December 12, 2011
| 
9
[the following is a modified repost from Myrmecos, 2010]
Image by US Army Africa, used under a Creative Commons CC-BY 2.0 license
Audubon’s Ted Williams explains that staged images have taken over the animal photography business and argues that these ubiquitous phonies give the public an inaccurate view of nature:
Audubon has sent me to lots of wild places over the past 31 years, but I’d seen only one wolf and three cougars (a litter) until December 8, 2009. On that day, before noon in the Glacier National Park ecosystem of northwestern Montana, I encountered not just one wolf but two and not just one cougar but two! What were the chances of that?Well, they were 100 percent, because I’d rented the animals for a photo shoot.
I’m not as bothered by the hired animal photography business as Williams. The most valid concerns are those surrounding the welfare of the caged animals, but apart from that I have a hard time being scandalized by staged imagery.
The trouble is that photography is not and never was a valid medium for determining truth about the world around us. The whole point of photography is propagandistic. Pictures communicate a story, or promote a concept, or a person.
Even in the wilds of the deepest Amazonian jungle, photographers still make decisions about when to trigger the shutter and what to include in or exclude from the frame. These decisions are as much a lens into the imagination of the photographer as they are a recording device for the subject, and the difference in artificiality between farmed animal photos and wild photos are more in degree than in kind.
To be clear, I have much more respect for the photographers who put in the hard yards in difficult conditions to shoot animals in their natural state. Truly wild wildlife photography involves a level of skill and artistry beyond that seen in the calendar crowd. But to the extent we’re interested in how the world works, we should not impart on photography a role that it cannot play. We should not be deluded that pretty pictures can inform us more than they can mislead us. We have science for that.
About the Author: Alex Wild is an Illinois-based entomologist who studies the evolutionary history of ants. In 2003 he founded a photography business as an aesthetic complement to his scientific work, and his natural history photographs appear in numerous museums, books, and media outlets. Follow on Twitter @myrmecos.
9 CommentsAdd a Comment
You must log in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Faster-than-light neutrinos explained? 
My genetic profile says I’d be a heroin addict
Antarctica's Erratic Climate Shaped Icefish Evolution
The bacteria in your belly Pt. 2 - Adults
Ashes, Yarmulkes and the Hijab: Communitas and Religious Symbols
Tomorrow in Charlotte: 'How the Web is Changing the Way Science Is Communicated, Taught and Done.'
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Share
Email
Print
I know. There’s a lot of editing done on the pictures too
Link to thisThe content surprises me. The animals rented?
I certainly assumed normal photographic editing: cropping, color improvement, framing, etc. And I assumed the photographer simply took 100′s of shots of which only a few would be publication-quality.
But, renting and staging? Not acceptable. This is fraud, pure and simple. There should (must) be a disclaimer placed on each and every staged photo
Link to thisEven David Attinbourgh(sorry about the spelling) uses photos not shot in the wild.
Link to thishttp://www.bestluxuryrings.com
I think the author is allowing his fraud make him feel guilty, and he shouldn’t. I have been in the woods everyday my whole life since I was five years-old and I have only seen one bear and one fox – about 40 deer and most of those in my later life, about 15 squirrel, two rabbits and three snakes (never a poisonous snake), and I am 60. It’s not like those wild animals are going to come up and pose for you and action cameras are fairly new and most still take crummy photos when the subject is in action. Don’t feel guilty about the fudge you eat when society demands perfection.
Link to thisIf you remember, there was recently a trainer and operator of a animal-for-hire business that freed the dangerous animals and then killed himself.. the police in the relatively small town eventually had to put down most of the animals. Those animals were all being kept as “props”.
I grew up on what was once a “game farm”. That means that at one time, it was business. The business was simple- release tame “game” animals in a fenced area and then let wealthy people blast them to bits, and call it hunting.
Though not the same ending, calling that “wildlife photography” is about the same as calling the ritualized torture and slaughter of Game Farms “Hunting”.
Link to thisBut if these animals are so difficult to encounter and so reclusive, how can we effectively send the message that they are the utter brink of extinction by human activity. Wait. Sorry. Republican activity. Also, you don’t need to use photography to do effective propaganda. Sometimes science magazines article editors and writers can do a really good job, too.
Link to thisTo me, I think the issues are a little more complicated. For example, to me the appropriateness of staging photos in this way, or at least disclosing the information, depends on the context/usage of the photo. If a jaguar is jumping out of an SUV in a TV commercial, it’s pretty clear that the scene is staged. If an image is being used in journalism, then it’s the equivalent of staging a fake protest in order to photograph it, and that’s really not acceptable.
I think the idea that it’s simply part of a continuum that goes all the way down to framing a shot or using a flash is also a stretch. Certain things are either obviously necessary (e.g., framing a shot) or commonly accepted (e.g., using a flash, cropping a photo). Staging photos in the wild with captive animals is something that the viewer would not assume or be able to infer without disclosure.
I also think the false dichotomy you set up between science and photography is a bit tiresome. Photos (and video) can capture quite a bit of information about, for example, animals, their behavior, habitat, etc. They’re pretty much the best way of sharing what animals look like to anyone who can’t see them in person. Browse the MCZ Caribbean insects collection and you’ll see dusty, desiccated specimens from fifty years ago that look little like their living counterparts. Or look at what a mess our understanding of Caribbean Anolis species was when most of the work was done with museum specimens.
Any definition of science that doesn’t include documenting what animals look like, and what they do in the wild seems at the least outdated to me. The assumption that making any aesthetic choices in photography precludes it from having scientific value seems equally misguided. Really, I guess it just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like saying ultrasound images are not medicine or something. Perhaps you have a more specific notion of science where your point of view is more understandable.
Link to thisEvery artist, sculptor, writer, scientist, actor, etc. is trying to communicate something. It can be lofty or pedestrian. It can be from the transformative to the mundane and vulgar. If Alex Wild has been faking his message, then the shame is upon him. But to claim that the rest of us are deluded by most communication is presumtive. It is our individual responsibility to discriminate between those loftier communications and those that are meant to deceive. Alex should take an antidepressant and find happier work.
Link to thisI have to agree with snofoam.
There is a lot of subtle information carried in an image that exceeds the intentions of the photographer/artist. Especially when comparing wild and caged animals.
I am always startled by the difference in carriage, demeanor and even sleekness of healthy wild animals glimpsed in good living conditions vs. bad environmental conditions or captivity.
Admittedly, it is critical to maintain public interest in wildlife through photography if we wish to see that wildlife protected. But while it is very difficult to photograph wild animals under natural conditions, the potential for skewing public perception of the nature of these animals would seem to dictate that identifying when a subject is captive is a good, ethical idea.
Link to this