My friend and photographer, and former NPN member, Ben Glatt recently posted a thought provoking article on his blog. I think it is a must-read for everyone who considers themselves a 'nature photographer', and I look forward to continuing the discussion he has sparked!
It's probably easiest to continue discussion on his blog, so that he can participate.
Posted by Roger Rouch on October 19, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Thanks for pointing this out. Excellent article!
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 20, 2011 at 12:19 AM
Rather than drive discussion to Ben's forum, I will post my own thoughts here. First, I had to read it twice to figure out the gist of what he was saying. The concepts were mostly foreign to me. For starters, I don't see "nature" as an entity, a conscious being. It's a collection of mostly inaminate "things" such as rocks, dirt, sticks, grass, etc. It's not "human." It has no soul. The notion of somehow "exploiting" nature by simply taking photos was entirely foreign to me also. Again, how do I "exploit" clouds, rocks, weeds, bugs? This just seemed goofy. Finally, I've never believed that photos are very likely to "save" nature. Sure, every now and then it happens, but notice how Ben had to mention a photographer who's been dead for nearly 30 years now as an example. He couldn't come up with anyone more contemporary, or anyone contemporary we have likely heard of? I generally think it would be pretentious for me to think that somehow my own photos are very likely to have any impact on the world at all. Keep in mind my background. I grew up on a farm. I live and daily travel in a very rural area and have been used to "nature" all my life. I don't see it as a "person" or conscious entity but rather as mostly "stuff." Some of the stuff is nice & pretty (from human POV,) some of the stuff is ugly or might kill me. My own photos are not meant as any kind of "statement," but are rather just my way of challenging or expressing myself. I take all kinds of photos, whatever the "catch of the day" brings me. Sometimes it is "nature" photos. Often those photos aren't pretty, such as the dead animals I find as I travel about. I simply photo what "is", and am not hung up on only making "pretty" images, what I call the "Bambification" of nature. When I saw the title of the blog, "Seeing the Light," I was hoping it was all about seeing light and how to use it. For me THAT is what photography really is--using light to its best advantage. Instead, he seemed to be talking about finding "truth", or something. I don't begrudge Ben his feelings of course, but near as I can tell I just don't share them to a large degree.
Kent in SD
Posted by John Tobias on October 20, 2011 at 10:11 AM
I read the blog, and some of the comments attach to it. I fail to see what point he is trying to make. A. Adams work was not just to show conflicts but to make money so he could continue photographing. I see nothing wrong with photographing the beauty of nature and or the conflicts between man and nature. But see no reason to do one or the other as seems to be suggested in the blog. I for one refuse to overthink why I take photographs of the natural world, I do it because I enjoy doing it. If I can somehow use my photography to aid a cause then great, I will do so. Thats all!
Join Meet Your Neighbours (http://www.meetyourneighbours.org/) and start promoting nature locally....
Honestly, people are out there promoting conservation as nature photographers, but they don't have the time or reasons to post on NPN or the other small circles of self-promoting landscape photographers.
Posted by Tony Kuyper on October 20, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Finally, I've never believed that photos are very likely to "save" nature. Sure, every now and then it happens, but notice how Ben had to mention a photographer who's been dead for nearly 30 years now as an example. He couldn't come up with anyone more contemporary, or anyone contemporary we have likely heard of?
Albert Horner is contemporary photographer who uses his photography to create as a base for his conservation efforts. His images and blog are here. I admire both his images and what he does, but also realize that he's somewhat of a rarity among the very large nature photography community in his degree of advocacy for the environment.
I neither agree nor disagree with Ben's views. I just think it's good that his photography has sparked some introspection and that he shares with the world via his blog. I'll interested in seeing Ben's new series of images.
Kent - here is a long list of contemporary photographers dedicated to using photography to make positive changes for the environment: ILCP
Ben posted a few other links in a comment (near the bottom) on his blog.
