The honesty of wilderness photography

[Son of a Beach]

Good points Nik. History is written by the victor, so is not the full story of a conflict, is just one of many phrases that warns us we are not been told the full story. Same with media that can portray things in almost 180 degrees of reality. I believe that the purpose of the article was to bring that to peoples' attention that the wilderness pictures do not convey the full reality. Do we deny that images are not used to strengthen a point of view? Do You Now Tasmania made great use of pictures to push its viewpoint. Do not remember seeing any regrowth areas and walking facilities plus track maintenance appearing in the first and last segments. I bet it would have been quite a different set of pictures if Do You Now Tasmania was done by the Timber industry and their pictures would probably appear as beautiful. I will leave it up to others to comment how much harder or easier it would be to get the same level of beauty but I will bet my London brick that a cute baby would rate a shot with the caption likely being "looking after Tasmania's future". Never thought of it before, but a lot of forest industry pictures have people in them while on the other side of the debate people are largely absent or minor players in the shot. Curious is it not? Would not the delight of a kids face as they explore "pristine" wilderness be as or more effective than the absence of such humanity?

I don't believe that most of the photos in the DYKT photos were taken with that use in mind by the photographers. I believe they were picked up by others to be used in that context. And yes, I've seen children (and others) used very effectively by several wilderness photographers, including Olegas Truchanas (arguably one of Tasmania's best - certainly one our most adventurous). Another great example of people in wilderness photography is the "3 moons" photo taken by one of the members of this site (frank_in_oz, maybe?).

Also on an academic level the article could have quite easily been on the rise of the bowl of fruit pictures and the demise of portraits. To say the writer missed the point might be countered by the argument that reader did.

Absolutely. I totally miss the point of his paper. Apart from getting a name on a paper and from giving us something pointless to discuss here What purpose does it genuinely serve?

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[geoskid]

Hi Brett, Been following this thread since it started, I think you are on the right track(bushwalking term).
Thanks TCP for inviting thoughts on your original link - very thought provoking - I will admit that I have thought of not much else since and would like to support the discussion - but only if it is serious. I think this forum deserves a serious corner for those that want to ponder more deeply --- Perhaps philosophy corner ---. Surely , amongst Bushwalkers, a particularly individual lot, we can ponder things a little more deeply? (A Question)

[Clownfish]

I don't know, Brett, I didn't find the language all that high-falutin'. In fact, I would commend it for being at least an unusually clear piece of academic prose.

[walkinTas]

...I totally miss the point of his paper. Apart from getting a name on a paper and from giving us something pointless to discuss here What purpose does it genuinely serve?

I think in part it is challenging photographers to think about their subject matter. Is the photographer viewing the world (through the lens) in a unique and individual way, or has the photographer been influenced by a preconceived notion of what a landscape photograph should be. In other words are we all trying to reproduce a Drombrovskis (consciously or subconsciously). And for that matter, was Drombrovskis influenced by those who went before him.

Ask yourself why you reacted to the authors photographs the way you did (what ever your reaction). Is it because you don't like the subject matter, or is it because they don't fit your concept of what a landscape photograph should look like? Where did you get your idea of what makes a good landscape photograph? Is it an original idea? Were we all subconsciously influenced or conditioned by look at beautiful landscape photos? Are we still capable of thinking outside the traditional square?

I think the title was provocative and hence a lot of people reacted to the title. I also disagree with the insinuation in the title. Still I think the bigger questions about whether we are influenced by history or by a preconception, and whether we attempt to reproduce and idealised landscape, are valid and worth discussing further. Or at least worth thinking about.

