I try, wherever possible, to inject a little 'tension' into my images, either through composition or (as in this case) creative use of view-point. Shooting through the trees has added a sense of place and mystery - hopefully, it has also produced a degree of intrigue too.
Despite being habituated, the cat’s expression seems to say how dare you intrude in my domain. Anthropomorphic I know, but 'expressive' images can be used to great effect on us humans - look at advertising pictures for instance - a lesson to be learned by conservation bodies?
Thanks for looking, C&C welcomed.
Cheers, Chris
1Ds 2
500 mm
1/85@f4
ISO 400
Tripod
Full-frame (trees provide the X-Pan crop this time - I must stop doing that!)
With respect to the image, I would simply crop a bit of the bottom, the OOF area, other than that it is excellent. Anthropomorphic? I'm not sure but....
I have a general question.
Are anthropomorphic images not in part responsible for our the general publics 'Disney' and erroneous perception of animals/nature and if so if this in conservations best interests?
I personally don't think it is. I feel that it is part of the problem. To delve into the psychology a wee bit. With the General public part of an anthropomorphic result is an empathic reaction which is drawn from their experiences of life which are probably totally divorced and unapplicable from that animals existence/environment and as such it may result in a completely inappropiate action w.r.t. that animal.
Now if you are knowledgeable enough to empathise with the animal based on understanding it's natural history (not ours) well that is another matter - but this would be the exception rather than the norm but we are heading off down the education street here...
T
Posted by John Robinson on August 14, 2008 at 5:58 AM
Chris.
I agree, for this page I would take some off the bottom- even a tighter crop all around.
Still a great shot whatever.
I have to say I agree with what Tom says.
The problem is - those are often the pictures that sell, and there are alot of photographers out there that want to sell pictures.
The other problem is that some animals or subjects can't help but look "cuddley" -no matter how you do them. My recent Fox stuff is probably an example.
(I wanted them to look mean and nasty with chicken feathers and blood driping from the mouth but they wouldn't !! )
Hiya Chris. I really like this image. Superb use of composition and the fact that the cat is looking directly at the viewer enables the centtral positioning to work very well. I agree with Tom however that you could lose a bit of the lower edge of frame, perhaps up to the top of that light grey diagonal running from bottom right to mid left.
As for Tom's comments I can see where he is coming from but I would most definitely not consider this image to be anthropomorphic. In this case I think Chris is just implying that the cats expression could be interpreted in that way if the viewer chose to do so.To me the expression on the cats face really does tell what the animal is like. Of course I could be totally wrong.
Anyway, lovely picture
Robert
Hi Tom
I agree wholeheartedly that the Disney portrayal of nature can lead to 'erroneous perception', just as cute and cuddly images of polar bears (used in isolation) tell us nothing of the overall plight of this creature. Interestingly though, the makers of the film 'Happy Feet' seem to have done exactly what I am suggesting: they cleverly used anthropomorphism to hook the “General public” and then got the message across that a penguin's lot (environmentally) is not necessarily a happy (footed) one.
The general point I’m throwing into the melting pot is that Conservation needs to be more ‘savvy’ in the way it tries influence opinion. If we are interested in connecting with Joe public (who after all, through strength in numbers alone has the power to change things) then we have to ‘sell’ in a COMPETITIVE way. Using some of the skills employed by advertisers might be a starting point? The strategy of employing anthropomorphism can be used to illicit meaningful responses too!
Thanks for the C & C.
Cheers, Chris
PS. I left the space at the bottom of my shot for a reason . . . !
I don't think that it needs to be more 'savvy', I think it needs to be more honest.
I have no doubt that a cartoon (Happy Feet) can have an impact, but given that the image portrayed isn't reality its long term benefit is questionable for those at a voting age; if David Attenborough had of done a documentary about overfishing in the Antarctic would it have been more beneficial?
The issue of images being used in an anthropomorphic way is that it can, and has been, hijacked by those who would want to use it for their own ends and as such IMO is seen in a sceptical light by most adults; many assume that the image was staged/manipulated.
If our images simply present reality and we leave the individual to come to a conclusion they can never feel that they have been mis-sold and its helps photography stay objective.
Are you going to the Bird Fair, if so could discuss there...
