Are artists who ignore potential political impact of their work irresponsible? If the work is subject to misinterpretation or misuse (and what isn’t?), is it the job of the artist to consider this in advance? Is self-censorship in the service of your own beliefs necessary?
This issue is especially a burning one for landscape photographers of my ilk. This is partly because of the ease of mass reproduction and distribution of their work. Though a quilt or a painting or a drawing could be similarly used (probably via photographic reproduction), it is at least clear that what is distributed is not the direct product of the artist; someone else has taken a hand. It is also partly because photography is commonly assumed to be documentary: a photograph seems to be a less mediated depiction of the world, and therefore it is taken as a more authoritative statement (by the photographer) about what the world is like.
Many of my own photographs — for example, my waterfalls series — are essentially devoid of evidence of human impact on the environment, which appears to be pristine (though the recently rediscovered photograph shows a railing around the flat patch of snow just to the right of the brink). I know full well that people tend to take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Despite the logical fallacy, they will assume that the spawning trout live without a thought of fishermen, and that the waterfall is in the depths of the wild, far from people and cars.
I am not trying to create “beautiful” nature images that could go on postcards or calendars. But I certainly don’t want to contribute to ecoporn, even unconsciously. In fact I have one or two project ideas I may be working towards that more obviously depict human impacts. Yet when I was in Yellowstone last weekend, I just did not want to work on those. I hope those other projects come to fruition in their time, but I’m not ready to force the issue.
Still, I can raise the question with you. Am I politically naive, shamelessly self-indulgent? Has the issue ever arisen for you?
What a stunning picture of fish and water. You are great at color!
A very thought provoking post, Steve. Especially considering I’d just read Sunil’s post on Damien Hirst’s diamond studded skull, a work which has so many political and social implications.
You raise a lot of questions and I wonder if what you’re really asking yourself is if you want to show the whole picture or just a part of it (excuse the pun) but I’d like to respond to one thing you wrote, which is your assumption of what viewers of your photographs think (when they see the trout or the waterfall, etc.).
Well…how do you know what the viewer is thinking? I would suggest that these thoughts are your projections, infused by the new guilt about the environment that is sweeping our country like a religious revival movement in the nineteenth century. Ecoporn indeed. As I once posted on my blog, “Green is the new religion.”
You take beautiful photographs and I will assume it makes you happy and you feel like you’ve accomplished something. Otherwise, why would you do it? Isn’t that enough? You find beauty in what you do. Others find beauty in what you see as destruction. All of this put together helps us work towards a whole picture of what’s going on.
In the nineteenth century, there were landscape artists who believed in the whole Manifest Destiny thing and depicted that in their work. One could say they were irresponsible men who created ecoporn. Other artists focused more on the damage they saw around them and created works that expressed their sorrow and concerns over the changes brought on by industrialization and some would say they were admirable. Yet, here we are over 100 years later debating the same issues. Why is that?
I know full well that people tend to take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Despite the logical fallacy, they will assume that the spawning trout live without a thought of fishermen, and that the waterfall is in the depths of the wild, far from people and cars.
Steve, more and more, the population of the world lives in cities. At the very least, your photos, whether they fully represent “reality” or not, can be a reminder to urban dwellers that there’s more to the world than freeways and chain stores. This could actually increase the value they place on preserving the environment, which means that you’re creating a positive political impact.
What if someone looked at Edward Burtynsky’s photographs and decided that environmental destruction was beautiful? You can’t control or predict what your viewers will do.
I love the fish photo as well – wow! I can see that being a fabulous painting.
Great thoughts about repsonsibility for your images. I think artists get lazy about that issue. I try to talk to my students about it and their eyes tend to glaze over. I do believe it is the job of the artist to consider all potential impact of their work, not just the political. That does not mean they can control the array of viewers’ reactions, but they certainly can predict some of them.
Nonetheless, your photos do not strike me as self-indulgent or naive. One could say that your enjoyment of the beauty of “pure” nature is, in itself a political statement in this day and age. Wasn’t Ansel Adams a huge envioronmentalist? Your awarenss of the issue does not make you immune to being an eco-pornographer (jeez, what a word!), but your awareness will take you far in developing a meaningful body of work. I would not force the environemntal content into your work. It will feel forced to the viewer – pictures don’t lie.
Thanks, Birgit, this was evidently an image that cried out for color. I never even looked at it in black and white.
Tree,
Thanks for your thoughful remarks. I was trying not to be so presumptuous as to know what a viewer would be thinking, although I think one can still hazard a reasonable guess about some things that some people might think. But you make an excellent point that my images are only a fraction of all images that people see of these subjects, and any one image of mine is a fraction of my own output. Even if one had a clear idea of a message to convey, it doesn’t have to be present in each and every image. What a boring world it would be!
Is it enough for me to create photographs I find beautiful? Perhaps, though I guess I would be more satisfied if others got some enjoyment from them, too. But, ideally, I’d like viewers to also learn something or see something that would affect, for example, their understanding of or attitude toward nature.
