Photography and environmentalism

[lostcoyote]

If a beautifully made book gets many people to think about the environment then this is of potentially greater environmental value than the harm done in creating the book.

Ansel Adams created a lot of waste paper, one could argue, producing ephemera like calendars and menus, books, and Zone System tests, but his contribution to the environmental movement both through his photography and otherwise was enormous.

i've wondered about this.

it is true that his (ansels) prints were instrumental in establishing kings and sequoia national parks back in the 30's

but i have backpacked within those parks and the adjacent national forest high country and there is not a whole lot of difference.... other than a difference of rules and jurisdiction - the landscape in both areas has the same quality about it.

i look back at his efforts then.. and take a look around now... and am not so sure that whatever he did has been undermined by our very own requirements to survive and thrive.

is the environment any better off now than it was 30 years ago?

creating tiny "islands" of protected land does not protect its contents against oceans of air whose temperatures climb at a very slow, yet perceptable rate, because the oceans waters are on the thermal rise.

seems like things are getting worse - and the human population keeps on climbing.

(just thinking out loud here)

[walter23]

Environmentalism is a bit of a misnomer - it's really more like anthropo-salvationism. If we don't get our shit together, nature will smack us down eventually.

I think the only solution is voluntary population reduction (through reduced breeding - a worldwide one child policy), but that's as unlikely as the rich giving up their luxuries and the poor deciding they'd rather starve to death than burn down the forest to grow banana and sugar cane.

[Ed Richards]

> is the environment any better off now than it was 30 years ago?

Wrong question. How much worse would it have been had we not taken action? As someone who dates back to the first Earth Day, we have made great progress in cleaning up the air and water in many places, but as far as preserving natural environment, it is a long term losing game: success is slowing the rate of loss, or perhaps even halting it in some places.

[jetcode]

to be honest, until humanity stops generating pollution the earth will continually be affected by our presence

[lostcoyote]

LC: "is the environment any better off now than it was 30 years ago?"

Wrong question. How much worse would it have been had we not taken action?

well, that's a good question. can anyone really answer that? let's consider the work of ansel adams, sinmce his name was brought up. if he had done nothing, how much different would it be today over 30 years ago.

another side of this is... of all the photographic work he did, how many more people did he influence who in turn, got into the act of taking up photography and thus, cutting down trees to make paper to print upon and fill the landfills with the test prints... and how much gasoline have all of us people who drive to farway places to go and get these shots of isolated landscapes burned in the process. millions of gallon's i'd say.

now you have to add up both sides of the coin to get a total picture of all of the cause and effects he generated from his own work having influenced both the environmental conservation camps as well as the fine art photopgraphy camps.

==

walter, i agree with you.... population seems to be the root problem. no solution comes to me other than mother earth taking care of business. and so we might as well just keep on keeping on and be happy with what we have here and now, while conserving what we can, right?

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are certainly many more people concerned about the environment as a result of the environmental movement than there are fine art photographers. Perhaps there are as many fine art photographers as there would have been anyway, but many more of them work out of concern for the environment than they otherwise would have.

Compare Adams to the photographers he was emulating. Carleton Watkins was working for industry, documenting development and westward expansion, though in the process he was also making beautiful images of unspoiled wilderness. Adams took some of that imagery and channeled it in a new direction.

[Dick Hilker]

As an environmentalist and photographer, I feel the biggest problem with photography's role is that, for the most part, we're "preaching to the choir." Who sees the inspiring photos in the environmentalist publications? Members who have already gotten on board the movement. Do the uncaring masses marvel at "Half Dome," connecting the dots about preserving such places? I doubt it.

I think the real challenge is finding more effective ways of bringing the real and present issues to those who have yet to understand their importance and motivating them to act. Unfortunately, so much energy has been wasted on bogus concerns that the genuiine articles are overshadowed.

LF photography's contribution is unique to the extent it can most effectively capture the beauty of our special places and, hopefully, capture the hearts of those whose support is critical to their preservation.

[lostcoyote]

1. As an environmentalist and photographer, I feel the biggest problem with photography's role is that, for the most part, we're "preaching to the choir." Who sees the inspiring photos in the environmentalist publications?


2. LF photography's contribution is unique to the extent it can most effectively capture the beauty of our special places and, hopefully, capture the hearts of those whose support is critical to their preservation.

well, when the masses see photographs of these places (like old faithful, halfdome, grand canyon) and decide to go there to see it themselves, just imagine how much fuel that burns... to travel across the country, the globe as a tourist or whatever.... so yosemite has a bussing system now.... but what of the rest of the infrastructure in getting to these popular places?

of course, nobody's going to go and sit in a cave either.

i think my main question here is more personal in nature and i do not have an answer for myself - how do I reconcile the fact that I have burned up far more resources in the name of getting personal satisfaction out of this hobby than i have been able to give back by using the same medium of communication?

i don't know if anyone else has thought along these lines... but i do know that there are lots of photographers out there that consume far more than can possibly return with respect to the health of the earth's ecosystems.

==

(i don't think there are any right or wrong answers here, or care whether anyone is right or wrong in what they have to say... i'm just thinking outloud so i hope you guys don't mind - this is an exploratory topic and i wanted to see how others think)

[Brian Sims]

Attachment 10235

Here's a practical use of photography for the protection of the environment--to document damage (yes, I know...I have a light leak).

This is 3rd Beach on the Washington coast. Many of you know it. It's in the National Park. There is a big sign 2 miles back at the trail head: "no motorized vehicles." Last summer I hiked in to find two young men ripping up the beach on "quads." I found out from one of the beach campers that they arrived at midnight and promptly woke everyone up roaring up and down the beach....you know the tranquil beach away from the highway.

Most of the ORV crowd are law abiding folks. But there are a significant number who seem to take pleasure in destroying fragile landscapes--salmon spawning streambeds, meadows blooming with wildflowers, peaceful beaches. So far, we just slap them on the wrist IF they are caught. With enough photographic evidence of the damage they cause in we might convince the legislature to crack down.

Spread the word, document the damage, and email me the evidence. In a couple of years, we should be able to make the case (such and effort is already underway in Utah and the southwest with hundreds of photos).

Brian
simsfive@msn.com

[lostcoyote]

very good Brian

how can something like this stop graffitti?



these are the little cosmetic things...

but i'm wondering how photography can help reverse the toll we're inflicting upon the environment in terms of larger things at play such as global warming and ecosystem destruction when the very process of photography itself is acting as a contribution.

i mean, we are certainly not going to stop making fine prints which boost our own ego's and/or sense of personal growth, right?