In the critical essay I commented
on the role of the genre of wildlife photography (current, past and possibly
future) and attempted to answer the following questions:
- What are its values?
- What is its current status?
- Why is it largely ignored by the photographic art establishment?
- In contrast, why is the genre of landscape photography (with which it has much in common) greeted by the photographic art establishment with far greater critical appreciation?
- Is it possible to bridge the perceived gap between wildlife photography and photographic art in the future?
- What benefits can the traditional “figurative” values of the genre bring?
By the time I had finished the
essay I was satisfied that I had at least had a go at answering these questions
and had painted an objective (although admittedly broad brush) picture of the
genre of wildlife photography and its links with other genres, as well as
looking at some possible future directions for the genre.
My tutor was not so happy,
feeling in particular that the title of the essay (“Understanding the genre of
wildlife photography: what are its values and is it art?”) was too broad (in
retrospect I agree with this) and didn’t allow me to get to the heart of the
topic. He noted that the document “has a good deal of interest relative to your
study area” and that “you have made a good effort in the review and to develop
your knowledge and understanding for the major project work”. However, “there
is a limited amount of knowledge gained from this research piece in terms of
how you can move your own work forward”. In his response he highlighted two
areas that might, in their own right, have provided narrower subject areas for
an essay. These are highlighted in points 1 and 2 below:
1.
“How does aesthetic appeal grow into pleasurable
feeling for a viewer? Why or how can a documentary photograph evoke ethos,
empathy or sympathy – considered or emotional reactions?” and:
2.
“What do wildlife artists add to their work that
photographers may not understand and/or use?” Comparing and contrasting the
work of a number of wildlife artists with known photographers of similar
subjects would have allowed me to “categorise the elements involved” (in
looking at the artists’ work as art) and perhaps identify a way forward for
photographers who also wish their work to be considered as art.
Both areas
are, as my tutor pointed out, pertinent and very relevant to my major project
work and will be of value to me in plotting a way forward. They could have made
good subjects for a separate essay. Nevertheless, the subject matter for the
critical review had been agreed with my tutor beforehand and there is no way that I
could have incorporated the issues raised by these points (assuming that I had thought of them!) into the planned
essay without expanding it well beyond 3000 words.
In the essay I
reviewed the work of Daniel Beltrá, a
photojournalist who carries out assignment work for Greenpeace, within the context
of showing that photojournalism can, in the right hands, amalgamate the genres
of wildlife and documentary photography. My tutor commented that “you review
his work well” but: “He is a photojournalist. He isn’t a wildlife
photographer”. I disagree with this statement. Beltrá
is both a photojournalist (by
profession) and a wildlife
photographer. More importantly, he cares for the environment and publicises the
way that we are destroying the environment by the use of abstract, “artistic”
images that have great aesthetic appeal and therefore attract a wide audience,
publicity and a public reaction that just may bring to the fore
environmentalists of the future. These, in turn, might even prevent the loss of
all our wildlife. I removed a number of strong and/or controversial statements
from the final draft of the essay but left one in. Referring to the (potential)
influence of wildlife photographers it reads as follows: “…. and they need to be influential, because
the damage we are causing to the environment may ultimately lead to the genre
of wildlife photography disappearing altogether, as there will be no wildlife
left to photograph”. This statement ties in strongly with the first and
last questions posed in my introduction, above. The use of photojournalism to
bind wildlife and documentary photography together, the use of the image of
oiled pelicans (is this not a wildlife photograph?) and the popularity of
images of threatened species (“take a look at this portrait of a tiger in the
wild, because you will have to go to a zoo to see them in the future”) point to
current and future values for wildlife photography, both “figurative” and
“artistic”.
My tutor made
the points that I did not provide names when talking about the world of
photographic art (this was quite deliberate and also applied to my discussion
of the world of the wildlife photographer) and that I provided no statistics in
the review (the example he quoted was that when Kodak made film only 5% of the
output was provided for the professional market [I’m surprised that the figure
wasn’t lower!]). Point taken, but I didn’t feel it was necessary to quote
statistics to make my points. Perhaps I was wrong.
When talking
about landscape photography and the “New Topographical” conceptual examination
of existence, rather than the figurative value of this work, my tutor comments
that “the work and its derivatives have intrinsic aesthetic values. Those you
should have examined, identified and discussed”. This is a good point and
relates back to point 1 above. My research led me in some interesting
directions and I used “New Topographics” to highlight how new concepts and
ideas within the boundaries of the landscape photography genre led to its
acceptance as photographic art. I bought the book of the original “New
Topographics” exhibition and studied the photographs, but was unable to
understand why the featured work was held in such high regard; only that it
represented an important breakaway from the purely figurative values of
previous work and that it was acclaimed by the artistic community. To
understand the aesthetic appeal of this work will be to understand the general appeal
of photographic art and its underlying conceptual approach. My tutor warned me that
this might take me several years: I’m not there yet.
In conclusion,
to fully answer the questions raised in the title and introductory pages of my
essay I would have had to have written a far longer essay: perhaps one or more
chapters in a book! Nevertheless I feel that I have raised most of the key
issues and have done so objectively. Whilst admitting to being a wildlife
photographer I have not “taken sides” on any of the issues. As a consequence my
conclusions are unsurprising and, although I have been able to find little
common ground between the world of photographic art and the world of the
wildlife photographer, I believe that I have put forward a strong case for
wildlife photography being regarded as an important and influential genre, both
now and in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment