In truth this article, for Outdoor Photography, is a work in progress insofar as I’ve not managed to nail down conclusively the pictures “conservation photographers” need to be shooting now: shooting less harmful lifestyles as an attractive alternative to the self-destructive ways we generally live now are about as close as I get to it. But hey, I don’t have all the answers: the main point of writing these articles is to start discussion from which something conclusive may come. That discussion won’t happen in the pages of Outdoor Photography – but it may do so here.
>
The term “conservation photography” is widely heard these days. Niall Benvie, himself a Fellow of the International League of Conservation Photographers, examines what weight it carries.
After a long time in denial I now have to concede that, when it comes down to it, people don’t care about the Earth. At least, they don’t care about it if doing so impacts on their material life. And there’s essentially no way we can enjoy a material life without impacting adversely on the natural world. The argument that industrial society and a vibrant natural environment are compatible just doesn’t stand close, ear-to-the-ground examination. The economic growth paradigm to which all political parties subscribe is antagonistic to the Earth – and essential to keep us in the style to which we’ve become accustomed. Conservationists and non-conservationists alike, we are all beneficiaries.
At its heart, conservation photography – a term defined after Cristina Mittermeier initiated the founding of the International League of Conservation Photographers in 2005 – challenges that paradigm. By drawing attention to what happens in and to the natural world (rather than merely reflecting its aesthetics) conservation photography gives people the tools they need to understand how their choices affect it. But few, too few to make any real difference, act on that knowledge. Let’s face it, people know about 2.5 billion others not having access to fresh drinking water; of children dying for want of a mosquito net; of genocide in Darfur. We hear about these and similar stories on the news every week. If we can’t muster any effective response to the plight of our fellow human beings it’s highly unlikely that we will put ourselves out to mitigate biodiversity loss, ground water pollution or any one of a host of other foot-shooting consequences of industrial growth. Still optimisitic? Then reflect on our collective collaboration with the very financial institutions responsible for bankrolling so much destructive growth (presented, paradoxically, as “development”) when we allowed our money to be used to save them from themselves in late 2008. Why? Because if we didn’t, we too would feel the cold steel of poverty between our ribs; it was an act, if not of self-interest at least of short term self-preservation. And the rescue happened in a very short space of time without endless summits or protracted negotiations. When the chips are down – about things that really matter to people like their material well-being– the $4 trillion dollars can be found, and fast.
So, given our collective willingness in the West to put Growth over preserving ecosystem services (estimated worldwide to be achievable for about $45 billion per annum) or biodiversity hotspots ($1.3 trillon over 30 years) or giving those 2.5 billion people clean water and sanitation – a bargain at $37 billion* – is there even any point in practising “conservation photography”?
The answer is a qualified “yes”. “Yes” if we give up the discredited hope that simply by “raising awareness” we can bring about seismic shifts. As Derrick Jensen says in his essay, Democracy of Destruction, “ If people collectively had to choose between iPods and gorillas, we know which they would (and do) choose.” Lovely images just don’t persuade people to donate the money they would have spent on a new iPod to gorilla conservation.
If conservation photography is to win anything other than the occasional skirmish it needs to set itself a new challenge: of making the alternatives to the way we live now look much, much more attractive. Why else would anyone want to give up their current lifestyle? The trick is to finds ways to make people want less (rather than be coerced into having less) and sell that option with the same single-mindedness as advertisers currently sell us stuff that we never knew we wanted. When the Toyota Prius first came out, drivers competed with each other to achieve the best fuel economy; they wanted to use less fuel. When consumption cuts are the choice of the consumer, then progress can be made. The mistake that a lot of conservation photography currently makes is to labour the threats posed by, for example, climate change. What is far more effective is to show people the better alternatives offered by a low carbon economy. Our photography needs to focus on these themes rather than images of despair. It’s not a matter of burying one’s head in the sand, simply acknowledging when something doesn’t work.
The 2020VISION project is a little ahead of the curve in this respect with its focus on habitat restoration programmes in the UK and the resulting benefits to people and wildlife. This project earns additional credibility by allowing its photographers to undertake at least some of their assignments locally: the inconsistency of conservation photographers jetting around the world to document its plight has not been lost on the discipline’s critics.
While there may be no hope of reversing species loss, there is some hope that we can live a little more within the planet’s means and slow the rate of attrition. Arch polluter China is, unexpectedly, leading the way in its spending on “ecocompensation” – payments to conserve the habitats that provide key “ecological services” – such as woodlands in the headlands of rivers. Why? Because the cost of doing nothing is far, far higher. Conservation photography should be about showing a better future for ourselves by creating a better one for the Earth. About persuading people that gorillas actually do give more benefit more than iPods.
What you say is sad…….very sad…..but unfortunately I have to agree.
I have been living half of my life in the north west of Spain. I have seen people’s lifes changing a lot from an economy of self-subsistence, where nature was the source of everything, to an economy based on the uncertain income of old pensioners. At the same time the forests that I remembered are lost or almost lost (mostly burnt by people). When I see the (few) photographs that my grand parent made of some places, I just can’t believe how much they have changed.
Now the question would be….what can I do to reduce the impact of these changes?….well, let’s be honest….. not much in my opinion, as the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset wrote (he lived between the 19th and 20th centuries) the pulleys of the state are becoming too big for the simple individual.
Hi Niall,
This is such a well-written and thoughtful essay. I hope that it generates a lot of of discussion and I tend to agree with everything that you’ve written here. One thing that occurred to me while reading your line…”people don’t care about the Earth. At least, they don’t care about it if doing so impacts on their material life.” is whether or not any animal really cares about the Earth. At the expense on going out on a tangent, isn’t it in every creature’s general nature simply to take for their own kind? In that case, we’re not only going up against cultural and societal norms but evolutionary ones as well.
The challenge that we’re up against is daunting. We are trying to basically shift the ethos of an entire culture. On one hand, I can see changes occurring for the better where I live: there seems to be more of an interest in native plants, for example, and greenspaces, etc. The problem is that at the rate that these changes are occurring the goodness isn’t currently in a position to withstand or balance out the destructive areas of growth. While those of us in developed countries are finally starting to see some change, developing countries are just ramping up. They want what we have here in America.
I appreciate the fact that you are working to broaden the scope and definition of what a “conservation photographer” is or should be. Like any movement, it must change and adapt to its own successes and failures as well as the situation that it has been developed to impact. In my mind, at this point anyway, Conservation Photography needs to work towards documenting three areas: 1.) (The original intent) Habitat and Species Destruction 2.) Guiding governments / decision makers / communities toward alternative ways of looking at conservation like you’re doing with 202oV 3.) Long-term, proactive campaigns that work to reconnect and nurture a love of nature with the next generation. I think that a coordinated effort amongst these three “threads” give us the greatest chance of having a positive impact on the future of the human race and ultimately our wild neighbors. After all, this is ultimately about our own survival. The Earth will heal after we’ve gone and taken everything else with us.
The truth is, we’re probably not going to “save the Earth” in our lifetime. It is going to take several generations to turn-things around in full. Yes, that is rather hard to swallow. However, the thing that I like to think of is that we are building upon a foundation that was laid by our predecessors and those who follow us will do the same until some type of equilibrium can be reached.
Human nature being what it is we will always strive towards materialism and self-preservation. This is the right of any living creature we just get the prize for being the all-time masters. However, rather than using our ample intelligence to make more “stuff,” my (potentially naive) hope is that one day we will wake up, look around and say enough is enough. It is possible.
Thanks again Niall. The gears are turning.
My best,
Clay
Can’t resist just a token contribution.
It has been shown – in many instances around the globe – that when people ‘care’, great things can happen. So whilst I might tip my hat to your less-than-optimistic view of the future, the secret for me is getting more people to ‘care’. Sure, a material carrot helps but fundamentally, people can be persuaded to care (and pretty shots of mountain gorillas have a role to play in that process). Perhaps we should re-brand ourselves – not as conservation photographers but as Carer Recruitment Agents?
Like you, I’m not pretending any of this stuff is quick or easy.
P
I came to the conclusion in my early twenties that, in many ways the planet was doomed and that any economic system predicated upon consumption and expansion… satisfying that most base of human traits, greed, was ultimately consigned to failure.
