit back and let people enjoy them in galleries. He shaped the dialogue and used his images as a catalyst for change! Very few photographers are able to harness the power of nature’s beauty as a vehicle for change. We need more people to take their photography one step further. Beyond posting them to their website and telling people how beautiful nature is and how it needs saving, we need photographers to use their images as a tool to generate meaningful dialogue about the problems that plague our natural world.
Jerry – You’ve always been a staunch advocate for the “pure” nature approach in photography, and I’ve always respected that. Thanks for reading, your work is a great inspiration.
October 18th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
I enjoyed reading that, you write well. We have similar passions, however mine is writing poetry and my book about similar topics and not so much photography.
Have you heard of the Keystone XL Pipeline? Taking pictures of the devastation could do wonders for many people who simply haven’t heard of it, or are playing the will of ignorance…
Obama’s top climatologist, Jim Hansen, says it will be “Essentially be end game for the climate.”
Or, how about the Global Occupations? They are everyday in San Diego and LA. Lots of great photo opportunities, that I haven’t been able to capture.
I don’t know, just ideas that came into my head…?
Did you add me as a friend on facebook because that video of my friend skate boarding was just too funny? haha
I like what you’re doing. It is inspiring to see others follow their real passions as well.
Have you heard of the book, “The Last Green Resistance?”
Keep at it dude. Cool to see.
October 18th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
That is a great question that you pose, Ben. There are a bunch of popular photographers out there that go crazy in Photoshop and go for the fantasy land type of look. It get that it’s marketing or “fine art”, or however you want to call it but it doesn’t really convey a landscape in need of preserving.
October 18th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
A good and thought provoking read.
Though in defense of different artistic expressions, I would like to point out that a different perspective can remind people of something they have taken for granted.
How many times do people drive/walk/ride past a place, and not even notice it’s passing, yet when they see an artistic image of that familiar scene, they have to reappraise their neglect. Now when they pass that spot, they do pay attention, and see not only the artists view, but freshly discover it for themselves.
Being only an amateur, and not a good one yet either, I’m not claiming my works have inspired anyone, but have seen visible awareness grow in others. To be at an exhibition, and hear people say, wow that’s awesome, we should go have a look, and then realise they are talking about a location they passed to get to the venue. To come into work and hear people talking about that piece on the TV last night, about a local place they could have walked past last weekend, and have a new sense of awe and appreciation for it.
Awareness is hard to quantify, but can be raised by many means, and the more ways we can see something, the more we can truly appreciate it’s worth.
By all means consider how an image portrays something, but be careful about devaluing a particular aspect or view, as all the possible views together, still don’t equal the whole, but sometimes that other view will force us to reappraise our own perception.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your art.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:53 am
A great read indeed, Ben. As strange as this may sound, but your struggles to find identity and value in your art, passion and love for the outdoors; made me smile. Sorry for that. It reminded me too much of an hour-long discussion I had lately over the state park closures in California.
However, while I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and agree on most parts, yet find it very wrong to call out post processing techniques or any other type of shooting technique as source of the current state in nature preservation. While this is not evident in your post, it certainly is in the commentary that followed.
I wouldn’t dare to call out other people for not caring (enough) about nature. In this matter, everybody should reflect on his own actions and not picking on others. I, for myself, simply cannot imagine that a fantasy-like land cannot stir up the same amount of preservation thoughts and ideas; as a more “classic” approach to photography and post processing. This is not the point of Ben’s post at all, more one for somebodyLIES.com
Just had to get that off my chest. Happy shooting, Ben.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:14 am
Thanks for posting your thoughts and perspective. I appreciate the consideration you make with each of your photographs. Well written and a good beginning to further photographic explorations…
October 19th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Great read. Thanks, Ben.
Just on the devil’s advocate side; one of my favorite classes in college was Biological Psychology (part of my B.A.) The brain, regardless of the input, will eventually become desensitized to any overly repeated stimulus. From the viewers perspective, being inundated with similar input (pretty nature pictures) obviously has a desensitizing effect. In return, many photographers feel compelled to over-amp their renditions of nature to break through the visual clutter and draw attention via a hyped-up wow factor. Some photographers do pull this off very well, and with a strongly personalized vision, while others don’t do as well, perhaps trying to mimic what they see as ‘successful’.
Cheers,
October 19th, 2011 at 10:04 am
David Richter – In response to “I, for myself, simply cannot imagine that a fantasy-like land cannot stir up the same amount of preservation thoughts and ideas; as a more “classic” approach to photography and post processing.”
It’s not so much the style of photography (well, for the primary sake of the argument we can leave that part of the argument on the side), it’s the fact that in order to stir up thoughts of preservation you actually need to DO something with your images. You can’t just let them be appreciated on the interwebs and expect something to happen. Now, given that argument, let’s look at the people who are and have done something with their work, in modern times that would be the International League of Conservation Photographers. How many of them use fantasy-like representations of nature? Does National Geographic publish fantasy-like images? Has anyone, ever, accomplished a conservation task using fantasy-like images far removed from the reality one typically experiences? That’s an honest question – if the answer is yes, I would love to hear about it!
Gary Crabbe – Great points!
October 19th, 2011 at 10:13 am
I agree with you almost completely and have recently settled into almost the same pattern on thinking myself.
I say “almost” because for me, the “wow shots” will always have an important place in nature photography. They are not, for me, merely “idealized” visions without greater meaning, but reminders of the beauty of our world and the natural places that remain. I read your essay as being perhaps a bit too dismissive of “wow shots,” but I can certainly understand and appreciate your perspective.
On the other hand, I personally feel like the world does not need more shots of traditional icons (Yosemite Valley stands as the most obvious example) and agree wholeheartedly that once does not contribute much to the genre of nature photography by pursuing such images. Also, like you, I agree that getting too caught up in pursuing “wow shots” can hinder one’s artistic development. I recently read some advice from another photographer on the importance of “avoiding tripod holes,” though I think you’ve laid that principle out far more eloquently here and combined it with your own call for a different kind of nature photography.