[tas-man]

Wow, what you miss when you haven't logged on to the forum for a week! Fascinating discussion you have started TCP! As a contributor to the BWT Photo comps (2008 photo of the year - with people in it), LWC photo comps (my 3rd place winning photo was the only one with people in it), and contributor to and editor/producer of the Launceston Walking Club's "Do You Know Tasmania" show for the past decade or so, I "enjoyed" the academic analysis of "wilderness photography" but have read similar before. Remember reading another learned article some years ago that described Dombrovoskis's photos as "wilderness pornography". To me, wilderness photography is all about recording and communicating a human emotional response (beauty, wonder, fear etc.) to a landscape seen at a moment in time by a photographer, as a way of capturing that memory of place and sharing that experience with others. Crikey, trying to condense a three dimensional physical experience into a two dimensional image on a computer screen or coffee table book sounds like a dumb exercise, but it has been, and is being, passionately pursued by many. An example of the power of the well "recorded/taken/constructed" wilderness photo was the iconic "Rock Island Bend" by Dombrovskis which captured a feeling of "wildness" that the Australian public emotionally responded to and voted to save it. Gota get to work now but will follow this thread with great interest.

[north-north-west]

In Tasmania, Olegas Truchanas, Peter Dombrovskis and their heirs have continued this association of views of untouched wilderness with conservation aims.

Something of an error there - Truchanas took many shots with people and tents in them. In fact, I think he preferred to have people in his images rather than not.

[flyfisher]

T-C-P come back, please.

ff

[stoogest]

looks like he's no longer a member...??

[flyfisher]

looks like he's no longer a member...??

Ok, fair enough, just wondered.

ff

[WarrenH]

Nowadays, a 'Modernist' (and the style called 'Modernism') describes an artist or their style, ... "that breaks from conventional styles."

The words 'Modernists' and in particular 'Modernism' (actually),(when they were originally coined), referred to architects who embraced concrete, over the traditional building materials, like stone, timber or brick.

The words 'Modernism', 'Modernist' and 'Post-Modernists' were coined by the Bauhaus writers to describe the architects and architectural designs from ... Van Der Rohn, Gropius (founder of the Bauhaus), Myer and Le Corbusier, amongst others.

These word, unfortunately, nowadays, have been hijacked, to mean nothing at all, but are useful words to use as word-salad fillers.

Which is tragic, because when used to describe particular architects and their contribution to the history of architecture and architectural design including interior design, ... the words with their original meanings are a fine use of language.

Warren.

[geoskid]

This article has interesting food for thought....

http://www.utas.edu.au/arts/imaging/stephenson.pdf

Just thought I would bump this before I went to bed. I hav'nt finished with this yet and it needs reading and mulling over.
Can be referenced to a lot of threads since it was posted here.
Sweet Dreams
PS. Forget the Photography

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[WarrenH]

I found Stephenson's comments, dogmatic and wrong. I find them condescending, patronising and terribly pretentious ... and for a person who's imagery looks like he has not ever walked further than 50 metres from his car to take a shot, Stephenson's pattern photography is twee and banal and it gives a whole new meaning to very ordinary decorative art ... as a photographer he could make a fine Fine Art academic.

Stephenson accusations of what photographers are not so stealthily doing is an insult to those who have come before us, and an insult to those who actually get out there and do it.

Those who ply their subliminally wicked ways should hold their heads in shame? I get the feeling he is suggesting we start mending our lying and politicaly overt ways and start shooting wild places as happy-snaps, truthful images where we can not be misinterpreted. Shooting happy-snap subjects where we have no chance of misleading the unimaginative consumers of wilderness photography.

I wont start quoting him, it would be pointless and about as pointless as what I've just written. Although I'm finding it hard not to quote him on his comment about photographers avoiding photographing "decay." I wonder if Stephenson knows that erosion naturally occurs to all surfaces ... and rocks in particular, are often found in a wilderness.

Stephenson's comments are so far from reality they are the works of a Humorist. I'd like to give him the clap he deserves.

Stephenson is banking on readers having little background or exposure to the works of the great writers on wilderness or even having an imagination ... unlike the readers here.

I might go to 'Working Gear' and buy a couple of high visibility navvy vests for my next wilderness walk, and ask the mobs that I find in the wilderness to wear them ... and then send him the shots.

Warren.

PS, If you thought Stephenson's paper and imagery was up your ally? ... I'd like to refer you to Christine Saez work, 'In the Soil of the Sensible' ... what ever that means.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[tasadam]

Yet, a quick point to contemplate is that by definition, "wilderness" is devoid of mankind. Well, that's my definition anyway. Wilderness photography = photography of wilderness. People photography = photography of people, possibly done in wilderness environments.
Just an viewpoint.

