Assignment 3: Critical Essay. Tutor Feedback and Final Comments

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.

Discussion on the Execution of the Critical Review: "Understanding the Genre of Wildlife Photography: what are its Values and is it Art?"

After many hours of hard work (far more than was suggested in the course notes) I submitted my critical review for Assignment 3 to my tutor on 7 August 2014. The critical review proposal can be found elsewhere in this blog: broadly speaking, I stuck to the plan outlined there. What follows are the explanatory notes that accompanied the review.

I am, first and foremost, a wildlife photographer. My interest stems from a love of wildlife that I developed as a small child. However, until the advent of digital cameras my output was very limited, mainly because I was concerned about wasting precious film. Nowadays I can instantly review my images on the back screen of my digital camera, delete the bad ones and, if my subject(s) is still around, take more photographs, correcting for exposure, depth of field etc. all the time. Suddenly wildlife photography has become much easier both for me and for millions of others around the world.

After I started OCA course work in 2007 I began to realise that there was more to learn about photography than simply improving techniques in order to produce better pictures. Photography had become integrated within the world of art and major photography exhibitions were appearing with increasing regularity in London. Very slowly I started to understand that producing aesthetically pleasing images did not guarantee recognition, particularly within the art world. Partly in order to broaden my horizons I dabbled in other areas of photography, in particular the use of reflections to create abstract images. I joined the London Independent Photographic Society (LIPS) for a couple of years and made a substantial effort to understand the photography that appeared in their monthly magazines and annual exhibitions. However, I never got to appreciate or understand the value of much of the work; nor did I find it aesthetically appealing. Without realising it at the time, what I was looking at was concept-driven photographic art. Eventually I gave up trying to connect with the work of other LIPS members and left.

Further down the line in my OCA course work I started to understand, by virtue of research and project work, more about the theory and practice of photographic art and to appreciate why there was more to images (or portfolios of images) that I had been studying than simple aesthetic appeal, which was often lacking. Understanding the background to the work helped me to appreciate the images more, although many still left me cold. I tried to connect my own wildlife photography to this work: I failed! Wildlife images may be popular and appealing, but they seemed as different to photographic art as chalk is to cheese.

Whilst I occasionally tried to integrate my wildlife photography into the OCA course work at levels 1 and 2 I put most of my effort into improving technique, investigating other genres in which I was interested (in particular landscape photography, documentary and photo-collage) and learning more about the history of and theory behind movements in photographic art. However, the current course offered more freedom to express myself and I decided to return to my main interest and carry out a major project with a conceptual theme (“why we feed wild birds”) within the genres of wildlife and documentary photography. A natural topic for the critical essay was therefore to look at the relationship (if any) between wildlife photography and photographic art: not only would this give me a better understanding of how to produce a concept-driven portfolio but also it would give me the opportunity to channel the frustration that I, as a wildlife photographer, had felt about the lack of interest shown in this genre by the art world, into a piece of writing.

 I concentrated initially on the relationship between the genre of wildlife photography and the world of photographic art. I was fortunate that as I was starting to put together my ideas I noticed a forum on the OCA web site:

(http://www.weareoca.com/photography/tweet/?utm_source=Student+Body+01%2F08%2F2013&utm_campaign=2e0238cdc1-E_bulletin_29_August_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d579763e43-2e0238cdc1-64339533)

The forum discussed the relationship of wildlife photography with photographic art, other genres and OCA course content. Although I found much of the discussion simplistic and superficial (understandably, given the medium) and I disagreed with some of the comments I was encouraged by the fact that some of the contributors were similarly frustrated by the apparent dismissal of wildlife photography in the artistic media and by being unable to express their interest in wildlife photography through their course work. The forum also reinforced my view that the very different attitude to the genre of landscape photography by the art establishment must be the key to understanding why wildlife photography has become isolated and this encouraged me to dig deeper into the reasons for the very different treatment of these genres.

 I had come into contact with the work of Daniel Beltrá and other “wildlife photojournalists” through my regular visits to the “Wildlife Photographer of the Year” and “Sony World Photography Awards” exhibitions and felt that their work provided an important link between the genres of wildlife photography, documentary and photojournalism. Whilst this does not provide a link with the creative arts it does both highlight a connection between wildlife photography and other genres and suggests a potentially important role for the genre. I had originally planned to give Daniel Beltrá’s work more prominence in the essay. However his output, whilst important to the flow of my argument, is still fairly limited so I decided to restrict myself to commenting in detail on a single portfolio of his work.

The research to find a connection between wildlife photography and photographic art sent me in some fascinating directions. Whilst I ultimately failed to find a clear solution that might integrate these areas I did establish (in my own mind, at least) why the genre of landscape photography has become accepted by the photographic art establishment, whilst the genre of wildlife photography has not. I am convinced now that the differences between these two genres explain why wildlife photography occupies its current niche.