Why are we still debating these issues? I suppose we always will, because they will always be important, they’ll never be settled even for a given generation, and art will always be a way of addressing them.
Steve,
Be careful — it’s only a matter of time before someone calls your photos “decorative:-)”
I do think Leslie (and you) are right in raising awareness, not merely with the artist (who, after all, knows he’s ignored the garbage dump) but with all of us (Leslie’s students will be consumers of art as well as artists). We all need to be reminded to be aware. But that isn’t the same as refusing to make beautiful art because the world is ugly.
Eco-porn — mercy, what a snotty word. Obviously you aren’t naive in your understanding — and I resist thinking that making gorgeous art is “self-indulgent.” There’s a lot of self-indulgence out there that makes me angry, but even in my strongest Adams-rants, I never thought of him as self-indulgent.
I suppose I would have to say that if you are naive, it is in thinking that your photographs, by themselves, can bring viewers to “learn something or see something that would affect, for example, their understanding of or attitude toward nature.” As highly as I think of art and artists, it is a tiny part of an overwhelming visual culture and its effects are scarcely ever the result of one painting or photograph.
And I am currently allowing myself to drown in paint, and the fish is crying out for excessive slabs of overlain paint. In point of fact, I had declared a silent moratorium on looking at carp art — it’s a favorite with unskilled drawers and people working in textiles. But this one –well, it goes over the top and up the other mountain. I keep going back to it.
your photos, whether they fully represent “reality” or not, can be a reminder to urban dwellers that there’s more to the world than freeways and chain stores
David, I agree that such reminders are critical to environmentalism. I think the images of Ansel Adams that Leslie mentioned, which made for fabulous calendars, performed that role well. Nevertheless, there’s plenty of debate among photographers whether yet more Adams-like images can serve such a purpose, or if they start to induce complacency about how “pure” the environment still is — though that’s a misconception in the first place. I guess that’s one reason I want my images not to be just like his: not just another Adams, but something a little different that you might think about. To the extent that someone thinks about an image and doesn’t gloss over it with facile “recognition,” I count myself successful.
By the way, for a recent, very thoughtful discussion on Burtynsky and politics, and pointers to other opinions, see the blog post by Jim Johnson.
Oh, it’s hard to have your photographs praised because they’re like paintings! Just kidding, I take it as a compliment (I might even accept decorative). That brushstroke-like effect of the flowing water is what really attracted me to the subject; I’ve always been a sucker for fish paintings, including carp. This particular fish is a Yellowstone cutthroat trout, named I assume for the slash of red. They’re threatened by lake trout that compete for food and later prey on them. I saw an otter eating one a few weeks ago, now that was impressive at close range.
Steve:
Absence of evidence = evidence of abstinence?
It is hard to hide the fact that you took the photograph. In essence it is you and the figure off in the distance, both treading and scaring off whatever wildlife is not hanging around looking for a treat. Actually, the demands that my computer is now placing on the environment has a greater impact than your presence on location – especially if you biked in, as I imagine you did.
I would take your approach any day over some clown who goes out and paints eyes on rock formations.
“Perhaps, though I guess I would be more satisfied if others got some enjoyment from them, too.”
I certainly do :-)
Steve:
I do love that fish! It dissolves into a world of moving colors with its only concession to flesh being a small dorsal flash. Did you follow it with your camera or did you stay still?
I will swim laps at the outdoor pool today and will be moving through a similar dappled environment.
Jay,
Only the water is moving. Sometimes the fish dart ahead up the stream, but mostly they are at rest (almost) building up strength, or so I imagine. It’s roughly a foot long, by the way. And I also read this morning that the local osprey population is way down because (in part) the cutthroat population is down because of the introduced lake trout (see comment 8) which stay too deep in the lake for the osprey. So there are human impacts everywhere, and the dissolving you mention may be prophetic. Have a good swim!
Steve,
You bring out a powerful concept in eco porn. Left me wondering if a mini project I was embarking on poverty might be construed as ‘bring attention to the disadvantaged porn’ as there are a surfeit of images and devices that do the trick already. In fact I am reminded of an article I read that stated that the majority of the world population is now inured to images of starving people and would just move on, but on seeing an image of a starving dog would gladly contribute to canine emancipation…
The fish is beautiful.
Steve:
The sky was overcast and the pool was murky and we got drizzled upon at one point. I just hate getting wet when swimming!
Sunil,
Interesting comment. There is a term used by people who work in social services or advocacy/justice work – poverty pimp – referring to people who make their living off of people’s disadvantages and use others’ misforune to elevate their own status in the world. You are not a poverty pimp, but I think it is never a bad idea to check in with yourself about your motivations. And I think it presents challenges about how to present your work in the most effective, respectful way. Getting people’s attention is only part of the challenge.
Leslie,
I agree with you. My motivations remain strong nevertheless.. They need the attention… This link is but one pointer… (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735 )
Sunil