[photohiker]

Most, if not all, published wilderness photographs convey a sense of nature at its best with very few at its saddest such as an animal limping near death from starvation so in a way we only see one side, and yes that is what most of us want but it is not the full picture. Happy puppy dog calendars are going to sell while ones of unwanted dogs at the pound waiting death are doom to the same fate as the dogs.

With respect, Brett. You're missing the point. Wild and remote places are defined by nature. We are the trespassers in those environments, not the native animals. To require people in wilderness photography is plain silly up until the area is populated - at which time it would no longer be wilderness, would it?

I'm with Warren on this one, both on the actual essay and the photographic output of it's author.

Michael

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[photohiker]

However you like to look at it, we do not and cannot naturally exist in wilderness areas without changing them or ourselves dramatically. Perhaps before we got soft and decided we needed shelter and cooked food we could have. We are intruding visitors, we might be part of nature, but not that part - we self select for more comfortable and less risky environments close to food sources and water. (otherwise, we would have our houses there...)

Michael

[Son of a Beach]

creating the illusion that no one is there means you are not stating the full story

That depends on, 1. whether the photo is actually attempting to tell a story, and assuming it is, 2. What the story is that the photographer is trying to tell. Perhaps the photographer is (shock horror) trying to show what it looked like to him (ie, he couldn't see any people, and wasn't looking at himself).

Plus using that definition means most, if not all, of our National Parks are that "Parks" not wilderness area so lets the truth of Cradle Mountain be the Congo line up to the summit on a clear day rather than the classic shot of nobody there which must be devilish hard to achieve nowadays.

I don't think so. It merely means that some parts of our parks are less wild than others. I certainly don't think it's as black and white as a crowd in one part of the park means that there is no wilderness anywhere else in the park.

I for one are happy that the calendar is as it is rather than the "truth" of leaches, mud, litter and over crowding. It is a nice fiction that encourages me to plan the next trip.

I still don't see the calendar (or other such photos) as fiction. I see them as fact. People were there, they took photos, the photos show what the people saw. Sure there may be other "stories" that could have been told, but just because they only chose to tell certain "stories" doesn't make those "stories" fiction.

I guess I'm very simplistic when it comes to photos. I'll never be an artist, and certainly not an academic!

NB: I have plenty of bushwalking/wilderness photos with people in them. Olegas Truchanas did too, but the paper recognised that.

[stoogest]

Well said Brett.

By the way, I checked out Stephenson's work. I don't mind some of the shots in this gallery under 'Skeletons': http://www.bettgallery.com.au/artists/s ... /index.htm however his 'Marking Time' album doesn't resonate with me whatsoever (but he is certainly backing up his words by taking photos of less 'pleasant' subject matter, so kudos for that).

The work of Christine Saez is interesting, but the point she was trying to make (as described on her website) didn't come across through her photos.

Perhaps it comes with the territory, but in describing art both Stephenson and Saez came across as being rather pretentious.

Andrew.

[Drifting]

By the way, I checked out Stephenson's work. I don't mind some of the shots in this gallery under 'Skeletons': http://www.bettgallery.com.au/artists/s ... /index.htm however his 'Marking Time' album doesn't resonate with me whatsoever (but he is certainly backing up his words by taking photos of less 'pleasant' subject matter, so kudos for that).

Wow- those photos do nothing for me. I can think of a half-dozen Tasmanian (as in resdients, not born-and-bred) photographers who are way better than that. Heck, we have a couple on here that are better by yards.

[Drifting]

http://www.bettgallery.com.au/artists/s ... ferry1.htm
$4500!!!! WHOA!!!!

I'm in the wrong job!

[stoogest]

Like I said, I don't mind some of them, but I certainly wouldn't pay $4500 for any of them!

[tasadam]

Hi Adam

At the risk of picking points does not the mere aspect that a person is there photographing means its is no longer a wilderness (ie no longer absence of people) And also creating the illusion that no one is there means you are not stating the full story so how about a shot of the sweaty camera person So by using academic logic (which the paper does) in your own way you have supported the view of the paper

Hi Brett. If I can point you to what I said in this post,

Does it not stand to reason that if someone was looking at a photo devoid of mankind influence, someone was there with a camera?