Paul - that is precisely the problem, projects like that need more exposure in the nature photography community at large. On NPN, Facebook, Flickr, everywhere. You might even get more people participating that way! Furthermore, any success stories from projects like that need to be publicized as well. I know you do your part in posting your MYN images on various forums, but it gets buried under the barrage of all the other bambified (to use Ken'ts word) nature images from everyone else.
For those that don't understand Ben's point, do you not feel bad if you burn $500 of gas just to get a pretty sunset picture of, say, delicate arch (just, as an example), and then try to make money off of it? Really? What about when you've just inspired 100's of others to do exactly the same? Still not? If so, then there truly is no hope for the future.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM
For those that don't understand Ben's point, do you not feel bad if you burn $500 of gas just to get a pretty sunset picture of, say, delicate arch (just, as an example), and then try to make money off of it? Really? What about when you've just inspired 100's of others to do exactly the same? Still not? If so, then there truly is no hope for the future.
Floris, perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying, but this makes no sense to me at all. Are you saying you somehow feel guilty when you sell one of your images because you had to spend money on gas (or cameras) in order to obtain it? That's just an normal component of any business - gas, cameras, computer, photoshop, etc. - these are just expenses we all incur in order to participate in this activity we call nature photography. What does making money off of it have to do with it? Whether I sell an image or not, the same amount of money has been spent, has it it not? If I was going to feel that guilty about going to a national park and shooting images, I would choose to instead stay home. Like I said, perhaps I'm misreading what you said - if you would like to clarify or set me straight, I would welcome that.
Bill - I think the real problem is when nature photographers think (and sometimes even proclaim) that their photography is in the spirit of conservation, when in reality, it's actually exactly the opposite.
Many people oppose drilling oil in beautiful places and thereby damaging them and stressing animals, etc. in the name of making money. While it may be considered a stretch, is burning oil, crushing flowers, and stressing wildlife for personal gain (be it in the form of money or not) really that much different?
Let's look at a different comparison: hunting. In order to do what they enjoy, hunters provide significant revenue for the preservation of wild lands and animals (by way of expensive permits). We as nature photographers, for the vast majority, do no such thing.
Just things to think about.. particularly for those of us that are young enough to expect to live for the next half century, who would like to continue to enjoy the natural world in its current (or better) state I spent about 20 years backpacking and camping (with no inklings of guilt) before I picked up a camera, and would likely have continued to do the same activities had I not picked up a camera. So in that sense I should feel no obligation or guilt. But if I one day start making significant money from those images, I think I will feel some responsibility to give back to where it came from.
This isn't just personal, however, I think it would just be fantastic if the group of 'nature photographers' as a whole could in fact inspire society in general to care more for the environment, and spark some change in the public's and politicians' attitudes and policies. I believe the potential is there, the question is how to harness it. The problem I think (as I stated above), is that many people assume that they are having that kind of positive effect when there is in fact no evidence that that is the case. Instead, the effect seems to be more trampled flowers, crushed sandstone, and burned gas. Can we reverse that somehow?
For me there are two levels to this debate: nature photography as a genre and, on the other hand, the work of individual photographers.
I think on the whole, the genre of nature photography makes a significant difference in popular attitudes toward nature and conservation. The beauty of nature is part of our collective consciousness largely, I think, because of the widespread distribution and use of images of wild places and animals. But . . .
I read Ben's essay -- and some of the comments here as well -- as encouraging those of us that care about preservation (and restoration) of natural places to think about how our own work contributes to such causes . . . and perhaps most importantly, whether it contributes at all. Even before reading Ben's essay I'd occasionally wonder "what is the point of all this" while looking through my own portfolio. Certainly, it is personally satisfying to create an occasional nice image, but is that enough?