In fact, to get any better it must get much worse and only when there is barely the possibility of survival will humans try to change things. Everywhere, we elect the wrong people to office, those who are interested in self.
Like Pete I believe we can make a difference and for most of us that means working on a small scale – why I have been pushing the Close to Home thing for so long. It gets bitterly frustrating at times and I find myself becoming less and less tolerant of human stupidity (if that were possible) . I cannot give up hope and each time I hear nightingales,see bee-eaters or count 10 swallowtails (scarce and common) on our lavender I want to ensure that even a tiny part of this wonderful world is preserved. Naive, doomed to disappointment, maybe but if that is how you are built (and you have long ceased to care what others think) then there is no choice.
I have never been happy with the blitz approach to conservation photography and I think that hostages to fortune have been naively created by the to-ing and fro-ing of people concerned. Good publicity, yes, but there are lots of carpers prepared to hone in on this aspect and devalue the efforts. The use of local photographers (whose status and influence might have been increased) was not done with Wild Wonders of Europe and at least one Italian area could have been covered far better by people who knew for what they searched. No, I am not suggesting me but LOCAL, Italian photographers of great but unsung ability.
It all does get depressing at times and, only last week, I was reminded of the meaning of the words “losing the will to live” when I spoke at a conference locally with the aim of bringing together a responsible element of the hunting community, local politicians and conservationists to halt the efforts of just four hunters to open up part of a reserve.
I showed images that I hoped reflected the intrinsic worth of this site – the reason to defend it, and Biologist Cristiano Spilinga explained its importance for the reptiles and amphibians there. MYN type images went down a storm, by the way…
It was hot and humid yet politicians spoke at length (it is what they feel they must do) and filled the atmosphere with what Italians call ‘aria fritta’ – fried air. To be honest, I would rather have been just about anywhere else anticipating disruption from an aggressive contingent of hunters. In the UK it would never worry me for I can give as good, if not better, than I get with hecklers having the ability to think on my feet and use humour to ridicule. In Italian it is much harder for me to do – I cope, just that and so feel I have my hands tied behind my back. In the event it was well received but I felt utterly drained.
It seems that there is a glimmer of hope with politicians eager for that modicum of good publicity they feel they might get by association. It is all down to votes for which politicos will and have sold their grandmothers.
If I did not feel there was that faint glimmer of hope there is no way I could go through this abysmal crap… Forlorn hope is maybe all I have – all WE have but we must never lose the grip on that.
Hello Niall
It is all too easy when drafting definitions to strive to produce an exhaustive and detailed definition that gets close to being perfect but never quite does so. Sometimes, it may be better to have a wider, more woolly, definition that on first glance may appear to be a bit of a “cop out” but in practice works. With conservation photography, perhaps a much wider definition is necessary?
For me, the key issue is identifying the nature of the problem and presenting possible alternatives and solutions. It may be easy (at least for some?) to understand the problems faced by “star” species like Polar Bears, Tigers, Mountain Gorillas etc… However, what is far harder is to recognise how our daily lives are all a part of that problem.
Whilst there may be some acknowledgement that carbon based emissions need to be curbed, how many realise how their daily lives contribute to this? It may be easy to identify some of the contributing factors, coal powered power stations for one are pretty hard to miss. But how many people look at where the food in their supermarket has come from or consider how many calories it took to deliver the out of season fruit they have just bought? It is easy to recognise the millions suffering from starvation and a lack of clean water in poorer areas but how many in the wealthier countries recognise their role in this? It is easy to recognise the emissions that our cars produce, but how many people recognise the impact that the manufacture of the electronic goods we all take for granted has?
You have touched on the dichotomy of conservation photographers flying around the world to save the planet. You have also mentioned that some of 2020 Vision’s projects were undertaken by local photographers and Paul has also mentioned the use (or lack thereof) of local photographers in the Wild Wonders of Europe project. I am not in anyway criticising these projects nor the work of any conservation photographer but use these as examples of how the problem permeates into all of our lives, even those working for change.