On that note, I want to compliment your for posting this essay (and thank Floris Van Breugel for calling attention to it on NPN). I don’t think all nature photographers want to do meaningful work and, for them, perhaps your message will not resound. But though I’m personally an amateur that gets into the field only infrequently, I’ve lately given a lot of thought to developing a “meaningful” body of work rather than following the more conventional approach of developing a portfolio of “wow images” of icons. Time will tell whether that means pursuing nature photography with a photojournalist bent, as I think you’re advocating, or simply investing more effort in developing a unique vision and style (and applying it in non-iconic locations, of course).
Anyway, you’ve crafted a wonderful essay that I hope stimulates the minds of a lot of nature photographers. Excellent work!
October 19th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Good discussion. I’m going to play devil’s advocate too a bit. I think that what we need to see is that photography serves different purposes for everyone. Are you using it for an art form? Or for a different purpose? I don’t think that just because someone is a landscape or nature photographer that they HAVE to be an advocate for conservation. Just like a wedding photographer doesn’t have to be an advocate for the sanctity of marriage. That doesn’t mean they should be a turd and go out and ruin it. I think that photography is an art form, a job, and could also be a means of getting something done. Not every photojournalist or war photographer is an adovcate for something. Some are just doing their gig, to make a living, and doing it as best they can.
I think my main point is there has to be as much passion in the creative process as there is in the subject. Having done every kind of photography, I think I have a different perspective. I’ve done sports photography, weddings, worked in a portrait studio, done some very basic news work. I hated those subjects…but I loved the process behind them. A day out with the camera for me beats any other kind of job that could exist.
I think that when people are able to find a subject that they like, that’s when the good stuff happens. For me I like landscape and nature photography. The subjects are easy to work with, they don’t argue, it’s a nice arrangement. I like the process of creating. The long drives. THe setting up gear. The minimal existence living in a car for a few days or a week at a time. I don’t ALWAYS have to go that route, but I don’t mind when I do. I certainly try to minimize my impact on my subject matter and hope that I pick up some trash on the way, or leave the place a little bit better than when I found it.
I don’t consider myself a conservationist tough. Maybe by default. Not because I don’t WANT to do something like that, but because I haven’t found a specific project that interests me. I think by the very nature of the beast we all particpate in, we’re always going to be fighting this two way battle.
To be in this business you have to put your images out there, as much as possible…which will always, to an extent make it about YOU/ME/US, the photographers. We can hope that what we show will make people appreciate nature, maybe admire what we do, and if our shots are interesting maybe someone changes their way of thinking a bit.
I think and this kind of goes back to what David was saying. Stylized or processed, however you want to look at it. Those types of images are what bring in the layman viewer. People like us, here, we see and gravitate to landscape and nature anyway. We’re GOING to look. We’re going to give images some time to sink in. Our society runs off of a mentality that they needed to be impressed quickly in order to stick around long.
“What do you have for me NOW?”
I think when we do too much to try and suede people to conserve, really we end up preaching in large to the choir.
The issue becomes, how do we do BOTH. Put people in Awe, and hopefully make them aware of the subtle issues that the environment has. I would love to go do documentary work that was important, left people feeling concern for an issue, and ended up doing great things.
The truth is that right at this point. That won’t happen. I think there’s a definate method to things. You h ave to get established. Get the layman to have an interest in you. Web presence, books, blogs, teaching, lectures, etc. Get yourself a following. Then once you have the attention of a large group of people you can start to change. I think Art Wolfe probably does this better than anyone.
He has a large variety of images that are both awe-inspiring and have some WOW factor to them…as well as more subtle ones that can cause you to think and see things differently. He’s created an audience though…over lots of years and lots of hard work. He has that ability now to put up things and do things that make changes, and people other than nature nerds (like us) will see it and be able to have it change them.
I think there’s room for both, and a necessity for both as starting out going for awe and wow can hopefully lead to somethig deeper in the future.
wow…that was long….sorry.
October 19th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Interesting and thought provoking read Ben.
I truly believe these days that photography is not going to change a person’s or government’s mind or plans for or about a unique natural place (lots of ors heh). We’ve become desensitized as a society for one. And with the current economic cluster we’ve worked ourselves into over the past decades more and more natural areas will be destroyed in an attempt to bolster an economy and way of living that can not be sustained. That and people will always use the argument of stating that photographers use just as much, if not more, resources when pursuing photography. So unless we all go vegan and start riding bikes and live underground in caves like the first person to post (probably not living in a cave, I’m guessing), do we have a right to really speak out? Since in reality we are part of the problem. It seems our way of life and technology has backed us into a corner. We love what we have, and most (I enjoy my camera, this computer I’m typing on, the home I’m living in, and the vehicle I drive to remote areas with) are not willing to give it up. Do we have a right to speak out against it?
I have spoken out against it in my own state of Wyoming. It’s made me a hypocrite to some degree but what they are planning on doing to the WSAs sickens me. Because down the road, once those are gone, I feel they will move into true wilderness areas and national forests. There is no stopping something like this unless we all change our way of lives completely. I doubt any of us are willing to give up traveling to our wonderful natural places to make a point. It’s many photographer’s way of making a living. Just taking photos won’t change anything.
Unless some great mind out there comes up with an infinite, clean energy that is almost completely free, there is no hope for the natural world. Sooner or later, it’s going to be the Earth’s biosphere or us. Looks like we are winning, which will result in our own demise anyways. So hell, keep on taking awesome photos, enjoy life. Do what you can to preserve the natural world, but I personally would not expect photographs to change anything. Maybe in Adam’s day when it was a novelty and information was difficult to come by. But times have changed.
October 19th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Phil – thanks for the kind words. I think the “wow” shots should always have a place in nature photography. There are certainly magical places, and magical moments of light that deserve to be photographed and shared. But those images currently dominate the discussion–and I am afraid that they are shifting the dialogue away from what we should really be focusing on.