Part of me says that maybe it is enough. The other part of me is not so sure . . . if the world doesn't need any more pretty pictures, is there something else I can do with photography that would have broader significance? I think that is the kind of introspection that Ben was sharing (and encouraging) in his essay. Some folks may dismiss such notions quite easily and I have no real problem with that. Making money off of nature photography or doing it purely for personal satisfaction is all fine by me. But the notion of doing something "more" is intriguing and one that I think is worth considering . . .
Thanks Phil, I think that's a good summary of the motivation behind Ben's article (which I have discussed with him quite a bit before its publication, and as such, do agree with his points and am somewhat personally invested in the message).
"I think on the whole, the genre of nature photography makes a significant difference in popular attitudes toward nature and conservation. The beauty of nature is part of our collective consciousness largely, I think, because of the widespread distribution and use of images of wild places and animals."
The widespread distribution of images of beautiful and unharmed places and animals may also lead one to believe that there is no urgency in conservation - that is a dangerous situation to be in.
Posted by Eva McDermott on October 20, 2011 at 10:26 PM
I think each photographer has their own reasons why they photograph what they do. My favorite place is Inverness Beach on Cape Breton, NS Canada. Talking to locals, which I do for hours when I visit there each autumn (except this year since I went to Scotland), beach walkers who go there after they drop their kids off at school or before they go to work or after. Inverness Beach actually used to be a debris dumping sight which was stopped, cleaned up with the help of an American woman, not a photographer, but someone who loved the place and had money to help and spare. I don't remember her name that the local woman Donna MacE told me, but that impressed me more than the beautiful light and landscapes I try to photograph when there. Personally, I don't think photographs alone help improve or save the environment but $$$ does.
I do know some of my images in and around Inverness down to Mabou have helped locals who have had to move away from this, their beautiful area to places in western Canada and US for work, remember where they are from. That alone is what makes a big difference to me even though I may not be saving the environment, it is helping someone remember a place they dearly miss due to economic hardship.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 20, 2011 at 11:39 PM
Floris--
Highly unlikely anyone is going to drive or fly out here to my neck of the grass and try to do the kind of photography I most enjoy. What I do is photo at night, using up to ~10,000ws of mega flash. I especially love to do this on winter nights in the Dakotas and Minnesota, with blizzards being my favorite conditions. Few have the motivation to do this, let alone the clothing. I certainly feel nothing negative about my trips be it to the county next door or Hawaii or Iceland. Life is short, and I intend to enjoy mine as long as I can, within reason. I honestly don't think my trips are harming anything at all, and are in fact helping the economies (and thus families) in the places I travel to. My photography really isn't about beauty at all. I often photo things that are repulsive because of their impact. My goal is to find subjects that interest me, and find a way to make a compelling image of it. It's never been my goal to make some sort of "statement." I'm more after the challenge of being out there on a winter night, 30F below zero, middle of nowhere out on my own, and see if I can get the shot. And then make it back home unfrozen. To me, photography is all about solving technical problems (i.e. staying warm & alive) and creating an image as an outlet for self expression.
I get Ben's point, but I think it ignores the larger picture.
I think that nature photography, as a whole, has been a boon to nature. I've heard the phrase, "loved to death" when it comes to many of our national parks or wild places, but I don't buy it. Some trampled flowers might be the cost for all this - and an unfortunate one at that. But it pales in comparison to the real threats that are coming down the pike. It's inevitable with the population explosion and the strain on natural resources that these places will come under attack by developers, mining, oil drilling, etc at some point, and nature can use all the love and friends she can get. Nature photography, and the attention it creates for wilderness and wild places, creates constituents. Nature will need constituents. MANY constituents in the future. The more people who love nature and have a deep appreciate for nature, the better chance nature will have against her real enemies. Un-photographed places don't get constituents. "Secret places" that photographers try to keep to themselves don't get constituents. Nobody will care about an un-photographed, obscure wild place that nobody knows about when it comes under attack by nature's real enemies.
Nature Photography as some serious threat to nature? Absurd. At least compared to the real threats on the not-so-distant horizon.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 22, 2011 at 11:47 AM
I agree with Richard, above. When something has value (and recreation is valued,) it will be have a group of people who want to save it.
