Posted by Curtis Knight on October 16, 2006 at 12:43 PM
I'm putting this in Hot Topics because I'm sure it would get there
sooner or later, mainly because of the nature of the question I'm
about to ask.
Is it possible to succeed as a professional nature photographer,
without getting involved in eco-politics?
Some day I would like to be able to sell my photographs as fine art prints. I love nature photography for its own sake and I refuse to attach a political agenda to it. My photography is my art; It is not ammunition for lobbyists.
Posted by Terry Sohl on October 16, 2006 at 1:33 PM
This coming from an amateur, but sure, why not? People that buy your work aren't generally interested in you, they're interested in the photography.
On a personal level though...while you don't have to tie your political beliefs to your photography, I for one have become much more politically active after I started doing nature photography. For me, it's simple...I love nothing more than being outside, shooting birds, other fauna, landscapes, and whatever else might cross my path. If there's something that jeopardizes that outdoor resource, you bet my "political agenda" will show through.
I'm a wacko, far left tree-hugging liberal, without any doubt. However, I still fail to understand why those on the opposite end of the political spectrum must necessarily take an opposite stance on the environment. My biggest pet peeve...not letting individual issues stand on their own, and failing to make a personal choice on each. I truly get sick of BOTH sides of the aisle being so firmly entrenched as either a "liberal" or a "conservative" that simple issues like protecting the environment instead become fodder for political warfare.
Posted by Basil Greber on October 16, 2006 at 1:48 PM
Can you produce really moving nature photography without loving nature? And can you really love nature without taking action when you fear destruction of your favorite subjects?
Curtis: interesting that your signature quotes Eugene Smith on "passion" and you ask this question....
I think you BETTER be interested in and involved in eco-politics if you're interested in being a passionate "nature" photographer for any length of time. It is vital that those of us who actually give a damn about the kind of world we raise our children into fight for what is rapidly disappearing. Our government cannot be trusted to do the right thing - it's up to us.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 16, 2006 at 3:24 PM
You don't have to be an activist, but you should take an interest in what's going on. If you have no interest in knowing the issues, then are you saying that you only care about making visual arts but not for the subject matter?
Posted by Curtis Knight on October 16, 2006 at 3:51 PM
I could go into a long diatribe about my opinions on both sides of environmental issues. Hopefully you'll allow me to simply say that yes, I care, but no, I don't intend to spend my life involved in politics. I say my piece with my vote, and I consider voting to be my civic duty, not just a prvilage to be used when I'm in the mood to fill out the ballot.
I'm not going to debate the issues in this thread. I certainly don't mind if the rest of you debate them in this thread. I knew that would happen when I asked the question, and I figure I'll probably learn something from said debate.
Politics breeds hostility, and I have enough of that in the rest of my life. I don't need it in my art. Sure, one could argue that I'm asking a political question, and therefore defeating my own purpose. Well, I don't have an clever come back for you... you got me. Sometimes you can't avoid a little politics. I just don't want it to become the center of my life.
If I discover some day that it's not possible for me to succeed as a pro nature photographer without getting involved in the politics, then I'll just continue with my hobby as just that. A hobby. And I'll share my images with people by giving them as gifts, or something.
I appreciate the responses so far. please keep them coming...
Very good topic.... personallly I think and feel to become a better nature photographer is to become a better nature conservationist. And can we take moving nature photos without having some appreciton or passion for nature.. I don't think so. There are several fields for our choice, but not everyone can be a wildlife or nature photographer.. God has given alll of us a special gift, be thankful if you know what your's is and that you get to share it .
William
Posted by Steve Foss on October 16, 2006 at 6:08 PM
Curtis, you don't have to involve yourself directly in politics at all to be a commercially successful photographer. If your images are compelling to enough people, you'll find print markets for them. Some of those magazines will be tremendously political, so there is that, but it's not the same as embrioling yourself directly in politics. I can tell you that, when I'm passionate about some political cause that's taking my attention and my time, I'm not able to make pictures worth a damn, because I'm at my best when I can focus my full attention on one area at a time. There is a place in the world for vision undistracted by the mundane.