I think landscape photography needs to shift into having prospective purposes instead of retrospective purposes. That is, let’s not use the pretty pictures to describe a moment that once was–instead, let’s use the pretty pictures to spur meaningful dialogue about the actions needed to save the lands from future degradation.
Brian – You raise an important point! Not everyone that photographs nature is a conservationist…at best, it’s a tacit assumption. But let me ask you this… what separates us from the big-game hunters who go out looking for their “wow” shot?… Their prized buck (epic sunset) that they can hang on the wall.. I am inclined to think that we are closer to the the big-game hunters than we may like to think.
And then you say, “The issue becomes, how do we do BOTH. Put people in Awe, and hopefully make them aware of the subtle issues that the environment has. I would love to go do documentary work that was important, left people feeling concern for an issue, and ended up doing great things.”
You are asking the perfect question. And my follow up post to this essay will hope to answer that question. Thank you for raising that point, it is an important one that more need to spend time thinking about!
Nicolaus – Thanks for your comment. I agree in part, but I cannot accept the position that there is no hope for the natural world. There is so much worth saving, so many great minds coming up with innovative solutions, and so much progress being made.
If you think times have changed, then why do photographers continue operating under the some framework that Ansel used? I think this creates a foundational dilemma that is tough to reconcile.
October 19th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Ben – What I was referring is the insane sensory overload our minds and eyes are subjected to on a daily basis compared to that of people during Adam’s time. It must have been much easier to catch a person’s eye and hold it during his lifetime compared to today. If you can hold someone’s attention for more than a few seconds, you can get them to think (maybe not so much anymore haha). Things have changed in that regard. The framework is still similar…just more tech at our disposal. Which is actually part of the problem. It’s circular and it can drive you mad if you dwell on it long. See, back to holding interest again.
I do have some hope for the future, but it’s fading fast. I’m actually quite an optimist, but when it comes to the subjects you have brought forth, it’s really difficult to find any silver lining, unless it’s in the pockets of everyone trying to benefit from it.
I will continue my own hypocritical ways of traveling to wild places and photographing them, then donating photos and my own time to conservation groups, charities, and the such as well as writing pointless letters to my local and state government about trying to save a few ‘crown jewels’. But I do realize it’s not really accomplishing much. It’s my own little way of preserving the natural world while still benefiting from it. ;]
October 19th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I get what you’re saying. This can go a coupel of ways. Here’s something you may or may not know. Most big game hunters are also conservationists. They pay LARGE fees to go on these hunts, and a lot of those funds are used to help with population controls, as well as methods to preserve the species. Whether they want to or not they are helping by also taking a piece with them. I know this because I had a client who booked many of these types of hunts for people, and someone questioned her as to how could she help people go killl big animals. That was the answer. When done legally, Big Game hunters are actually helping too.
I guess in the same vein, we do it too. Posting a shot from Yosemite of an epic sunset ultimately, hopefully provokes appreciation for the subject and maybe causes people to think.
Back to the point. A pretty picture isn’t always going to facilitate discussion on conservation, nor should it. Let people enjoy a damn photograph. If you can turn it to a conversation that ultimately does good. SWEET. I’ll give this example. If you go about it wrong, you’re going to UPSET people and do more harm than good.
Let me give you this example.
You’re watching a baby. You think man, that is a CUTE baby. Then someone goes…well let’s talk about abortion shall we?
You watch a genrous donation given to a person in need, then someone goes…giving is from God….do you know Jesus?
Religion, Abortion, are important topics of discussion but not everyone is equipped to deal with them at given times. If you try to get people to talk about convservation, which granted, is not very controversial as my examples, in most aspects, people might not want to think about that, or know how.
“OK Ben, I liked your photos…I wasn’t planning on thinking about how to save the earth. Let me just like the photo. I don’t even know you.”
Ansel Adams was able to turn heads because of who he was…what he had become as ap hotographer and an artist. He talked people listened. If he had pulled that crap when he was getting started in SF doing commercial photography work, he’d have lost work…and never gotten to where he ended up.
I know you’re heart is in the right spot man, It shows…but if you try to get people to “think” and you don’t have an audience, you’re still not doing what you hoped. I think Nicolaus brought up GREAT points. Are you willing to use an oatmeal box pinhole camera to tell your tale? That’s really better than supporting a huge corporation like Canon or Nikon.
Al Gore is a good example you brought up. He’s able to offset what he does because of where he is and who he is. I can’t wait to see where you take these projects…and I hope you can do it in a way that allows you satisfaction and you can bring awareness to the issues you feel passionate about.
I think the problem comes with how do you get to a point where it matters to people it needs to matter to. Right now this conversation is great…but you’re preaching to the choir. Which I assume is the intention. I’m eager to see how you move forward, and hope that you accomplish what you set out to and it finds the right audience.
best!
October 19th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Very well put, Brian.
Floris — First off, we may have very different definitions of alterations to images. I, for myself, would add the techniques from your images and mine to the category of altered images. If your definition is composites of many frames of different places, times and additional elements added, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.
My point was, does one need to be published in NatGeo or belong to the elite league of International League of Conservation Photographers in order to change something? I don’t think so.
Quite frankly, the average person doesn’t care much about publications or other type of awards and appreciations, but maybe gains some interest in nature after viewing a wonderful nature image online or offline. Say, this person then goes on to the point of enjoying the outdoors as much as we do, to make a change in his or her personal life and eventually in an even greater cause. Maybe that fantasy-like rendition of nature raises awareness to be protective of natural treasures, to enjoy them, preserve them for future generations — given, on a very small scale? We don’t know. Simply saying, artistically altered images cannot lead to change is a little easy. I’d rather see thousands of people picking up their trash than leaving it behind and writing a check for a conservation program instead.
Bottom line, I’d rather see change happening on the small scale many times, than on the grand scale one time.
October 19th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Great read Ben and food for thought.