"I've heard the phrase, "loved to death" when it comes to many of our national parks or wild places, but I don't buy it."
Richard, when I first visited the Sierra in the early sixties and hiked the trails and climbed the peaks, there were few people compared to today. Trails that I had hiked early on turned into foot-deep ruts, meadows were criscrossed with use trails, fire pits everywhere, and garbage littered ledges on climbing routes. In July 1966 my climbing partner and I were the only climbers on the east face of Mount Whitney. When I was last there, the place was like an anthill, even with the permit system that is now in place.
While these examples may pale in significance compared to the threats due to mineral and development exploitation, we are 'loving our wild places to death'. These are the places where we seek solace from the trappings of society and we sure won't find it in a trampled meadow.
"Un-photographed places don't get constituents. "Secret places" that photographers try to keep to themselves don't get constituents. Nobody will care about an un-photographed, obscure wild place that nobody knows about when it comes under attack by nature's real enemies."
.
Richard, I think un-photographed places do get constituents by extension. For example, Ansel Adams photographed select places in the Sierra, and through the Sierra Club books brought the need for preservation of the Sierra range, including Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon into the collective consciousness.
With regard to photographer's keeping 'secret places' a secret, I believe this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, if I happen to photograph one person's secret place that I have found by sheer accident, I may unknowingly reveal the 'secret'. If that place is delicate or rare, I may inadvertantly cause it to be damaged by increased traffic. If I do know that a place is 'secret' (or its a place I discover and want to keep secret), and I do photograph it, I will not reveal it's location for the same reason.
In light of Ben's original conjecture, I believe it is not possible for us to not exploit our environment through nature photography. We have this urge to photograph natural beauty because it makes us happy and enriches our short existence. If we then share our imagery and thus enrich the lives of others, who's the poorer?
If we are mindful of our approach and exercise good stewardship of Nature, we will have suceeded in promoting the cause of preservation. if we do not, then the following quote will become more true than ever...
So...we want society to have a healthy respect and appreciate for nature, but only at a distance? Only in the abstract? We lament the fact the children and young adults have a complete disconnect to nature and that this entire generation of future voters know only the concrete world of suburbia, shopping malls, and video games but when they venture out into "our" wild places and attempt to discover nature they are "loving it to death?" We can't have it both ways. The argument is inconsistent, shallow, and shortsighted, IMO.
When society has to make a voice between ANWAR and cheep energy, society will make its choice based on its values. If it doesn't value nature, what can we expect? The inevitable trampled flowers or inconvenience of overcrowding in our national parks are a small price to pay for a society of constituents and future stewards of nature.
Posted by Stan Rose on October 29, 2011 at 12:47 AM
The problem is that there are 3 times as many humans around right now as there were just a generation or so ago. That trend doesn't look to reverse anytime soon. Im with Preston here, Richard. Increasing the number of visitors to natural areas doesn't necessarily make them respect it--in fact it often seems to have the opposite effect. If one is willing to trample and trash a place, why would that same person feel any urgency to protect it? Wilderness is nature without that human intervention--and once it's gone it is gone permanently. Quite frankly, I think we'd be more likely to protect our wild areas if it were inaccessible to all of us--it's human nature to value things more when you can't have them cheaply. Why would people choose 'cheap energy' over ANWAR? Would it be because they haven't been exposed to the values that ANWAR represents, or would it be because they've been over-exposed to the 'benefits' of cheap energy? We could turn ANWAR into a theme park, pave it and sell tickets for rides, then maybe people would want to save it, but in the end we'd lose the essence of what ANWAR represents in the first place. When that happens, this world and our species will be in very dire straits.
Discussion
17 repliesSeeing the Light, by Ben Glatt
It's probably easiest to continue discussion on his blog, so that he can participate.