Posted by Randy Beacham on October 17, 2006 at 2:33 AM
Seeing how I specialize in environmental issues and locations that are controversial from a political standpoint, and being the starving photographer that I am, I would ask the question, "Is it possible to succeed as a professional nature photographer, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME getting involved in eco-politics"?
Actually, I would venture that the majority of proferssional outdoor photographers are not involved in environmental politics at all. While you may read about political issues in photography magazines, or obviously in magazines produced by environmental organizations like the National Wildlife Federation, the vast majority of magazines that are outdoor oriented shy away from politics because they're so afraid of upsetting subscribers.
That's about the last thing I would think of if I was considering starting a business in photography. There are so many other things to consider, such as "will I enjoy eating top ramen at least once a day for the next fiver years, am I financially disciplined enough to start a business, am I passionate and motivated about my work so much that I enjoy working 80 + hours a week, will my wife toss me out the door when I tell her I'm quiting my day job or will she wait until I've spent all our life savings after quiting my day job, are my images unique enough, are my images generic enough, do I enjoy negotiating sales, talking on the phone with potential clients, do I enjoy traveling."
Seriously, consider what you're interests and passions are and focus in that direction. If you don't care about issues that are political in nature just don't focus your time and attention on magazines that do. Randy
When you think about it, political involvement is not only about action, it's also about inaction. If you stand idle by and don't actively protest it - you in effect expressed an opinion and facilitated the result. That's the basic concept of democracy. You can influence decisions not only by voting, opposing, lobbying, or protesting, but also by not doing anything.
So in that context - by virtue of being aware of these subjects you are already involved. Whether you decide to influence them actively or passively - what you do (or not do) counts.
Guy
Posted by David A Bliss on October 17, 2006 at 6:04 PM
Curtis, you stirring up trouble?
I have very strong political opinions, as you recently found out. I rarely address them on photo forums (or any forum that is not political in nature), mostly because it tends to cause more animosity than goodwill. People will either agree with you, which only creates a "right on" discussion, or disagree with you, and the ones that disagree with you will rarely be swayed. I have very strong opinions on eco-politics and the environment. Some of my opinions would be welcomed on NPN, some would probably not.
You are taking beautiful photos of unique and wonderous places. People will see those pictures, and appreciate them. Some will take away an appreciation, and want to do what they can to save natural places from damage. Others will use those pictures as motivation to go to natural places, but won't treat those places with respect.
Unless we want to put bubbles over certain areas, we will always have problems with natural areas being damaged. As long as we have politicians who care more about being re-elected than anything else, there will be legislation that chips away at the protection.
I can tell you, though, it starts with the individual. I have seen just as many "serious" nature photographers do careless, thoughtless acts as I have seen tourists do. Just because we have cameras, doesn't mean it's ok for us to trample the alpine tundra, or damage the cryptobiotic soil, or approach (stress) wildlife... We must lead by example.
Who is to say someone else's way is better, just because they are "more active." Everyone needs to do what their heart tells them to do. If your heart calls on you to participate by voting your concience, leading by example, and creating images that will hopefully touch someone, then that is fine. Not everyone can chain themself to a tree.
Posted by Terry Sohl on October 17, 2006 at 6:29 PM
Very well put David.
...he says, in between screaming "SAVE THE OWLS" while chained to a tree...
Posted by Steve Foss on October 17, 2006 at 7:44 PM
David, perfect.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 18, 2006 at 2:19 PM
Terry - well stated in your first comment. I'm probably on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you on many issues, but I truly get so very discouraged and disheartened by the polarization and demonization in politics and elsewhere of those with whom people disagree. No wonder Congress can't get anything done - they're all too busy acting like 2 year olds fighting over the same toy. I've never seen the likes of personal attacks and politicizing EVERYTHING that someone on the "other side" says or does. Civility and the common good have gone by the wayside in favor of a very uncivil "civil war" in politics. Today's congressional state of affairs is the best argument for term limits I can think of. Limit of one term only, and cannot become a lobbyist within 10 years of serving.