October 19th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Excellent blog entry – insightful and raises some interesting questions. Your writing got me thinking…I photographed bears and wolves in Hyder, Alaska this summer. But two days after the last photographer left the area, locals killed one of the wolves we had so adoringly photographed and admired. My beautiful photos do not tell the story of that wolve’s demise or the trouble wildlife, in general, experiences due to man. There needs to more than just taking a photo and making it look pretty. Our natural resources and wildlife are taking major hits, and photographing them, then turning our backs on them as we go in search of the next subject, just doesn’t cut it anymore.
October 19th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
David – many of my images certainly fall into the category of fantasy-like, and I don’t expect to see them cause any environmental preservation. I would, however, like to know how I could make a difference. Like many people, I enjoy seeing and taking ‘wow’ and beautiful images, it’s how I relax. As I am considering my future, and the future of the Earth and environment, however, I would like to know how I can move my work beyond that (exactly the struggles Ben is going through). My approach thus far has been to use my images as educational tools on my blog to promote some understanding of the natural history that I am photographing. At least that way I hope to inspire some understanding and appreciation for the actual subject of my images, rather than evoking a ‘wow you saw a cool sunset!’ response.
“Bottom line, I’d rather see change happening on the small scale many times, than on the grand scale one time.”
Absolutely, me too, in fact that was exactly what I said I would like to see happen in my first comment. The problem is, there is absolutely no evidence that this is happening as a result of people seeing beautiful nature photos (if there is, please, point me to it). On the contrary, beautiful nature photos seem to be getting other photographers excited about seeing the same things, hopping in their SUV’s, driving thousands of miles, stomping the same fragile places, and taking pictures of the same icons. Where in that system does nature benefit? Now, if they were inspired to go out to their local parks and pick up trash, that would be a very different story. But, I have yet to see that happen.
Yes, many of my thoughts appear hypocritical with respect to the images I have and do take – I, like Ben, am interested in ways I can change that.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Floris – Well, there obviously are two different choices. You can either continue doing what you do and if that is allowed to say – do very well – and hope your work has an impact on people and their behavior, educating them about the delicate ecosystems you carefully explored in order to find an appealing composition.
Or, you can decide to move on and shoot other things and likely lose your followers in that change, giving up the possibility of affecting many people’s lives.
However, shooting trash alongside roads or the slaughtering of whales in the open sea has no known to me effect on people in their behavior either. This comes back to the point Gary mentioned: people have to see beauty in what they’re looking at, in order to look at it again or possibly enjoy for longer. Sadly, many people only recognize the beauty after it is gone and I am sure, if the state parks in California close, we will see posts about this very problem more often.
So there is no right or wrong in photography, on this matter at least, you can just hope to cause a positive reaction to the things you do but you can’t push people into it, through preaching and raising your index finger.
It will certainly be interesting where this journey leads Ben and how it possibly can have a positive effect on many — hopefully, all of us.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Ben,
I’ve noticed many of the photographers that have commented on this post live in California currently or have lived in California. The State Parks here are and have been in a crisis for years. If you would like give back you can donate some of your work to the local state parks. They will use them and maybe sell some at Gala events, you will see no profits but I think it will make Shamu happy to know you have a good heart!
Giving away a photo a good purpose with out profit can hurt but it doesn’t have to be your “A” game work.
For the sake of the Purist and Fantasy, I don’t think there is a photographer out that hasn’t displayed an image in their opposite catagory to what they proclaim themself to be.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
here’s something else I think about too. Floris, and Steve, and David all brought up great points…but I think we ultimately are looking for images that WE like, that makes us feel like we are changing and enjoying nature responsibly more.
I know since I’ve started doing this on a regular basis, I stop to think now and then..’if I post an image from (insert off beaten track spot) amI going to help or hurt this spot….I need to think about the impact me showing an image will have. I think then when I do post it, it’s up to me to tell those who ask the location to tell them what they need to know to handle it correctly…and hope they do the same in return. Granted, maybe I just f-’d a place forever by telling its location, or maybe I’m bringing awareness to it and appreciation that lasts longer than I will.
Hard to say.
I like David’s point. If we REALLY deep down loved nature. We’d just go out, and keep scrap books full of our images, to look at and recall what enjoyment we felt. We’d be writers. THe fact is, that we all to some degree consider ourselves artists.
I think that art and activist are a hard thing to do both at the same time. If you’re a true activist, you’re like those dudes on the whaling show…you’re out there all the time trying to help. the activist is what wins out. If you’re an artist…you’re not always an activist. Your’e showing work, processing, writing blogs, and gong out to take images. Those are getting priority over the activist in us.
When I think Activst I think John Muir….when I think Artist I think Ansel Adams. While Ansel certainly did some great activisty things, he also took the art part of it to the extent he needed. He drove a car. He broke off branches and things when they conflicted with his composition. His art to an extent took priority to the activist part.
we can’t do both all the time, just hope our art helps more than it harms.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Brian – I think one of the current tragedies in modern landscape photography is a genuine lack of creativity. If we REALLY deep down loved nature, we’d take the time to self-reflect. I think many are unwilling to critically examine their work/philosophy because any critical evaluation would reveal glaring problems, dilemmas, contradictions and paradoxes. Or perhaps confronting the environmental realities is not an option because it might lessen their market value, or the change may simply be too inconvenient.
Making art is all about overcoming things. It should always be a struggle. When making art is no longer difficult, I no longer want to be an artist.
And I think that’s where I’m at right now. Making art is no longer difficult for me. I roam the lands unconsciously looking for ‘s’ curves and bright colors.
The photographer can be an activist and the two can be in harmony. I don’t think it is safe, nor sound advice, to continue relying on “hope”–a paradigm shift needs to occur in this craft, and real environmental issues need to be brought to light.
On a side note, this article runs parallel to some of the points I made in the essay, and it’s an interesting and quick read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/january-jones/this-week-dont-just-watch_b_916090.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
October 19th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
What a great and thought-provoking essay and discussion! I think my feelings on this lie somewhere between Gary’s and Brian’s (and the biological psychology discussion is especially fascinating). As someone who’s comparatively really new to serious landscape photography, and who feels rather passionately about conservation and my role in/responsibility to it, this is something almost constantly on my mind.