Kent in SD
Honestly, people are out there promoting conservation as nature photographers, but they don't have the time or reasons to post on NPN or the other small circles of self-promoting landscape photographers.
Albert Horner is contemporary photographer who uses his photography to create as a base for his conservation efforts. His images and blog are here. I admire both his images and what he does, but also realize that he's somewhat of a rarity among the very large nature photography community in his degree of advocacy for the environment.
I neither agree nor disagree with Ben's views. I just think it's good that his photography has sparked some introspection and that he shares with the world via his blog. I'll interested in seeing Ben's new series of images.
Ben posted a few other links in a comment (near the bottom) on his blog.
Paul - that is precisely the problem, projects like that need more exposure in the nature photography community at large. On NPN, Facebook, Flickr, everywhere. You might even get more people participating that way! Furthermore, any success stories from projects like that need to be publicized as well. I know you do your part in posting your MYN images on various forums, but it gets buried under the barrage of all the other bambified (to use Ken'ts word) nature images from everyone else.
For those that don't understand Ben's point, do you not feel bad if you burn $500 of gas just to get a pretty sunset picture of, say, delicate arch (just, as an example), and then try to make money off of it? Really? What about when you've just inspired 100's of others to do exactly the same? Still not? If so, then there truly is no hope for the future.
Floris, perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying, but this makes no sense to me at all. Are you saying you somehow feel guilty when you sell one of your images because you had to spend money on gas (or cameras) in order to obtain it? That's just an normal component of any business - gas, cameras, computer, photoshop, etc. - these are just expenses we all incur in order to participate in this activity we call nature photography. What does making money off of it have to do with it? Whether I sell an image or not, the same amount of money has been spent, has it it not? If I was going to feel that guilty about going to a national park and shooting images, I would choose to instead stay home. Like I said, perhaps I'm misreading what you said - if you would like to clarify or set me straight, I would welcome that.
Many people oppose drilling oil in beautiful places and thereby damaging them and stressing animals, etc. in the name of making money. While it may be considered a stretch, is burning oil, crushing flowers, and stressing wildlife for personal gain (be it in the form of money or not) really that much different?
Let's look at a different comparison: hunting. In order to do what they enjoy, hunters provide significant revenue for the preservation of wild lands and animals (by way of expensive permits). We as nature photographers, for the vast majority, do no such thing.
Just things to think about.. particularly for those of us that are young enough to expect to live for the next half century, who would like to continue to enjoy the natural world in its current (or better) state
This isn't just personal, however, I think it would just be fantastic if the group of 'nature photographers' as a whole could in fact inspire society in general to care more for the environment, and spark some change in the public's and politicians' attitudes and policies. I believe the potential is there, the question is how to harness it. The problem I think (as I stated above), is that many people assume that they are having that kind of positive effect when there is in fact no evidence that that is the case. Instead, the effect seems to be more trampled flowers, crushed sandstone, and burned gas. Can we reverse that somehow?
I think on the whole, the genre of nature photography makes a significant difference in popular attitudes toward nature and conservation. The beauty of nature is part of our collective consciousness largely, I think, because of the widespread distribution and use of images of wild places and animals. But . . .
I read Ben's essay -- and some of the comments here as well -- as encouraging those of us that care about preservation (and restoration) of natural places to think about how our own work contributes to such causes . . . and perhaps most importantly, whether it contributes at all. Even before reading Ben's essay I'd occasionally wonder "what is the point of all this" while looking through my own portfolio. Certainly, it is personally satisfying to create an occasional nice image, but is that enough?
Part of me says that maybe it is enough. The other part of me is not so sure . . . if the world doesn't need any more pretty pictures, is there something else I can do with photography that would have broader significance? I think that is the kind of introspection that Ben was sharing (and encouraging) in his essay. Some folks may dismiss such notions quite easily and I have no real problem with that. Making money off of nature photography or doing it purely for personal satisfaction is all fine by me. But the notion of doing something "more" is intriguing and one that I think is worth considering . . .