T
PS does anthropormophising an animal not do the animal a diservice by assuming that human qualities are desirable?
It's difficult to disagree when you keep on making sense!! And yes, integrity is extremely important and no, I'm not wishing to trivialise nature. Meanwhile, as 'Lost Land of the Jaguar' highlighted last night, globally important habitats are being threatened by resource development industries because not enough of the General public get the message!
There is a place for David Attenborough and Happy Feet (but not Sir David in a penguin suit) if the message gets to as board an audience as possible.
Yes, going to the Bird Fair, you can by me a pint and we'll have a chat.
Cheers, Chris
PS. For the majority of humans, animals are very much second-class citizens - anyone see 'Kill it, skin it, wear it' on Channel 4, Sunday night? Horrific cruelty in the fur trade - that's what I call "diservice".
Posted by John Robinson on August 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Tom
I know a lot of human qualities that are very desirable.
But from who's point of view?
Who lays down the rules ??
JohnR
Posted by eric weight on August 14, 2008 at 2:11 PM
A couple of lovely shots Chris. I think you have demonstrated the editorial space around the original crop very neatly
Eric
Posted by Magnus Hird on August 16, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Love the framing by the trees and great eye contact. Just to see one of these would be something special
Posted by Peter Cairns on August 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I think both Tom and Chris will recall that 'the pint' was in fact an ice-cream and was not purchased by the good Mr Wylie but by yours truly - for which I was parted with an obscene amount of hard-earned wonga!
Good thread Chris. I personally think David Attenborough & co do a great job in presenting (more or less) factual portrayals of jungles, insects, rodents etc etc. But it does have to be said that the audience is limited both in number and social spectrum.
The vast majority of society finds little relevance in the biological attributes of a given habitat/species so the approach needs to be different and if necessary, radical. If this audience is to be reached, the tools to do it are not necessarily those we would associate with traditional nature photography. If you're competing with X factor, you need to do it using a language that that audience relates to. To this end, it matters little whether a piece needs cropping off Chris' image or not. What matters is whether it touches that audience and could potentially influence their value system.
I'm not sure whether this image would do that but I love the fact that Chris has considered its possibilities...and so should we all perhaps?
I feel Chris’ image captures the essence of a wildcat and its habitat very well.
I agree completely with Tom about the dangers of anthropomorphising wildlife in order to reach a wider audience and I really don’t think it’s necessary.
Pete’s TV analogy is interesting and perhaps the crucial factor is quality. Planet Earth received some criticism for depicting an unrealistic, rosy view of the natural world. However, I think (I’m in a hurry to get out and quickly googled some figures so this could all be complete tosh) it did get 8 plus million viewers in the UK alone, which is higher than the X Factor. And it is a Japanese, UK, US production so this is a tiny percentage of global figures. I believe it achieved this mostly by showing us things we had never seen before and telling the story very well. Land of the Jaguar, which perhaps had a stronger conservation message (and a more of a reality TV format) is up there with just under 5 million. I don’t know about the social spectrum of these viewers but I imagine it must be fairly wide to achieve these numbers.
Some of Pete’s comments could be (mis)construed as an argument for “dumbing down” but I’m sure that’s not what he means. Perhaps he would elaborate a little on radical.
Hello All
Pete, the ice-cream tasted so much better knowing that you paid 'show' price for it!! Ta. I think you are wrong about the image not being able to touch people - if Carling made pictures of wildcats, they'd probably use this one!!
Being serious for a moment though - once again, there are some interesting thoughts being aired via the forum. I raised the topic because I'm genuinely interested to learn if we (as a photographic community) consider our images have a role to play in wildlife conservation. Yes, images are frequently used by conservation groups, but they are largely preaching to the converted. Can images be used differently to capture more interest?
Terry, thanks for your input: the figures you quoted are interesting because, to me at least, they signify that the number of people engaging with wildlife programmes is too small. With circa 60 million people in the UK, 5 - 8 million viewers simply isn't enough. I'd love those figures to be tripled or quadrupled at least.
Pete's right; alone, my image isn't enough to change anything, but neither is trudging the same old conservation pathways in the hope that we save something - there has been masses of good work done, but it is time to kick on with a fresh approach that brings about a sea-change in attitude. Anyone got the answers!?