As for the original notion of this thread - if you don't get involved, there won't be a reason later on to get involved because there will be precious little nature left.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 20, 2006 at 8:24 PM
The more I've seen, the more I've come to think that being a full time photographer is more about marketing than it is photography. I think that in most businesses, if you bring up politics, you potentially cut into your pool of customers. I also think it's too bad that conservation issues have been thrown onto the heap of "political" topics. There needs to be a balanced approach, not polarized one.
Kent in SD
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 23, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Today's congressional state of affairs is the best argument for term limits I can think of. Limit of one term only, and cannot become a lobbyist within 10 years of serving.
Bill, that's my thoughts as well! It's the career politicians that who lose sight of what they we elected to do.
Posted by Curtis Knight on October 24, 2006 at 10:20 AM
One thing I think that we all agree on is that polarization prevents (not just inhibit) productivity and forward progress.
This is a great discussion so far and I'm delighted that it hasn't become hostile.
I guess since I started this thread, I should at least respond occasionally, so I'll respond to the arguments for getting involved. There are dozens of issues that I care about. Child abuse, wife beating, methanphetamine, the environment, etc, etc... I can't get involved in everything unless become a politician. Trust me when I say that the last thing anyone wants is for me to get elected to office
Life is short, and although I have concerns about the environment, that's not why I'm a nature photographer. I'm concider myself an artist not an activist. Maybe not a very seasoned artist at this point, but I'm improving!
Keep the replies coming; I'm enjoying the discussion, and different points of view.
Posted by Paul Grecian on November 5, 2006 at 9:53 AM
Curtis,
What I don't understand is what your art stands for. If it is an expression of your reverence for nature, your understanding and appreciation of nature's importance to our physical and mental well being, then I assume you want people to pick up on that and maybe even appreciate that feeling of yours. Art is about influencing people's feelings and opinions. That is exactly what politicians hope to do. Don't think that because politics leaves a bad taste in your mouth that it in inherently evil. You can acknowledge your feelings about the importance nature has for you to others without it seeming like a "left" or "right" issue. Art is a form of activism, and sometimes a very powerful one.
what a great topic. some interesting and thought provoking responses. i think though maybe
the emphasis should not be on the word 'art' or 'photography', rather, what it actually means to be political.
politics is the process we use to make decisions, as individuals, as groups and more importantly as countries. but it's often a mislead voice that shouts that we
are not political unless we wave banners, march on parliament, paint slogans, make shocking impactful photos etc etc.
one should not negate one's impact on the local community, be that family, friends or the
local town council. if by selling or displaying a range of his work at his/her local gallery, even if that work shows only the innocent vision of a natural world untouched by human hand, that work would maybe serve much greater political impact if say a press release or photographers bio stated that the place/s where the photos were taken were in danger from (insert global menace here), than if the same photographer had an article published in 'new scientist' for example. why? because influencing local minds, has the effect of influencing a number of people on a personal level, and so has the power to grow into a mindset that can influence local or national government.
i think what should be avoided is when a photographer might say "oh well i took the photo of the worlds last remaining grey buttercup...isn't it beatiful" and completely avoid the greater question of WHY? is it the worlds lasy grey buttercup (made up name by the way).
personally i feel this - to be fortunate to be able to live independantly as a nature/wildlife photographer, as anyone knows is not at all easy. to get there one has probably starved, had various broken relationships through lack of funding/time for 'normal activities', got cold, frostbitten, sunburnt, drowned, gone bankrupt probably more than once etc etc. once arriving at this privelaged position, is it not at least polite to lift our selves to an even greater challenge, that of to ensure that our diminishing magical places exist, not only for future generation of photographers, but just so that they still exist.
We can make a difference to our planet with emulsion and pixels where the vast majority of governments cannot despite millions upon million of available cash - can we? Who knows!
One thing for sure there's no harm in trying.
The cliche statement "saving our planet for future generations". How about this more simplistic view try saving it for this generation first.
Can you become a professional wildlife photographer and not get involved in eco issues - I think so - though that said your images if distributed might get used in such worthwhile causes.
Posted by writepic on November 7, 2006 at 12:18 PM
calm down geoff. the next generation is already here....like my child just arriving. much 'scientific' research quotes the oft quoted disappearance within 20 years. i think if my soon to be born child could do something he/she probably would. as it is, this arriving 'next generation' can't so it's up to us. DIG?