"I think on the whole, the genre of nature photography makes a significant difference in popular attitudes toward nature and conservation. The beauty of nature is part of our collective consciousness largely, I think, because of the widespread distribution and use of images of wild places and animals."
The widespread distribution of images of beautiful and unharmed places and animals may also lead one to believe that there is no urgency in conservation - that is a dangerous situation to be in.
I do know some of my images in and around Inverness down to Mabou have helped locals who have had to move away from this, their beautiful area to places in western Canada and US for work, remember where they are from. That alone is what makes a big difference to me even though I may not be saving the environment, it is helping someone remember a place they dearly miss due to economic hardship.
Highly unlikely anyone is going to drive or fly out here to my neck of the grass and try to do the kind of photography I most enjoy. What I do is photo at night, using up to ~10,000ws of mega flash. I especially love to do this on winter nights in the Dakotas and Minnesota, with blizzards being my favorite conditions. Few have the motivation to do this, let alone the clothing.
Kent in SD
I think that nature photography, as a whole, has been a boon to nature. I've heard the phrase, "loved to death" when it comes to many of our national parks or wild places, but I don't buy it. Some trampled flowers might be the cost for all this - and an unfortunate one at that. But it pales in comparison to the real threats that are coming down the pike. It's inevitable with the population explosion and the strain on natural resources that these places will come under attack by developers, mining, oil drilling, etc at some point, and nature can use all the love and friends she can get. Nature photography, and the attention it creates for wilderness and wild places, creates constituents. Nature will need constituents. MANY constituents in the future. The more people who love nature and have a deep appreciate for nature, the better chance nature will have against her real enemies. Un-photographed places don't get constituents. "Secret places" that photographers try to keep to themselves don't get constituents. Nobody will care about an un-photographed, obscure wild place that nobody knows about when it comes under attack by nature's real enemies.
Nature Photography as some serious threat to nature? Absurd. At least compared to the real threats on the not-so-distant horizon.
Kent in SD
Richard, when I first visited the Sierra in the early sixties and hiked the trails and climbed the peaks, there were few people compared to today. Trails that I had hiked early on turned into foot-deep ruts, meadows were criscrossed with use trails, fire pits everywhere, and garbage littered ledges on climbing routes. In July 1966 my climbing partner and I were the only climbers on the east face of Mount Whitney. When I was last there, the place was like an anthill, even with the permit system that is now in place.
While these examples may pale in significance compared to the threats due to mineral and development exploitation, we are 'loving our wild places to death'. These are the places where we seek solace from the trappings of society and we sure won't find it in a trampled meadow.
.
Richard, I think un-photographed places do get constituents by extension. For example, Ansel Adams photographed select places in the Sierra, and through the Sierra Club books brought the need for preservation of the Sierra range, including Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon into the collective consciousness.
With regard to photographer's keeping 'secret places' a secret, I believe this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, if I happen to photograph one person's secret place that I have found by sheer accident, I may unknowingly reveal the 'secret'. If that place is delicate or rare, I may inadvertantly cause it to be damaged by increased traffic. If I do know that a place is 'secret' (or its a place I discover and want to keep secret), and I do photograph it, I will not reveal it's location for the same reason.
In light of Ben's original conjecture, I believe it is not possible for us to not exploit our environment through nature photography. We have this urge to photograph natural beauty because it makes us happy and enriches our short existence. If we then share our imagery and thus enrich the lives of others, who's the poorer?
If we are mindful of our approach and exercise good stewardship of Nature, we will have suceeded in promoting the cause of preservation. if we do not, then the following quote will become more true than ever...
"We have met the enemy and he is us.". Pogo
--P
When society has to make a voice between ANWAR and cheep energy, society will make its choice based on its values. If it doesn't value nature, what can we expect? The inevitable trampled flowers or inconvenience of overcrowding in our national parks are a small price to pay for a society of constituents and future stewards of nature.