I started toiling away on my own conservation photography project a little over a year ago (something quite separate from my “regular” landscape work), and realized pretty quickly that nobody was going to pay much attention to me unless and until I had established myself to some degree as a “known” landscape photographer. Brian’s right; nobody’s going to see a picture of, say, decay and destruction and want to take that home and put it on their wall (and who could blame them). But if they’re familiar with a photographer’s work, they might be inclined to spend a few moments really looking at an image like that on a gallery wall, and perhaps be moved to take some action, even if it’s nothing more than choosing to educate themselves on a topic.
I think if conservation issues are really important to a photographer (and as Brian correctly pointed out, not every photographer will feel that way, nor should they necessarily), they have to figure out how to successfully have one foot in each endeavor. Those “wow” shots will build your credibility and recognition and give you the opportunity to be heard and taken seriously on conservation issues, e.g., the ILPC.
And that all goes back to Ben’s original point about knowing and developing your own style as a photographer, and deciding what’s important to you. Those “wow” pictures may well be a useful means to an important end, and not only does it NOT have to be an either/or situation, it may be less productive (creatively and otherwise) to view it as an either/or.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I don’t see a lack of creativity much at all in photography, at least in that from those trying to earn a living from it. I see people who may experimenting trying new things…maybe not always being ORIGINAL…but they’re out there putting in effort, learning, and working hard ot make images. Tht takes a creative drive if nothing else, and the fact they get enjoyment from the process is what creativity is.
I see very creative people who lack originality whether its subject composition, whatever. Where you have a lack of creativity is in the multitudes of people happy snapping from their cars and vantage points with minimal walking. The avenues for showcasing work now put a large number of these people’s work up for viewing…good or bad. I don’t think their point really was to create “ART” they want nice photographs, or the best they can get given what th ey’re able to put into it
The earning income part of things is where it gets dicey. People need to earn money whether they do it full time 3/4 time 1/2 time or a day or two days a month. People are going to shoot what sells, and hopefully if they’re original they can add some of their own spin to it whether composition, processing, or new angles…that’s for a lot of working photogrpahers what it comes down too. There’s only so many ways to shoot Horseshoe Bend, but if you need a crack of it in your folio to maybe help pay a bill, then do the best you can.
I think most phootgraphers who do it professionally do both….shoot what sells and shoots work they like. Shoot the planned and unplanned. Shoot the big and the small. I have things in my portfolio I will probably be the only one to enjoy…and maybe a few others. I have things i do STRICTLY because it will make money. I think everyone does.
I disagree that if we TRULY loved nature we would take time to self reflect. I think we self reflect on why we create. What we create and how we do it. I think that the subject isn’t really what’s important or AS important. I think if you’re an ARTIST…the subject is important, but the act of creating it is equal to or greater. If you substituted and said were talking about wedding photography and put Love in place of nature, people would laugh. Saying that if you had a deeper understanding of LOVE you would be a better wedding photographer.
I think if you have a respect for creating, then you will self reflect. subject is not important. Ortherwise it becomes a, ‘because you have chosen nature as a subject you have a greater repsonsibility than other photographers because of your subject matter.’
Art creation DOES NOT always have to be a struggle. Struggle’s suck ass. Who does things to struggle. IT should be a challenge maybe, but if the challenge is fun and enjoyable then the art is worht creating. Getting up for work in the morning if you don’t like your job is a struggle. Makin art should NEVER be difficult. Maybe that’s your issue?
When I’m making art whether with a paintbrush, or a crayon, or a camera, it is NEVER difficult. I did it before I made a dime off it I’d do it if I stopped making a dime off it. The making part is ALWAYS fun always exciting and always a way to step outside of reality a bit. Hopefully you always end with feeling you got better from the piece you made. While the outcome I may have issues with…but that’s a ME thing. Maybe you meant to say ‘finding pieces of my own work I ENJOY is a struggle.’
I don’t know man. I’m with you on some of this and for whatever reason some of it caught my craw. Could it be you haven’t found the best medium to get out the thigns you feel you need to say? You’ve got some good images for sure, but if the process and results leave you feeling empty and struggling, maybe there’s other things? You certainly seem to have a natural ability to get people talking about things with your writing.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Your article is interesting and compelling and raises a whole series of complex and important question. I can’t possibly aspire to take on all of them, but here are a few thoughts that come to mind.
There is no generally right or wrong way to approach photography of the natural world – or probably of any other subject for that matter. Each of us has preferences and these preferences might even become convictions and beliefs, and these and their presentation in our work become components of our individual styles. While one photographer might feel that, for example, warping the “reality” of the scene in obvious ways is dishonest, another might feel that doing so is a way to communicate other important ideas or perceptions about the subject. I know, to some extent, what I like and what I don’t like, but I have to remind myself that this may not represent absolute truths about the subjects I photograph and how they should be photographed, but perhaps just my own orientation to these subjects.
From my perspective, I usually prefer that landscape and nature photography be “honest” and “believable,” though I reject the notion that it must or even can be an objective representation of the reality of the natural world. The act of photographing that world automatically imposes a subjective point of view, and I believe it is actually impossible for a photograph to be an objective representation of something called reality.
In fact, I like to think that the photograph ultimately tells me more about the photographer than about the subject. Since you mentioned Ansel Adams, his (highly subjective!) photographs of natural and landscape subjects are unlike those of other artist who worked with similar media and similar subjects – not because he more accurately or honestly portrayed those subjects but because of the power of his individual and persona vision of those things as expressed in his photographs. His photographs are, indeed, FAR from being objectively real. First, the world isn’t black and white. Second, his choices about when and where and how to photograph things made a huge difference in how they are seen in his photographs. Third, he relied greatly on manipulating and altering the images in the darkroom (or, as we might say today, “in post”) to achieve the final prints.
You included an interesting statement about him in your post: “Ansel Adams harnessed this ability, using his photographs as a powerful tool to fight increased levels of urbanization and development.”