How many photographers who take pleasure from photographing the natural world recognise the part this plays in the problem? How many understand the impact their travel, whether for personal projects or whilst on an overseas tour, has? What is the real cost of travelling to Svalbard to photograph Polar Bears, Finland to photograph Brown Bears or to Yellowstone? How many people this year spared a thought for the millions of people living in Africa facing starvation and suffering from a lack of clean drinking water whilst they enjoyed a Sundowner in their luxury tented camp after photographing the big five? How many understand where the rare metals necessary for the manufacture of their latest Nikon, Canon etc… came from and the impact this has on the areas where these metals are mined?
If there is any chance of success, we all need to recognise the impact that we have and how deeply the problem permeates our lives. This is not easy and I am as much at fault as anyone else. However, as the often misquoted Chinese proverb says: “The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one’s feet.”
Best wishes
Andrew
Thanks for these contributions. I would return to my main point, however, which is that even when people are in possession of facts and knowledge, the vast majority of us will still put our personal comfort first – like any other animal will, as Clay points out. And we do that because we haven’t been “sold” a less harmful alternative convincingly enough.
Best
Niall
A wonderful and thought-provoking article Niall. One particularly evocative line in this article stands out to me: “we too would feel the cold steel of poverty between our ribs”. I think that this is ultimately what it boils down to: what do we feel? People in general are motivated by emotion; whereas facts and figures can make us aware, they do not necessarily move us to change our default setting of apathy toward our impact on the planet.
Using gorillas as an example of cold reason vs emotion: among the genocide of millions of people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an image captured by Brent Stirton of a large male gorilla, freshly killed and strung over the shoulder of a dozen men, shook the world into collective anger. How could an image of one dead animal stir more emotion than the news of the loss of millions of lives? Because in an instant that image struck an emotional chord; simply put, it tapped into the emotions in a way that the statistics did not. It ventured where “raising awareness” could not.
I believe the power of photography lies in its ability to connect people on an emotional level. Harnessing that power to change behaviours is one role for Conservation Photography – moving people to want to protect the gorilla rather than buy that ipod. Knowing your ipod impacts gorillas is not enough – I believe you need to feel it.
A provocative article Niall and I wonder really how we can define the ‘Conservation Photographer’. Is it someone who simply provides emotive images of the destruction and devastation of our planets rich resources or uses portraits of charismatic species to sell the next book, highlighting that a percentage of profits is donated to ‘charity’..? I would like to think that a Conservation Photographer might actually undertake some efforts to improve things at grass roots level and get down and dirty with nature.
From my own point of view, and indeed several colleagues/photographers who work in similar fields, conservation comes before photography and photographs are used as a tool in our everyday activities. I once asked the question on a wildlife photography forum – How many people actually submit the records of the species they encounter to their local biological recording centres, wildlife trusts or other such bodies? I had very little response and none from those who are often held in high esteem in this community. Was this silence an acknowledgment of the little understanding of how important that information really is?
Is it enough that we simply take pictures for glossy magazines and book articles or can our encounters actually provide an evidence base that will help planners, policy and decision makers to make informed decision about how our land is best used? For example, in the UK many of us strive to provide images of endangered species or species otherwise protected under current legislation since we know that, in turn, those images will provide a ‘quick buck’ for our efforts. However, if we were to actually take a few more details about where and how those images were taken and submit those records to the aforementioned repositories then those images would have a much greater wealth and provide a better conservation objective.
When planning developments here in the UK governments are obliged to take account of biodiversity legislation and that means that they will turn to the repositories for information regarding taxa that may inhabit sites primed for development. Our very own records could help to make better, informed decisions as to how that land is used for development or may encourage developers to look at alternative sites paving the way for site designation based on records of species we encounter. For me, a simple act such as this will have more profound outcomes in terms of biodiversity conservation than any glossy and well replicated image that we could ever strive to achieve.
So maybe we need to look at the term ‘Conservation Photographer’ with a renewed vision about what we are trying to achieve and perhaps ask ourselves, can we do more with what we already have? We have a major resource in our libraries of flora and fauna, geographical information and a chance to provide some real knowledge through our efforts.
This is a just the tip of the proverbial iceberg where conservation is concerned and I think that the term is used far to loosely by photographers who seldom understand the real implications of their work or indeed what their work could really achieve. Maybe we should be driving that ‘steel’ into the ground and dig a pond to provide habitat for hundreds of species and provide another resources for photography..?
