Picturing Conservation

Rebecca Solnit’s writing about Eliot Porter was both informative and entertaining. I only knew a peripheral amount of information about Porter, so every piece of information was enlightening to me. I’m a little embarrassed at my ignorance of Porter’s significance to nature photography, and actually had never separated the genre of nature photography from the genre of landscape photography. One of the most interesting things I found about the article were Porter’s medical background and his active and consistent engagement with social causes. That he married his photographic approach with his background with science and conservation makes his working process very powerful to me. But I wonder if Porter presented his images and argument in an MFA program if he would encounter critiques that would say, “You’re being too literal.” Solnit describes In Wildness as “a survey of what could no longer be encountered, a portrait of the condemned before the execution.” (p. 231) Does Porter not leave enough to our imagination?

While I appreciate Porter’s photographs, I also like the fact that Solnit says that while Porter’s photos were made in defense of wilderness, they could also be used to promote development because the flora and fauna Porter depicted could survive on the fringes of suburbs. To me, while Porter’s photos were made in the name of conservation, it seems like no one can dethrone Ansel Adams as the preeminent nature photographer that everyone knows about – even though the article points out that Porter’s books brought conservation to the public consciousness.
I was also unaware of his involvement with the Sierra Club and the politics surrounding its publication arm. I enjoyed learning how politically active Porter was and how influential his photography was as far as raising people’s consciousness about the environment. Granted, I suppose that it’s arguable as to how effective photography can be as far as influencing policy and people’s opinions, but it seems like the In Wildness, in conjunction with Silent Spring and cold war nuclear anxiety, galvanized conservation into a political movement to reckon with.

Edward Burtynsky, on the other hand, doesn’t document to conserve, but is seemingly (to me) just as political, even though he believes “it would be hypocritical of him to use his photographs as a diatribe against industry.” Burtynsky seems well aware of the ecology of his photos and what it takes to make them -- Solnit points out that Kodak is New York State’s biggest polluter, and Burtynksy uses a lot of fossil fuels when he does his aerial photography and flies around the world to make his photographs. I think that we’re all pretty familiar with the argument about aestheticizing evil, and I think I come down on the side of "you might as well aestheticize it; it's better than ignoring it." If it's out of sight, then it's out of mind. (I acknowledge that I'm not addressing the issue of exploitation here...) I actually do think that photography has the ability to raise awareness, just like any other medium of communication. I read about the shipbreakers before I knew about Burtynsky, and I think that Burtynsky’s photos made a greater impact on me – maybe because it’s easier for me to remember pictures, or maybe because it’s hard to remember a 10 page article. I think it's to an artist's advantage if they play coy about having an agenda because it seems like art buyers don't want to buy explicit propaganda; but they don't mind buying propaganda that's beautifully packaged as art.

Shellenberger's and Nordhaus's article The Death of Environmentalism is the type of "red meat" article that I get a kick out of reading. I agree with the authors in that environmentalists do feel like a special interest group, equipped with lobbyists and experts. However, it feels like there's no other way to fight against business groups that are harming the environment. Also, I think I understand why they don't want "environmentalism" to be a "thing," but I don't see the harm in saving a "thing" as well as adopting environmentalism as a worldview like they say John Muir did. These feel very compatible to me, but I appreciate the way they organize their definitions and causalities (e.g. "why is global warming labeled "environmental" when it was created by humans and kills humans?" p. 12).

I feel like I'm reading this article later than I should have but it makes me feel refreshed as to how much the mindset about the environment and global warming has shifted in so little time. This article was written in 2004 and was dogging Al Gore for being scared about being labeled "Ozone Man" for the 2000 election. Two years after the article was written, "An Inconvenient Truth" comes out, wins an Oscar, and then Gore gets a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. It's amazing what's possible when you don't have an election to lose. The article points out that the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol and defeated it 95-0 in 1997; this Sunday's NYT states that the Obama administration will be involved in the negotiation of a new treaty in Copenhagen, hopefully to lead to a new climate pact. Again, the times are a-changing. The economy is crumbling and it seems like a plausible way to save it is by investing in green jobs and green technology. It's almost as if Shellenberger and Nordhaus had a crystal ball when they quoted Van Jones's belief of a "third wave" of environmentalism -- first is conservation, second is regulation, and third is investment.

Photographer Christopher LaMarca come to mind when thinking about artists who concern themselves with the conservation mode of environmentalism. His Forest Defenders series documents activists who go through great lengths to protect forests areas from logging, mining, and development. They employ a variety of tactics including road blockades and human barricades.

Christopher LaMarca, Forest Defenders

I'm going to use the second wave of environmentalism of "regulation" loosely when I apply it to artist Sabrina Raaf's piece "grower." The Grower robot "hugs the room’s walls and responds to the carbon dioxide level. The line height pertains directly to the level of CO2 (and therefore also the people traffic) in the space... The more CO2, the higher the line is drawn – the maximum height being 1ft.s in the air by actually drawing varying heights of ‘grass’ on the walls in green ink." The drawn grass benefits from more CO2, which is actually the opposite of our goal of reducing carbon emissions, but I thought that the artwork being sensitive to levels of CO2 would fit the bill.

Sabrina Raaf, Grower

Chicago artist Dan Peterman of The Experimental Station has dealt with environmental issues in his art for years. His Chicago Compost Shelter (1988), used a Volkswagen van was buried with compost to provide a warm place for the homeless. Sorry, no photo... but here's the type of info which made me environmental aware early on.