Hey Writepic! We can discuss wildlife photography and conservation on this forum!
UK Wildlife Photographers seem so behind when it comes to discussing spiritual or political issues! I though Americans were brainwashed, but my post on the UK forum was recently censored by the moderator!
Why? Writepic wanted photographers to be aware of a website (www.alibaba.com) selling shark parts and wanted us to write a letter of objection to them. I was simply saying how I thought gamekeeping (rearing non-native animals for the rich to shoot) is as destructive to native wildlife as the killing and selling of protected species, and that the UK is as guilty and bloodstained as countries like China when it comes to animal welfare.
Wildlife photography and eco-politics isn't obviously welcome in the UK simply because the right wing vocal minority always end up in positions such as forum moderator or some other self-appointed police position.
I would strongly urge all wildlife photographers become more politically aware and activist in preserving our wonderful planet and its wildlife. For those wanting to sell their work (like me), surely this can become a plus point. Magazine editors may be appauled at how some photographers get their images if the truth be told - so kick them out by marketing how ethical you are.
This has been a great thread!
PS You think this thread is controversial - take a look at my website's news page!
Dave,
Forest of Dean, UK
Posted by Arthur Lund on January 21, 2007 at 12:45 AM
You can be a success without the politics.
Something else, that you need to think about is
how good a salesman are you?
Photographs are products, and as such they must be marketed. Just because you take pretty pictures, doesn't mean somebody will buy them.
If you are not good at marketing, you will have a hard
time.
For example:
In the news lately, was the sale of over 400 really big prints by John Fielder http://www.cobizmag.com/articles.asp?id=1301
to Remax, the real estate brokerage. He made the sale in part because, he
made a habit of writing a letter to the CEO of any new company coming to
town, or an existing company moving to new quarters. He simply asked
them "Wouldn't your new quarters look classy with some of my photos
to decorate the premises? Let's talk." That step started the chain of events
that led to the large sale.
If you aren't good a marketing, you need to find somebody that is, and pay
them to do it for you.
Discussion
24 repliessooner or later, mainly because of the nature of the question I'm
about to ask.
Is it possible to succeed as a professional nature photographer,
without getting involved in eco-politics?
Some day I would like to be able to sell my photographs as fine art prints. I love nature photography for its own sake and I refuse to attach a political agenda to it. My photography is my art; It is not ammunition for lobbyists.
On a personal level though...while you don't have to tie your political beliefs to your photography, I for one have become much more politically active after I started doing nature photography. For me, it's simple...I love nothing more than being outside, shooting birds, other fauna, landscapes, and whatever else might cross my path. If there's something that jeopardizes that outdoor resource, you bet my "political agenda" will show through.
I'm a wacko, far left tree-hugging liberal, without any doubt. However, I still fail to understand why those on the opposite end of the political spectrum must necessarily take an opposite stance on the environment. My biggest pet peeve...not letting individual issues stand on their own, and failing to make a personal choice on each. I truly get sick of BOTH sides of the aisle being so firmly entrenched as either a "liberal" or a "conservative" that simple issues like protecting the environment instead become fodder for political warfare.
Basil
I think you BETTER be interested in and involved in eco-politics if you're interested in being a passionate "nature" photographer for any length of time. It is vital that those of us who actually give a damn about the kind of world we raise our children into fight for what is rapidly disappearing. Our government cannot be trusted to do the right thing - it's up to us.
I'm not going to debate the issues in this thread. I certainly don't mind if the rest of you debate them in this thread. I knew that would happen when I asked the question, and I figure I'll probably learn something from said debate.
Politics breeds hostility, and I have enough of that in the rest of my life. I don't need it in my art. Sure, one could argue that I'm asking a political question, and therefore defeating my own purpose. Well, I don't have an clever come back for you... you got me. Sometimes you can't avoid a little politics. I just don't want it to become the center of my life.
If I discover some day that it's not possible for me to succeed as a pro nature photographer without getting involved in the politics, then I'll just continue with my hobby as just that. A hobby. And I'll share my images with people by giving them as gifts, or something.