That’s actually not quite the case. Adams did _allow_ his photographs to be used for purposes like this, but he was also very explicit that when he made photographs he did not do so with such purposes in mind. Essentially, he made photographs (in many cases) because he thought the subject would make a compelling and beautiful photograph.
Dan
October 19th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Thanks for your comment, Dan.
To clarify, I never said that Ansel went out with the sole purpose of creating images for political purposes. I was simply trying to make the point that he understood the power of the image to persuade, and he took full advantage of this power every time he went to D.C. with his portfolio to lobby on behalf of our open spaces in California.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
David – I have no plans to stop doing the kind of photography I enjoy, and that my followers and friends appreciate. Rather, as I consider my future career, (as one of many options) I would like to find a way I can use my photography to actually make a significant and positive impact in changing the attitude of the general population towards the environment (and science), not just hope that I might make a difference.
Steve – that is a good and easy way to at least feel like you are indeed making a difference.
Brian – I do agree with you that making art does not need to be a struggle. The entire process should be enjoyable! As far as creativity, I am in agreement with the dictionary.com definition below:
“the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination: the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts.”
That is, I believe creativity *requires* originality and forward thinking ideas. Putting in effort and working hard are not sufficient for creativity, far from it. Waking up at 2am and climbing a mountain in a -40 degree blizzard every day to get a classic and epic sunrise shot does not constitute creativity – something more is required. Sure that’s some serious dedication and effort, and deserves some recognition, but please, let us not confuse that with creativity. It is no more creative than rolling out of bed in the afternoon and photographing a flower in your backyard.
I agree with Ben that there is a serious lack of creativity (read: originality) in the majority of images posted on the internet and winning contests, be it by professionals, serious amateurs, and happy snappers. The sad thing is, there seems to be very little support for those that truly step away from the norms, and so a vicious cycle is born thanks to the suppression of forward thinking concepts and the need to ‘one-up’ others as a result of Gary Crabbe’s desensitization point. I am purposefully exaggerating a little, because that’s the best way to drive discussion
October 19th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I was more concerned with the originality aspect. Creativity for me by definition can stop after the word ‘CREATE’ The process is as much the importance as the results. I totally agree that the hard work part is a big part of it, not sure if I came across correct. The creativity part comes once you get to the top of the mountain, and perhaps in the thinking part that makes you go “CRAP It’s going to be -40 tomorrow…is my image worth this effort?”
My point was/is that creativity is a whole process from beginning to end. If you’re thinking the end result and process involved that’s creativity. visualize an image, take the steps to get it, go get it, show it, all part of creativity….the spontaneous. driving in the car…OH HEY look at that. Stop. snap. drive on. lacks a lot of creativity….that was my whole argument…however poorly I put it out there.
I don’t think there is a lack of support for the ‘forward thinkers’ as you put it…I think it’s a couple different things.
1) we are for the most part situated with looking at the same types of work by the same lot of 200-400 of us who go online all the time, and show work to one another, comment, and what not. I think that’s where the ‘one-up’ comes in.
2) There’s a lot of good work out there that a lot of people don’t see because they’re more into the subject than the medium. They miss a lot. They look for a certain type of image and find things similar. People tend to also be drawn to the flashier type of work.
3) I think to appreciate the more subtle works you need to see a lot of work…and I think a lot of people just don’t. To appreciate when somebody deviates the norm, you not only need to be historically knowledgeable on photography, and up to the person’s current portfolio, then you know when someone is ‘breaking the mold’ so to speak. We often come across someone and assume what they are doing is different because we lack the the background of the medium and the person.
4) Sometimes, and a lot of times people put up dogshit work too. Just because you break a mold doesn’t mean it’s any good….and sometimes we try to give credit to people for simply being different.
Lastly, I can appreciate the subtle ways, for example, you look at scenes, because I’ve seen a pant load of images for a lot of years. I bet only 25% of the people doing landscape photography now have ever even used film for their creating. Not that that is a huge deal, but it gives some historical perspective. Because i’ve seen a bunch of photography for the better part of 20 years now, I know not perfectly mind you, but better than average when someone is creating a vision well, and when they’re pooping on a page. I LIKE your stuff for that reason, I know what you’re aiming for or trying to showcase. I’ve also followed your work for a few years so I know how it’s morphed and changed, and its’ evident when the work changes. If a layman photographer just happened on some of your more subtle pieces, and had no background…they probably wouldn’t stop. You’d hope they checked out some other things and visited your site in detail to get where you’re at as a photographer, but in reality if they only saw this http://www.artinnaturephotography.com/photo.php?id=312&gallery=redrock
they might miss how subtle and beautiful it is….and you’ve lost a customer…it’s a tough road and I think we’re in a flash here and there mentality hopefully we can get the right people to notice us long enough we can leave a mark.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
My view on landscape photography has changed over the years. Much of it has to do with the digital revolution and post-processing and countless people taking ‘amazing’ photos.
Before I was married, for years I would take the summers off and roam the most wild areas in the lower 48. I would check with the USGS on the areas the furthest from any road or trailhead, and those are the places I would go. I explored and fished these wild places with my two dogs, taking only ‘documentary’ pics as reminders of the places I’ve seen and experiences I had.
Then I started wondering why my pics didn’t look like the Sierra Club calendars and postcards. I was certainly visiting beautiful areas, and I feel I had a natural eye for composition, but I knew nothing of reading light and my images reflected it. So I sent on a journey to learn photography. Instead of taking 2 rolls of film a month, I took 10 rolls a day, shooting Fuji Velvia 50. I was greatly inspired by Galen Rowell. I bought all his GND filters. Soon, without any marketing, my images were in leading magazines, postcards, calendars, millions of hits on Photo.net and Flickr.
I too touted the “I want to promote wilderness preservation by showing the beauty of the places I’ve seen”, blah blah blah. It was sincere, but I soon found that very cliché. I then found myself planning my wilderness adventures around specific places and times, rather than simply enjoying the wilds for what they were. I wanted to come back with that ultimate shot of (fill in the blank location). I wanted to shoot less visited areas, I wanted the “wow” shots. But it was leaving a void. Yes, I enjoy ‘hunting’ for a photo, but it was becoming the driving factor. If a blazing sunset was happening and I couldn’t find a good foreground, it was frustrating. Frustrating? Out in such a freakin’ gorgeous wild place, and I’m running around changing filters and adjusting my tripod and shooting like there’s no tomorrow. God just gave me that sunset to enjoy, not to shoot the crap out of it.