The essay was started in March 2014, but the majority was written between May and early August, with breaks for holidays. Because of my interest in the subject matter I found it easy to write an initial draft. The main problem was in giving prominence to answering the various questions and issues raised in the introduction. I decided to write objectively, to provide a relatively impartial view (c.f. Project 5) of the subject. Despite being in love with wildlife photography I found that it was not too difficult to comprehend why there is so little interaction between this genre and the photographic art establishment, why it differs from the genre of landscape photography and hence why it occupies its current role. Of course I may be mistaken, but the review aims to understand the genre, its status and its interaction with other genres. It is not a polemic about the way wildlife photography has been unfairly treated!

I have consciously avoided mentioning specific wildlife photographers (other than the photojournalists), because I felt that discussing their (figurative) work would not add anything to the debate. Perhaps my essay is skewed a little towards understanding the role of landscape photography in the development of photographic art, but I felt that this was important in explaining why the differences between this genre and that of wildlife photography help us to understand why the latter is largely ignored by the art establishment.

Final Comments

When I started writing the essay I felt hopeful that I could find a role for wildlife photography within the art establishment. With the essay finished I now realise how hard it will be for the genre to establish a foothold! However, I do have a much greater understanding of why the worlds of the wildlife photographer and the art establishment show so little overlap. I hope that my major project will explore some of the areas of overlap.

 I do believe that wildlife photography has an important role to play, both in inspiring more people to interact with nature and in bringing the attention of the world to the way that man is destroying the natural world. The total destruction of our environment and the wildlife that goes with it will leave little hope for the future of mankind. Wildlife photography will disappear, but so will other photographic genres. Wildlife photography may not be art, but it is important!

Critical Review Proposal (January 2014)

For the critical review I will discuss the reasons why the genre of natural history photography has become separated from other photographic genres and totally divorced from the world of photographic fine art. Referencing the work of the photographer Daniel Beltrá I will then consider what value natural history photography brings to the photographic world, whether it can be integrated with work in other genres and, if so, how.

I will confront the following questions:

·         Why is the genre of natural history/wildlife photography largely excluded from serious discussion within the world of photographic art when other genres, such as landscape photography (with which it has much in common) and social documentary are greeted with far greater critical appreciation?

·         Why do practitioners of natural history photography currently have no role to play within the world of photographic fine art? Is this situation likely to change in the future?

·         What values can be placed on the genre? Does it have more to offer art and society than pretty “trophy” pictures that demonstrate the photographers’ technical skills, expertise and dedication in tracking down their subjects?

To answer the first question I will look to past and current practice and delineate some of the reasons why natural history photography has become separated from other major genres which are all represented, to a greater or lesser extent, within the world of photographic fine art.

To answer the second question I will look at differences in style and philosophy between natural history photographers and photographic fine art practitioners and investigate whether there is any overlap between the two.

To consider the final question I will refer to the role of natural history photography within the fields of documentary photography and photojournalism. In particular I will discuss the work of Daniel Beltrá, a Spanish-born photographer who is now based in the USA. Beltrá started out as a photo-journalist before becoming an assignment photographer for Greenpeace and doing freelance work in conservation photography. Often working from the air, his photographs juxtapose the natural world with the destruction wrought, accidentally or deliberately, by man. In 2011 his photograph “Still Life in Oil”, showing Brown Pelicans covered in oil from the Deepwater Horizon spillage, was the overall winner of the prestigious international “Wildlife Photographer of the Year” competition whilst his strikingly beautiful, almost abstract, series of images of the spillage taken from the air won the corresponding “Wildlife Photojournalist of the Year” award. Beltrá himself says of these images: “It’s a route to understanding that doesn’t depend on shock………if the image is aesthetically appealing, people are likely to stop and look at the caption.” Beltrá has won several other major international awards. I will use his work, both to emphasize the important documentary role played by natural history photographs and to make the case that natural history images can, in the right hands, bridge the gaps between photo-journalism, wildlife/natural history photography and photographic art.

I am a natural history photographer with a scientific background and an interest in environmental issues. I also have an interest in fine art and a partner who is currently studying for a fine art degree, so I believe that I am in a strong position to consider the issues that are raised in the opening paragraph of this proposal, and in the bullet points, from both sides of the “divide”. The research into the work of Beltrá and other like-minded photo-journalists and natural history photographers will inform my own practice by giving me a better understanding of how to conceive and produce photographs that, whilst still relevant to specific natural history topics, are both informative and attractive for a wide audience of viewers. The concept of producing images of the natural world that are both aesthetically appealing and tell an important story should, whilst difficult to put into practice, set standards for me to approach in my own work. The research will also assist me in developing my major project work, where I will be telling a story with a heavy emphasis on natural history through the use of photographs in different genres. The resultant photographic portfolio will be expected to comprise strong images with some aesthetic appeal and to be of interest to a wide audience of viewers.

Whilst striving for objectivity in answering the questions posed above I intend to write the review from the point of view of a passionate and committed wildlife photographer, to take a stance that challenges the reader and to set out my title as either a statement (to defend) or a question (to be answered), as was recommended (and followed) for the critical essay project in my previous course: “Photography 2: Progressing with Digital Photography”.