Posted by Mike Smith on December 8, 2012 at 4:49 PM
I've been very quiet photographic wise over the last 18 months due to work commitments and been more of a lurker than contributor. Every year my wife and I have a weekend in London with the WPoTY exhibition as a must see.
Over the last few years there have been a few controversial winners, the Spanish tame wolf, the Gorilla shot in a German zoo, camera trap photography, the elephant family troop taken on a Safari trip. However this year was the first time we couldn't physically complete viewing the exhibition.
My wife was badly traumatised and reduced to tears, and I must admit I felt physically sickened by several of the images on display. Normally the graphically cruel images are restricted to the "life in our hands category" and can be easily skipped, however there were at least 4 galleries this year that exhibited graphic cruelty or had quiet alarming images. Given the number of families that visit, we cannot be alone in being so disturbed by the images displayed. I also fear that the "bad restaurant" experience has struck and we will not be visting again.
Yes we all know that nature is cruel and expect a certain level of blood and gore, however this year was definately the year of political statement and reportage of cruelty - not particulary clever images but pure reportage. "Nice" wildlife images were mainly absent and replaced by haunting and alarming images containing violence and cruelty.
Two images also really had me thinking why the photographers had been rewarded;
One a crass piece of photo staging, a mouse eating a slice of bread left on a gas cooker ring burner with a knife - honestly how realistic was that? I really must be missing something here, why was it WPoTY material? - it seemed a direct copy of the bat & window dual lighting image from last year but poorly executed by comparison.
Secondly a very haunting image of the male monkey with hatred in its eyes - an extremely haunting and powerfull image - BUT - the description indicated the photographer had encroached within the male monkey comfort zone provoking the malovent look, took the image and then beat a hasty retreat following which a fight ensued - what ever happened to nature photography golden rule no 1 - the welfare of the subject comes first? What sort of example is this setting?
Not too sure where I am going with this post, partly to alert would be goers to expect some truly graphic & traumatic images, partly I suppose to raise a concern at the political statements/direction that the exhibition appears to have followed this year.
Mods please feel free to delete this post if you feel it is inappropriate
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 9, 2012 at 4:07 AM
Interesting reading Mike, unfortunately sensationalism sells and as a species we are pretty blood thirsty (the Roman gladitorial games were hugely popular and were used to curry favour with the masses) and whilst shocked many of us cannot resist looking anyway, rubber necking at bad car accidents as an instance. I think though there should have been some warnings put up in place particularly for the younger members of society and those with a weaker constitution. I remember being traumatised as a child at Madam Tussauds after looking at a very gory road accident scene!
Nick.
Posted by Mike Smith on December 9, 2012 at 5:09 AM
Nick, the most disturbing images contained human interaction, not animal on animal, and these were not restricted to the world in our hands category. The "killer": traumatising image was next to the new "reportage section" of two on poaching, (itself very graphic and disturbing) being an image of a terrified chained monkey being manhandled by children - it was a truly shocking image and in the wrong section as far as I am concerned.
Was it nature photography? - well it was photography showing how we are destroying nature, as I said there were many "political" images this year, I think Greenpeace should have been the sponsor of this years exhibition.
As I am sure you are aware, even though I was not involved to a large extent this year, I cannot make a comment, apart from, yours is the first such complaint like this I have heard and I do feel that your title is a bit OTT...
I will ask however, have you made your feeling about the exhibition known to the organisers? ... negative as well as positive feedback is always appreciated.
Are the organisers to 'censor' the exhibition and subsequently the competition entries?
Many people I have spoken to have found the competition/exhibition this year inspiring and possibly the best for many years...
Probably said too much, but I am really just puzzled by this.....
Phil
Posted by Neil Burton on December 10, 2012 at 4:59 AM
The problem I see is this. The more the human population grows the less "wild" life we will have. Already we have irreversably destroyed nature. even the roe deer in the wood where I live... once they could have walked to china if they so wished, now they get as far as a motorway or town, then they turn back. Lions limited by the fences of national parks, tigers no longer able to venture through the gates. It makes me laugh a little when people ask how I get the pictures of woodpeckers or robins. "But, if you feed them they are not wild anymore and you have removed the natural side of things!" The same peolpe have a bird feeder in their garden and the fact they have a garden and house means a small part of forest was destroyed. Think how it must have once looked on this planet, wow. So, we have stuffed up most of this planets wildlife, we interact, we kill, we destroy...a photo tells a story, and man is as much a part of wildlife photography now as the animals are. If it means we have to shock people to realise this, then we have to shock people. I would have thought a photographer would realize this.
As for getting too close for effect, that is a bit daft.
Posted by Phil Ellard on December 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM
Neil, deep man...but rings true I often wonder what it would have looked like. I haven't seen the exhibition but i a few things i am sure of, one the pictures are better than mine and two the pictures are art, and art if it is good it provokes a reaction in those that see it. Mike it provoked a reaction in you therefore it was effective. You do not have to like art to appreciate its value or appeal to others. Just my two pence... BTW you have made me want to go and see it though
Discussion
5 repliesOver the last few years there have been a few controversial winners, the Spanish tame wolf, the Gorilla shot in a German zoo, camera trap photography, the elephant family troop taken on a Safari trip. However this year was the first time we couldn't physically complete viewing the exhibition.
My wife was badly traumatised and reduced to tears, and I must admit I felt physically sickened by several of the images on display. Normally the graphically cruel images are restricted to the "life in our hands category" and can be easily skipped, however there were at least 4 galleries this year that exhibited graphic cruelty or had quiet alarming images. Given the number of families that visit, we cannot be alone in being so disturbed by the images displayed. I also fear that the "bad restaurant" experience has struck and we will not be visting again.
Yes we all know that nature is cruel and expect a certain level of blood and gore, however this year was definately the year of political statement and reportage of cruelty - not particulary clever images but pure reportage. "Nice" wildlife images were mainly absent and replaced by haunting and alarming images containing violence and cruelty.
Two images also really had me thinking why the photographers had been rewarded;
One a crass piece of photo staging, a mouse eating a slice of bread left on a gas cooker ring burner with a knife - honestly how realistic was that? I really must be missing something here, why was it WPoTY material? - it seemed a direct copy of the bat & window dual lighting image from last year but poorly executed by comparison.
Secondly a very haunting image of the male monkey with hatred in its eyes - an extremely haunting and powerfull image - BUT - the description indicated the photographer had encroached within the male monkey comfort zone provoking the malovent look, took the image and then beat a hasty retreat following which a fight ensued - what ever happened to nature photography golden rule no 1 - the welfare of the subject comes first? What sort of example is this setting?
Not too sure where I am going with this post, partly to alert would be goers to expect some truly graphic & traumatic images, partly I suppose to raise a concern at the political statements/direction that the exhibition appears to have followed this year.
Mods please feel free to delete this post if you feel it is inappropriate
Nick.
Was it nature photography? - well it was photography showing how we are destroying nature, as I said there were many "political" images this year, I think Greenpeace should have been the sponsor of this years exhibition.
As I am sure you are aware, even though I was not involved to a large extent this year, I cannot make a comment, apart from, yours is the first such complaint like this I have heard and I do feel that your title is a bit OTT...
I will ask however, have you made your feeling about the exhibition known to the organisers? ... negative as well as positive feedback is always appreciated.
Are the organisers to 'censor' the exhibition and subsequently the competition entries?
Many people I have spoken to have found the competition/exhibition this year inspiring and possibly the best for many years...
Probably said too much, but I am really just puzzled by this.....
Phil
As for getting too close for effect, that is a bit daft.