I just saw an image that raises this interesting debate. It is a picture of an orangutan in a zoo, and the image is shot to emphasize the creature's 'sadness'. The image is Photo of the Day over at Photo Radar and you can see it by clicking here.
The image description states how the photographer visited the zoo and was aware of how sad the animals looked. Now 'looked' is the key word here. This was my response -
'This shot emphasises sadness, but is the subject actually sad? Photography is a powerful tool but do photographers always choose to portray the true message? This image is clearly a case of anthropomorphism. We assume the orangutan is sad because of its slumped stance, its downturned mouth, and the lack of 'nature' in it's enclosure. However, a downturned mouth in primates does not indicate sadness, it indicates relaxed facial muscles, which in turn indicates a happy, content primate. An agitated primate would be active, baring teeth. The slumped stance shows the same, relaxed muscles, showing a relaxed primate, rather than an active, agitated one. We assume that because the orangutan isn't in lush vegetation it must be somehow worse off than its wild counterparts, do you really think that the orangutan cares if he/she is swinging from real vines, or ropes and straps? Zoos work very hard to recreate an environment in which an animal can act as it would in the wild, which is why they come up with complex enrichment items, allowing animals to search and forage for there food, puzzles to keep them occupied and mentally stimulated, as well as a host of other things.
The problem with humans is that most of us see ourselves reflected in these animals, especially primates who are so similiar to us. Because of this we anthropomorphise and make assumptions about an animal's welfare/state of mind based on an equivalent human expression without fully understanding the animal itself. As I said before, this is a great photo, but it really calls into debate the issue about a photographers duty to represent the truth, rather than an askewed view of it, altered and affected by human perception. This image will no doubt be debated till the cows come home.'
I would love to hear everybody's thoughts on this. It could very well be an interesting debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
NO comments yet... I wonder why. Its a can of worms really. I have often posted up images from animals living in a zoo and often got the same responce... "ohh poor things". Now I personally also would prefer the animals to live in the wild and in their natural enviroment, however, I also much rather see them alive then dead. Todays enviroment is often not suited for the animals anymore (whos fault but our own)and in order to keep the species alive and maybe even being able to re-populate them into the wild, zoos and wild parks are necessary. Its a very controverial topic and I wish I had the words to convey exactly how I feel about it. But the downright fact is that our planet is so messed up, over populated and polluted that most animals probably have a better life in a zoo or nature park then they have in the wild.
ReplyDeleteOne more point... I read part of a comment from the link you posted up. One read the bit where it says ""we have a responsibility as photographers to show the truth." Heck.. I class myself as a photograper but I am not out to show the truth but to create art. Maybe not the best reason to pick up the camera every morning but works for me lol. Of cause.. this is a very subjective opinion and many a photographer is out there to report and document as the world really is. Maybe more articles of animals being slaughtered and cut up for the ivory or a hoof or a fin will bring the real meaning and objectives of zoos and wild life parks into perspective.
Right... rant over xx
When I said about our responsibility to tell the truth I was mainly talking about misrepresentation I guess. It's ok to create art for art's sake. I think though, that when we photograph something like a species of animal, that animal cannot reply and speak for itself, so if we take an image (for instance in this case, of a relaxed primate and call it sad) then we should not alter it in order to exaggerate an emotion that is not actually there.
ReplyDeleteMost photographers do this completely unintentionally purely by not understanding the animal they are photographing, maybe photographers need to research their subjects a little more, and understand what it is that they are looking at, and subsequently photographing.