I appreciate the responses so far. please keep them coming...
William
Actually, I would venture that the majority of proferssional outdoor photographers are not involved in environmental politics at all. While you may read about political issues in photography magazines, or obviously in magazines produced by environmental organizations like the National Wildlife Federation, the vast majority of magazines that are outdoor oriented shy away from politics because they're so afraid of upsetting subscribers.
That's about the last thing I would think of if I was considering starting a business in photography. There are so many other things to consider, such as "will I enjoy eating top ramen at least once a day for the next fiver years, am I financially disciplined enough to start a business, am I passionate and motivated about my work so much that I enjoy working 80 + hours a week, will my wife toss me out the door when I tell her I'm quiting my day job or will she wait until I've spent all our life savings after quiting my day job, are my images unique enough, are my images generic enough, do I enjoy negotiating sales, talking on the phone with potential clients, do I enjoy traveling."
Seriously, consider what you're interests and passions are and focus in that direction. If you don't care about issues that are political in nature
When you think about it, political involvement is not only about action, it's also about inaction. If you stand idle by and don't actively protest it - you in effect expressed an opinion and facilitated the result. That's the basic concept of democracy. You can influence decisions not only by voting, opposing, lobbying, or protesting, but also by not doing anything.
So in that context - by virtue of being aware of these subjects you are already involved. Whether you decide to influence them actively or passively - what you do (or not do) counts.
Guy
I have very strong political opinions, as you recently found out. I rarely address them on photo forums (or any forum that is not political in nature), mostly because it tends to cause more animosity than goodwill. People will either agree with you, which only creates a "right on" discussion, or disagree with you, and the ones that disagree with you will rarely be swayed. I have very strong opinions on eco-politics and the environment. Some of my opinions would be welcomed on NPN, some would probably not.
You are taking beautiful photos of unique and wonderous places. People will see those pictures, and appreciate them. Some will take away an appreciation, and want to do what they can to save natural places from damage. Others will use those pictures as motivation to go to natural places, but won't treat those places with respect.
Unless we want to put bubbles over certain areas, we will always have problems with natural areas being damaged. As long as we have politicians who care more about being re-elected than anything else, there will be legislation that chips away at the protection.
I can tell you, though, it starts with the individual. I have seen just as many "serious" nature photographers do careless, thoughtless acts as I have seen tourists do. Just because we have cameras, doesn't mean it's ok for us to trample the alpine tundra, or damage the cryptobiotic soil, or approach (stress) wildlife... We must lead by example.
Who is to say someone else's way is better, just because they are "more active." Everyone needs to do what their heart tells them to do. If your heart calls on you to participate by voting your concience, leading by example, and creating images that will hopefully touch someone, then that is fine. Not everyone can chain themself to a tree.
...he says, in between screaming "SAVE THE OWLS" while chained to a tree...
As for the original notion of this thread - if you don't get involved, there won't be a reason later on to get involved because there will be precious little nature left.
Kent in SD
Bill, that's my thoughts as well! It's the career politicians that who lose sight of what they we elected to do.
This is a great discussion so far and I'm delighted that it hasn't become hostile.
I guess since I started this thread, I should at least respond occasionally, so I'll respond to the arguments for getting involved. There are dozens of issues that I care about. Child abuse, wife beating, methanphetamine, the environment, etc, etc... I can't get involved in everything unless become a politician. Trust me when I say that the last thing anyone wants is for me to get elected to office
Life is short, and although I have concerns about the environment, that's not why I'm a nature photographer. I'm concider myself an artist not an activist. Maybe not a very seasoned artist at this point, but I'm improving!
Keep the replies coming; I'm enjoying the discussion, and different points of view.
What I don't understand is what your art stands for. If it is an expression of your reverence for nature, your understanding and appreciation of nature's importance to our physical and mental well being, then I assume you want people to pick up on that and maybe even appreciate that feeling of yours. Art is about influencing people's feelings and opinions. That is exactly what politicians hope to do. Don't think that because politics leaves a bad taste in your mouth that it in inherently evil. You can acknowledge your feelings about the importance nature has for you to others without it seeming like a "left" or "right" issue. Art is a form of activism, and sometimes a very powerful one.