By no means do I agree with you on your academic logic view of me supporting the paper.
Again from my earlier post, I think he is confusing wilderness with nature, and including mankind as a part of nature.
Also again, I see myself as a visitor to the wilderness, not a part of it. If mankind lived in the wilderness such as in the image example I included in the last post (Douglas Creek Vista in the calendar), then I would have reason to include mankind in a wilderness image. That is IF that's what I want the image to tell the story of. To me, photographs tell stories. They are capable of telling a lie, but it would need photoshopping to tell a lie - footprints out of the sand from Wineglass Bay would be a good example of a "lie" in a photograph. So why not go somewhere where you don't need to photoshop to tell the story as it is... Or use wide angle from the lookout and remove evidence of mankind on the beach - you can show it in a pristine state from afar even if people are on it.

attacking the writer for his own photographic skill is a bit like hack painter of 1900's attacking an artist like Picasso for not adopting the "standard" style of painting.

Agreed, we may comment on whether or not we find his work appealing, but attacking it is not good form.

Anyway, that's my views on it.

[photohiker]

http://www.bettgallery.com.au/artists/stephensond/markingtime/11austinsferry1.htm
$4500!!!! WHOA!!!!

I'm in the wrong job!

Actually, that's the cheapest way of buying it:

Available as diptych with Cat.12
[..]
Edition 5 - $14,250 unframed, $15,250 framed

Note that this is not an attack. It's disbelief.

Michael

[geoskid]

I don't think the title of the thread really reflects what the paper was about. "The honesty of wilderness photography" is the title of the thread. The title of the paper was "Beautiful Lies - Photography and Wilderness". Lies(plural) PhotographyANDWilderness.
Whilst the lie of wilderness photography (or not) has been tackled, the lie of wilderness itself has not. I had not even thought of it before reading this , however I can accept that "artificial" wilderness is in fact what we have in National Parks.
I am glad that we do have this 'Artificial Wilderness', because without it there would be no wilderness "artificial" or otherwise.
It can get down to definitions - but that is beside the point.
I reject that Human Beings(the species of animal) are trespassing anywhere.With the benefit of conscious thought we(as a species) choose to refrain (by our Laws)from inhabiting every geographical position that we are able to. And there is not much that we could not inhabit.
Human Beings are part of Nature, and the only reason that there are areas of wilderness left is because we choose to leave them artificially as wilderness. That is a good thing.
The real question posed by the paper is "do we (human beings - the species of animal fortunate to have conscious thought) see ourselves as part of Nature". I had'nt thought of it before, but I dont think we do - I think we(human beings) see ourselves as 'seperate' or 'above' nature - as if nature is something we can own, manage, control etc.
Look at climate change - Rinky Dink Homo Sapien to the rescue - yeah right.
This is how I think, I dont presume to think I am right

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[photohiker]

I too dislike the idea that I am so how not part of nature, an intruder in my own state that I was born into. The whole concept of pristine wilderness is a rather an illusion (if people think a lie is a too strong emotive word). A National Park was once considered as a park for people to respect and enjoy. Now we have the concept of wilderness with the view that people are intruding

Such indignation!

Your link to the nature that occurs in remote wilderness is historical. We have changed since then and only the hardiest of us can make ham-fisted attempts to exist unsupported in that space for very short periods of time. We might be 'part of nature' but we are no longer part of that nature. That is one of the attractions for those of us (probably all of us here) that take the opportunity to visit it.

I have regularly felt like I have been intruding when visiting remote places, and I have often heard people describe the same feelings when talking about their own experiences. Personally, I think this feeling comes from the appreciation and respect I have for these places, and my wish to minimise my own impact upon it. Maybe you do not suffer these thoughts at all, or perhaps you use a different word for it?

Michael

[tasadam]

Where did this word "intruding" come from?
We are visitors to wilderness areas, for if we lived there, it would not be wilderness.
Where did the concept of "artificial wilderness" come from? Perhaps I need to read the article again, something I have been putting off doing. But I can't get my head around a National Park as being "artificial wilderness".