Cheers, Chris
Whilst I can see the merit in the question I cannot help but consider that the answer is for a question that is being asked too prematurely; the more fundimental question being 'Why are ~55 million people not motivated enough to care?'
When you have answered this then you can worry about the process of cognitation. Horse...water...
Seed changes in delivery/technology/process are usually hardfought until you engender motivation and the primary universal motivators are few in number.
Still we are straying way from the intent of this forum into the philosophical..
As for photo critique I now see why you have left the bottom space in the picture.
Discussion
18 repliesI try, wherever possible, to inject a little 'tension' into my images, either through composition or (as in this case) creative use of view-point. Shooting through the trees has added a sense of place and mystery - hopefully, it has also produced a degree of intrigue too.
Despite being habituated, the cat’s expression seems to say how dare you intrude in my domain. Anthropomorphic I know, but 'expressive' images can be used to great effect on us humans - look at advertising pictures for instance - a lesson to be learned by conservation bodies?
Thanks for looking, C&C welcomed.
Cheers, Chris
1Ds 2
500 mm
1/85@f4
ISO 400
Tripod
Full-frame (trees provide the X-Pan crop this time
I have a general question.
Are anthropomorphic images not in part responsible for our the general publics 'Disney' and erroneous perception of animals/nature and if so if this in conservations best interests?
I personally don't think it is. I feel that it is part of the problem. To delve into the psychology a wee bit. With the General public part of an anthropomorphic result is an empathic reaction which is drawn from their experiences of life which are probably totally divorced and unapplicable from that animals existence/environment and as such it may result in a completely inappropiate action w.r.t. that animal.
Now if you are knowledgeable enough to empathise with the animal based on understanding it's natural history (not ours) well that is another matter - but this would be the exception rather than the norm but we are heading off down the education street here...
T
I agree, for this page I would take some off the bottom- even a tighter crop all around.
Still a great shot whatever.
I have to say I agree with what Tom says.
The problem is - those are often the pictures that sell, and there are alot of photographers out there that want to sell pictures.
The other problem is that some animals or subjects can't help but look "cuddley" -no matter how you do them. My recent Fox stuff is probably an example.
(I wanted them to look mean and nasty with chicken feathers and blood driping from the mouth but they wouldn't !!
JohnR
As for Tom's comments I can see where he is coming from but I would most definitely not consider this image to be anthropomorphic. In this case I think Chris is just implying that the cats expression could be interpreted in that way if the viewer chose to do so.To me the expression on the cats face really does tell what the animal is like. Of course I could be totally wrong.
Anyway, lovely picture
Robert
Matt
As for the expression, well most cats have that look on their face - especially when they see me
I agree wholeheartedly that the Disney portrayal of nature can lead to 'erroneous perception', just as cute and cuddly images of polar bears (used in isolation) tell us nothing of the overall plight of this creature. Interestingly though, the makers of the film 'Happy Feet' seem to have done exactly what I am suggesting: they cleverly used anthropomorphism to hook the “General public” and then got the message across that a penguin's lot (environmentally) is not necessarily a happy (footed) one.
The general point I’m throwing into the melting pot is that Conservation needs to be more ‘savvy’ in the way it tries influence opinion. If we are interested in connecting with Joe public (who after all, through strength in numbers alone has the power to change things) then we have to ‘sell’ in a COMPETITIVE way. Using some of the skills employed by advertisers might be a starting point? The strategy of employing anthropomorphism can be used to illicit meaningful responses too!
Thanks for the C & C.
Cheers, Chris
PS. I left the space at the bottom of my shot for a reason . . .
I don't think that it needs to be more 'savvy', I think it needs to be more honest.
I have no doubt that a cartoon (Happy Feet) can have an impact, but given that the image portrayed isn't reality its long term benefit is questionable for those at a voting age; if David Attenborough had of done a documentary about overfishing in the Antarctic would it have been more beneficial?
The issue of images being used in an anthropomorphic way is that it can, and has been, hijacked by those who would want to use it for their own ends and as such IMO is seen in a sceptical light by most adults; many assume that the image was staged/manipulated.