Paul
This one sentence sums up my own feelings too. Thanks Paul!
Guy
what a great topic. some interesting and thought provoking responses. i think though maybe
the emphasis should not be on the word 'art' or 'photography', rather, what it actually means to be political.
politics is the process we use to make decisions, as individuals, as groups and more importantly as countries. but it's often a mislead voice that shouts that we
are not political unless we wave banners, march on parliament, paint slogans, make shocking impactful photos etc etc.
one should not negate one's impact on the local community, be that family, friends or the
local town council. if by selling or displaying a range of his work at his/her local gallery, even if that work shows only the innocent vision of a natural world untouched by human hand, that work would maybe serve much greater political impact if say a press release or photographers bio stated that the place/s where the photos were taken were in danger from (insert global menace here), than if the same photographer had an article published in 'new scientist' for example. why? because influencing local minds, has the effect of influencing a number of people on a personal level, and so has the power to grow into a mindset that can influence local or national government.
i think what should be avoided is when a photographer might say "oh well i took the photo of the worlds last remaining grey buttercup...isn't it beatiful" and completely avoid the greater question of WHY? is it the worlds lasy grey buttercup (made up name by the way).
personally i feel this - to be fortunate to be able to live independantly as a nature/wildlife photographer, as anyone knows is not at all easy. to get there one has probably starved, had various broken relationships through lack of funding/time for 'normal activities', got cold, frostbitten, sunburnt, drowned, gone bankrupt probably more than once etc etc. once arriving at this privelaged position, is it not at least polite to lift our selves to an even greater challenge, that of to ensure that our diminishing magical places exist, not only for future generation of photographers, but just so that they still exist.
mark.
One thing for sure there's no harm in trying.
The cliche statement "saving our planet for future generations". How about this more simplistic view try saving it for this generation first.
Can you become a professional wildlife photographer and not get involved in eco issues - I think so - though that said your images if distributed might get used in such worthwhile causes.
calm down geoff. the next generation is already here....like my child just arriving. much 'scientific' research quotes the oft quoted disappearance within 20 years. i think if my soon to be born child could do something he/she probably would. as it is, this arriving 'next generation' can't so it's up to us. DIG?
UK Wildlife Photographers seem so behind when it comes to discussing spiritual or political issues! I though Americans were brainwashed, but my post on the UK forum was recently censored by the moderator!
Why? Writepic wanted photographers to be aware of a website (www.alibaba.com) selling shark parts and wanted us to write a letter of objection to them. I was simply saying how I thought gamekeeping (rearing non-native animals for the rich to shoot) is as destructive to native wildlife as the killing and selling of protected species, and that the UK is as guilty and bloodstained as countries like China when it comes to animal welfare.
Wildlife photography and eco-politics isn't obviously welcome in the UK simply because the right wing vocal minority always end up in positions such as forum moderator or some other self-appointed police position.
I would strongly urge all wildlife photographers become more politically aware and activist in preserving our wonderful planet and its wildlife. For those wanting to sell their work (like me), surely this can become a plus point. Magazine editors may be appauled at how some photographers get their images if the truth be told - so kick them out by marketing how ethical you are.
This has been a great thread!
PS You think this thread is controversial - take a look at my website's news page!
Dave,
Forest of Dean, UK
Something else, that you need to think about is
how good a salesman are you?
Photographs are products, and as such they must be marketed. Just because you take pretty pictures, doesn't mean somebody will buy them.
If you are not good at marketing, you will have a hard
time.
For example:
In the news lately, was the sale of over 400 really big prints by John Fielder http://www.cobizmag.com/articles.asp?id=1301
to Remax, the real estate brokerage. He made the sale in part because, he
made a habit of writing a letter to the CEO of any new company coming to
town, or an existing company moving to new quarters. He simply asked
them "Wouldn't your new quarters look classy with some of my photos
to decorate the premises? Let's talk." That step started the chain of events
that led to the large sale.
If you aren't good a marketing, you need to find somebody that is, and pay
them to do it for you.
Art L.
Guy