Then came the advent of DSLRs and everyone was shooting. They were shooting amazing pics, blending in post, no GNDs needed. Then there were photographers everywhere. I used to shoot at South Tufa, Mono Lake on a weekend and be by myself. Now I go there and there are throngs of photographers climbing on tufas and cramming their tripods on the bases of tufas. Photographers are everywhere, often being destructive to sensitive wildflowers and locations. In this digital world a good eye certainly helps, but with huge sensors we can crop in post, blend in post, and tweak to make nearly any shot a “wow” shot. Now a photographer has to be half photographer, half technician. The time spent behind computers now managing files and tweaking files is testament to how the industry has changed.
I now am married with two little boys and they capture the attention of my eye. I will get out with them more and more into the wilds, and teach them photography and videography in the process, but first I want them to enjoy the wilds for what they are. Places to cast a line for wary trout, to enjoy the sights and sounds, the sunrises and sunsets, and build memories. My fondest times in the wilds were the ones when I was there only to explore. For photography, I do miss the days of getting a batch of slides back and putting them up the sky to see them. To capture the shot in one click. If I liked one, I’d scan it. The rest go in binders. It was simple and much less time consuming. Now a photo file is just the beginning of the process.
I hate to say this, but I’m rather convinced that landscape photographers, as noble as we try and seem with “showing the beauty of the wilderness to many eyes to promote awareness and conservation”, are often narcissistic in getting those “likes” and “attaboys” by bringing back an amazing photo. It’s like crack. Having a family now that takes all my time and being away from it on a daily basis (although I do still make a substantial amount of my income through photography), I can see it more objectively for what it is. It’s not a bad thing, and photography is a healthy and enjoyable thing to do, but I’m not convinced with the “I take landscape photos to promote the wilderness”. At this point of digital photography saturation, I think it’s actually doing more harm than good in a lot of instances. Spring wildflowers sure don’t look forward to the throngs of photographers.
Just my thoughts on the subject. Since you brought it up, ha! Peace out – El Bucko
October 19th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Hi Benjamin,
I don’t do any photography at all (except maybe a photo of someone squinting into the sunlight or half a head looking back at me). I think you are feeling misplaced guilt. You want to be a great photographer but to what end? Don’t feel this way. Regardless of what you are trying to capture it will be left as an artistic photo done by a good landscape photographer that many, many people will never get the opportunity to see in their lifetime. The picture you take is what is. That’s all. It is not a forecast of doom, it is not exploitation. It is a comment of the here and now all the better that it is a picture of something that is both beautiful and real. Just because you are photographer who does not photograph the ruination of nature, you are not one who exploits it. By loving it, you are showing others that you are naturally in tune with this slice of nature. You are good at what you do. Never mind your worries, you know what is bothering you and just by that knowledge you will stay true to your conscience.
P.S. Shamu and other animals in captivity are sad reminders of the dangers animals face in the environment. But take a picture of them and we have the rest of our lives to remember them. Most of us will never meet these animals in their true environments but what a joy some kid will have looking at pictures of things that lived free before the real exploitation took place.
October 19th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
I think I really like Brian’s comment. It makes a lot of sense, and maybe sheds some light on this more. I think he and possibly you come from a outdoors first perspective. meaning that before he was a photographer he felt the drive and passion provided by the outdoors. I think you do as well, which means that you’ll probably always be wanting a way to show the nature the gratitude for the memories and such it has provided you.
I come to where I am from a photography first stand point. I went outside as a kid sure, camped what not, but for me Nature is a subject for creating art with my camera first. Not that I won’t respect it, take care of it, etc…if that comes with what I do. I don’t feel like I owe nature more than the respect and consideration I would treat a person if they were my subject. I’m not going to throw trash on the ground, like I wouldn’t throw trash on a person. I obey the rules best I can, and try to get people I work with and for to do the same…it’s fair.
For me, I’m not able to enjoy just being out as much. If I can’t go make art…then for me the results will always be disappointing. It’s WHY I went out in the scary bear infested woods in the first place. TO MAKE SOMETHING. I try to enjoy it more, and still find some enjoyment in the camaraderie and little pleasures in being out. I’ve never been a fan of the singing part of church, so for me the being outside fills that part of my faith…which is good. I think though we ultimately come from different beginnings which is why we have different outlooks.
GOOD stuff
October 19th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Brian, excellent point. Perspective is everything. I grew up exploring the wilds for the love of adventure and the love of the wilderness. Once my camera became seriously involved it almost became more of a subject than an experience. I felt like I could come back with some pretty cool images, and I was feeding on the reception I received. I see that now. I do love photography, but I think I’ve found some balance through the years.
You’re coming at it from being a photographer, and God’s creation is obviously a wonderful subject to shoot. Being in nature is just icing on your cake. I could live with that. If you ever hike the John Muir Trail, just be thankful you don’t have to carry 180 rolls of Velvia 50 in your pack, ha ha!
October 19th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Brian Ernst – very nicely put, I agree.
Mary – Perhaps it started out as misplaced guilt, but now I have come to the realization that the current framework from which I was operating is no longer sustainable. My photography is based on short term self-interest, and is motivated only by personal gain. My ego was leaving me with a shortness of vision, I was always asking “what can I gain from nature,” instead of finding creative ways to showcase the landscapes that needed discussing. The notion that nature is here to serve us now seems like an archaic concept to me. Think of a symbiotic relationship vs. a parasitic relationship.
I’ll use the same line I used above.. I think landscape photography needs to shift into having prospective purposes instead of retrospective purposes. That is, let’s not use the pretty pictures to describe a moment that once was–-instead, let’s use the pretty pictures to spur meaningful dialogue about the actions needed to save the lands from future degradation.