Your response is a very thoughtful one, Brett and accords with my own views regarding Conservation Photography. There is no doubt in my mind that this can be a label, adopted perhaps cynically by some to give a legitimacy to commercial activities…makes then more ‘cuddly’ and seemingly concerned. Many people are taken in, it seems. I agree that anyone who wants to use that ‘mantle’ needs to be involved in a practical sense with some very ordinary work and not just exotica. It is not glamorous but it serves a purpose.
The legions of folk who quietly use their cameras to ‘record’ are, potentially capable of doing more to provide evidence of a ‘hard’ kind that is needed to support conjecture when the question of protection comes into being and government departments need to be convinced. One way, and something I have done for decades, is to allow my images of uncommon (and more ordinary) species to be used by ‘good causes’ – however, commercial use demands commercial rates. It is not publicised, it just happens for the conservation side has always been more important than the photography – or at least doing something with images rather than entering competitions or indulging in various other ego trips. I cannot see much point in being a nature photographer otherwise.
Looking back I feel my photography has always been driven by things I care about being ported with the maximum impact I can generate and I know others who share this view. This has proved incredibly useful here in Italy with local ventures where most people have no idea what is around them and biodiversity is another buzz-word. I have run workshops to get good and capable photographers recording and passing on data. On a ‘tit for tat’ basis a preparedness to contribute and be the man with a camera, free of any sense of competing has brought requests to photograph things I would not otherwise get to do…bats in flight in caves this autumn for instance!
Clay and I are in the final stages of preparing an ebook on wide angle macro that is aimed specifically at people who want to use their photography to record effectively and with impact. Maybe, through this blog and others we could do much more to emphasise the importance of photographers legitimising their work by doing something useful with it. .I know we had been wanting to involve more people and get contributions from those like yourself who can write with authority. So please feel free!
Paul
I have had similar thoughts to these before Nial, however, I never managed to put pen to paper (just late night conversations). The power of the marketing industry is really flabbergasting to me. It seems they could sell snow to the Eskimo’s.
From my own observations I have concluded that humanity acts on necessity and to some degree competition, and the advertising and marketing fraternity utilizes these character traits to great effect. People are being sold food and drink that do them no good and can even lead to premature death – but they still need these products in their lives. New cars, phones, ipads, digital cameras are needing to be upgraded every two years, a marketing strategy developed by ford I believe, by creating a new model (no matter how superficial an upgrade) every year, within two or three the consumers product is out dated – the new model is desirable and necessary to improve the quality of the consumers life (and to keep up with the jones’s).
But is it the conservation photographer’s job to develop the skills of the marketing industry? I think not, however, if we can get some of these advertising players on side they can really start to change things. Your example of the prius is a prime one. Do you remember the “I am not a plastic bag” released by Sainsbury’s? Another success, it’s these kind of marketing strategies that subtly change behaviors by creating necessity in people’s lives. The necessity to stop using plastic bags, the necessity to use less fuel, not because someone is telling them to change their behaviors, but because clever marketing says they need to – more importantly it is ‘their’ choice to change.
I don’t think selling/suggesting lifestyle change is the remit of the conservation photographer (as much as they may want this to happen). Much like the conservation scientist finds the evidence to influence policy change at a governmental level, they do not have the skills needed to market the necessary behavioral changes to the public at large. Where you do find a public audience for your work, 90% of the time it may well be a case of preaching to the converted, and when battling against such rife commercialism, particularly when this is supported by our own governments to sickening levels e.g. Olympic sponsors, where do you start?
Perhaps you use your conservation photography to change the hearts and minds of the people with the power to develop and sell products more sustainably, future proofing hi-tech products instead of upgrades every year and so on. Perhaps the conservation photographer doesn’t need to change the angle of his work but his audience? Granted however, the most difficult audience to convince ever! If not an impossible task altogether, needless to say the purveyors of the products that destroy our planet are the people with the omnipotent clout to change societies destructive behavior on a mass scale.
Hi Nat
Points taken, but perhaps you underestimate the creativity of the conservation photography community. And I’d much rather have the “advertisements” framed by insiders like us who understand the issues and know what we need to sell than metropolitan advertising types.
Best
Niall