If our images simply present reality and we leave the individual to come to a conclusion they can never feel that they have been mis-sold and its helps photography stay objective.
Are you going to the Bird Fair, if so could discuss there...
T
PS does anthropormophising an animal not do the animal a diservice by assuming that human qualities are desirable?
It's difficult to disagree when you keep on making sense!! And yes, integrity is extremely important and no, I'm not wishing to trivialise nature. Meanwhile, as 'Lost Land of the Jaguar' highlighted last night, globally important habitats are being threatened by resource development industries because not enough of the General public get the message!
There is a place for David Attenborough and Happy Feet (but not Sir David in a penguin suit) if the message gets to as board an audience as possible.
Yes, going to the Bird Fair, you can by me a pint and we'll have a chat.
Cheers, Chris
PS. For the majority of humans, animals are very much second-class citizens - anyone see 'Kill it, skin it, wear it' on Channel 4, Sunday night? Horrific cruelty in the fur trade - that's what I call "diservice".
I know a lot of human qualities that are very desirable.
But from who's point of view?
Who lays down the rules ??
JohnR
I will be there tomorrow afternoon
T
Eric
Good thread Chris. I personally think David Attenborough & co do a great job in presenting (more or less) factual portrayals of jungles, insects, rodents etc etc. But it does have to be said that the audience is limited both in number and social spectrum.
The vast majority of society finds little relevance in the biological attributes of a given habitat/species so the approach needs to be different and if necessary, radical. If this audience is to be reached, the tools to do it are not necessarily those we would associate with traditional nature photography. If you're competing with X factor, you need to do it using a language that that audience relates to. To this end, it matters little whether a piece needs cropping off Chris' image or not. What matters is whether it touches that audience and could potentially influence their value system.
I'm not sure whether this image would do that but I love the fact that Chris has considered its possibilities...and so should we all perhaps?
Best
Pete
I agree completely with Tom about the dangers of anthropomorphising wildlife in order to reach a wider audience and I really don’t think it’s necessary.
Pete’s TV analogy is interesting and perhaps the crucial factor is quality. Planet Earth received some criticism for depicting an unrealistic, rosy view of the natural world. However, I think (I’m in a hurry to get out and quickly googled some figures so this could all be complete tosh) it did get 8 plus million viewers in the UK alone, which is higher than the X Factor. And it is a Japanese, UK, US production so this is a tiny percentage of global figures. I believe it achieved this mostly by showing us things we had never seen before and telling the story very well. Land of the Jaguar, which perhaps had a stronger conservation message (and a more of a reality TV format) is up there with just under 5 million. I don’t know about the social spectrum of these viewers but I imagine it must be fairly wide to achieve these numbers.
Some of Pete’s comments could be (mis)construed as an argument for “dumbing down” but I’m sure that’s not what he means. Perhaps he would elaborate a little on radical.
Thanks for this interesting and important topic.
Cheers
Terry
Pete, the ice-cream tasted so much better knowing that you paid 'show' price for it!! Ta. I think you are wrong about the image not being able to touch people - if Carling made pictures of wildcats, they'd probably use this one!!
Being serious for a moment though - once again, there are some interesting thoughts being aired via the forum. I raised the topic because I'm genuinely interested to learn if we (as a photographic community) consider our images have a role to play in wildlife conservation. Yes, images are frequently used by conservation groups, but they are largely preaching to the converted. Can images be used differently to capture more interest?
Terry, thanks for your input: the figures you quoted are interesting because, to me at least, they signify that the number of people engaging with wildlife programmes is too small. With circa 60 million people in the UK, 5 - 8 million viewers simply isn't enough. I'd love those figures to be tripled or quadrupled at least.
Pete's right; alone, my image isn't enough to change anything, but neither is trudging the same old conservation pathways in the hope that we save something - there has been masses of good work done, but it is time to kick on with a fresh approach that brings about a sea-change in attitude. Anyone got the answers!?
Cheers, Chris
When you have answered this then you can worry about the process of cognitation. Horse...water...
Seed changes in delivery/technology/process are usually hardfought until you engender motivation and the primary universal motivators are few in number.
Still we are straying way from the intent of this forum into the philosophical..
As for photo critique I now see why you have left the bottom space in the picture.