And you’re right, you take a picture of Shamu and it is a wonderful reminder. But take a picture of Shamu, and add a little bit of creative vision, and you could have a conceptual art piece that demands attention, causes controversy, and creates a meaningful dialogue about the plight of captured animals. All I’m saying is that we can no longer be comfortable with only taking pictures for memory’s sake–because without action, the landscapes will be just that, memories, and that premise is not something that I’m ready to accept.
–
Some folks are asking for contemporary examples.
Chris Jordan is a photographer that is doing amazing things, sparking change, and getting people to reevaluate their daily activities. When I worked in Washington D.C. for Congressman Sam Farr, we used some of his Midway images in a paper to advocate for the passage of Clean Oceans legislation. http://chrisjordan.com/
Here is another example. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/bringing-black-turtles-back-from-the-brink-with-photography.php I know J. Nichols, and the creativity that he is using to save sea turtles is tremendous. He also spoke at a TedX Conference recently about plastic in our oceans.
October 19th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Once you make it all the way down to the bottom of these comments, you almost feel obligated to say something. I want to say that I appreciate the perspectives that everyone has shared, and I hope the extra thought that has been put into defining a purpose for nature photography becomes more than just thought.
I recently embarked on a relatively similar effort in my own photography for a radically (maybe) different reason that I won’t get into here out of respect for this being Ben’s blog and not mine. I can relate to the desire to have one’s photography contribute to people’s understanding of more than just one’s self.
Ben – Obviously you know that things are going to change in your photography if you really commit to this new goal (that’s the point), and you’re no doubt ready for some things outside of your photography to change as well. The surprise may come in how much change happens in which of those two places. My personal experience has been that the far greater upheaval has been in life surrounding my photography than in any photographic product I’ve created. One thing is certain, I’ve passed on opportunities I would normally have taken to create new photographs.
Best of luck to you in achieving a greater purpose (than what you’ve grown accustomed to) in your photography.
October 21st, 2011 at 9:47 am
First congratulations for putting your thoughts to paper and helping others to do the same.
As I read it there are three main themes. The first is a personal journey. Who is the I that I chooses to focus the camera and why do I pick the subjects I pick. The second theme is what is the state of the world around me. The third is how do I influence others towards my world view.
As to the first theme, let’s remember how lucky we are to be able to sit and contemplate these issues not having to worry about immediate problems of staying alive like much of the worlds population. And due mostly to a technical revolution we are able to inexpensively go out and shoot thousands of images. Which is why we are joined by thousands of others doing much the same thing for their own reasons. Because people are able to do that many more are now receptive to the global issues you bring up.
Which brings us to the second issue. My day job is a scenic tour pilot in Alaska. Each year thousands show up at our doorstep wanting to see the big wild life that Alaska symbolizes. And that is my chance to make them aware of the lack of wild life, the diminishing glaciers etc. Even still many will leave convinced that mans intervention is miniscule and the globe can absorb it all. But because there are more people out looking, there are more who are seeing. And there is a movement afoot to display the underbelly of the beast which is what I hear you saying we have an obligation to do. Personally I believe that humans will always consume, that is what we do. The short sightedness of fighting over resources and not expanding outside of this gravity well is what drives me over the edge. ‘Nuff said.
Third issue of convincing others. If we find that which resonates deep within us and bring that out through creative processes, then it will resonate with those around us who are ready. In my own book “Alaskan Air”, I write into the text small examples of our needing to being stewards of the earth. That way while the reader is in awe of the naturally beauty they might be more receptive to the underlying message. Those that are not ready can not be made to listen. But like a herd of sheep heading towards the cliff, if those on the edge will look forward far enough and move in a better direction then the rest might follow in time.
Or not.
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:25 am
Thank you for posting this. I think there are a lot of us who photograph that struggle with this.
I’ve come to believe that anything we do in our lives can offer us a path to enlightenment. Photography is no exception. Part of that path is living an conscious and examined life. The other part is learning how to get “us” out of the way. From what you’ve written, it’s clear to me that you are on this path.
The fact that you started by mimicking the ones who inspired you makes perfect sense – we all do, it’s how we learn. Then you worked on expanding your horizons, exposing yourself to “distant lands” and studying different techniques, you grew both as a photographer and as a human. As you grew, you questioned your assumptions: were you exploiting nature? were you injecting your cultural biases? was your work distorting the environmental reality?
To me, the answer to all those questions is “yes” but the growth, both for you and for those looking at your images, comes from the mere fact that you are asking those questions.
I’m not sure that we’re going to change the world by taking this image or that – but I am certain that we will profoundly alter this planet by growing our consciousness. Questioning our motivations, sharing our insights and continuing our efforts to quiet our minds so that we can see more of the gifts that the light brings is, in my opinion, exactly how we become engaged.
You’re on the right path.
October 24th, 2011 at 4:20 am
Very nicely written and thought provoking. As a new photographer, this article gave me something to think about as I develop my own photographic style . . . I’ve also come to realize that as much as a story can be told with words, it can be told with a single photograph as well. Thanks for the insight and the reflection.
June 6th, 2012 at 11:59 am
Excellent post, Ben. Well-written and thought through. I’ve often said that some day everyone will be Green, but the irony is that by then it may be too late. The reason all photographers who like to make beautiful photographs of nature would be wise to help defend nature, whether with their photography directly or not, is that over time the beauty will disappear. Those who have spent significant time in nature have already begun to notice changes for the worse. The planet will in time become less beautiful and eventually completely ugly unless we do something about it.
To answer Floris’ question of how we are to do this: even actions as simple as this post help to get people thinking and raise awareness that something need be done. Using photos for activism or not, is personal preference, but caring about and doing what we can to protect the Earth, in my opinion, is not optional, if you carry your thinking forward into the future to envision what it will be like.
September 24th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Ben -
Absolutely love your Bean Hollow and Four Mile Sunset pictures. How do I buy a copy that I can frame. Great stuff, keep up the good work.
Bruce