Essay: See As No Other - Blind Photography

Abstract
This essay is an exploration of the lived experiences of blind photographers – how they experience their environments and how they use photography to navigate them. It is written by a non-blind photographer. Blind photography might seem a contradiction in terms to the non-blind, but is it? Historically, blind people have experienced a great deal of prejudice and their disability has been commonly misunderstood. Since many blind photographers are capturing images each and every day it became important to speak to them personally about their individual work and opinions about the medium. To set in context their words and experiences, misconceptions about what it factually means to be registered blind – which is not always seeing nothing – are corrected before a short history of the British society’s treatment of blind people is considered. Since camera work is the focus, we take the acclaimed words about photography of Susan Sontag, marry them with the accomplished thinking of art critic, John Berger, and lay them down in the philosophical enquiry of environmental anthropologist, Tim Ingold.
Download the PDF
Image © Pete Ekert 2011

Essay: Animal 2.0

Abstract
The Internet has provided people with a new way to view animals, but how does our online activity compare to our offline viewing and do we witness a greater abundance of animal videos now than we have ever done historically? Is online content more or less factual than what has gone before? Experts have questioned whether the ethics of some traditional wildlife filmmakers are any better than the producers of animal videos shared online by amateurs, but the key consideration is how do we – if we can at all, censor and control animal footage? How does a digital audience react to animal footage and what draws the largest number of viewers? Evidence from YouTube suggests that the number of viewers does not equate to popularity and approval. Insight from cyborg anthropology and results from digital ethnography are presented to maximise our understanding of the phenomenal impact of the Internet on a global community before introducing some animal video case studies and the reaction to them.
Download the PDF

Essay: These Modern Dogs

Today's blog posts are the essays I've written, in full, for the Postgraduate Certificate in Anthrozoology that I completed this year (hence the blog has been a little quiet!). They're aimed at a wider audience and I hope you enjoy them. Animal 2.0 is my strongest work, if you choose to read only one, and See Like No Other sits slightly outside the animal arena, but firmly inside the visual arena with a survey on blind photographers and their interactions with the Environment. All the essays are also now available on www.nataliegilbert.net.

Abstract
The theme for this essay is animal domestication and more specifically, dogs. Two proposed theories for the evolution of domestication are put forward: Control, whereby humans manipulate dogs for domestication, and Contract, where dogs willingly choose to be domesticated. Each argument is expressed as an indication of how we might have formed the modern relationship we now have with dogs - if you like, a post-domesticated plateau. To explicitly express this modern relationship there is deconstruction of a television advert that aired in the UK in 2010. The ad features a rescue dog called Harvey who uses a television advert to 'sell' his services to potential new owners. Harvey won the advertisers an 'Ad of the Year' competition and has become incredibly popular, but how does this media make-believe, so absorbed by the general public, compare to our reality? People might frequently say they want a Harvey, but the statistics on dog abandonment suggest otherwise. When are we going to re-address our intentions?
Download the PDF

Animal 2.0

In more recent years a new way of visually consuming animals has developed that has literally taken over the world, and that is the Internet. According to Cultural Anthropologist, Michael Wesch, the ABC channel in America began broadcasting in 1948 and if they had been live on air for the past sixty years, they would have produced 1.5 million hours of video – YouTube aired that same amount in six months1. The video, “Very Angry Cat – FUNNY” (pictured), is currently the ninth ‘most viewed’ video of all time since the birth of YouTube. On the 21 April 2011 at 16:45 the video had been viewed 48,792,072 times. By the 30 April 2011 it could boast 98,082 comments from people who had viewed it. 43,629 viewers voted to say they liked the video and 27,911 said they didn’t. YouTube comments are not a fine academic resource, not by any stretch of the imagination, but they do represent a sample of the cyborg community that exists in remarkable numbers. Wesch presented a quote that captures a thoughtful response to cyborg communication:

"Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred - Lev Grossman, Time Magazine."

Warranted concern for profanity issues and valid criticism of poor spelling aside, what do the comments tell us about the viewing public of animal videos like the Very Angry Cat? They tell us that everyone is given the opportunity to become an ‘expert’ in the online arena and offer their opinion, without evidence to prove their comments or disprove those of others. Many simply fan the flames of cyborg conversations that are nothing more than an argument without foundation. The Very Angry Cat, for example, has a split audience where some label the video as harmless and funny, but many others see it as animal abuse. Rarely, we see a balanced or considered view. Often, we see those who simply make a flippant joke. Occasionally, we see the ‘naked hatred’ that Grossman referred to. To prove a point, the definitive answer to whether or not this cat had been abused is not provided here. The answer is never given online unless the person who shot the video provides it and, even then, since home videos have an air of anonymity, there is nothing to prove the person is being truthful. Viewers must watch the video for themselves and make their own mind up. They then have the opportunity to report the video, like or dislike the video, comment on it, contact the person who uploaded it, and share the video in a cyborg world. None of which results in actual censorship of content.The consequence of the Internet is that animals have now become part of our network of cyborg communication and because they are viewed on a screen, absent from our physical world, it is easy to detach ourselves from the real animal. Our ‘digital selves’ judge and share the animal videos we see, and the quantity of footage at our disposal appears to be limitless. In our expression of disapproval and reports of inappropriate material it seems we are adjusting to a new form of ethical consideration, learning what our limits of decency are in a cyborg world and there is some indication that animal abuse is taken seriously. However, much of what is uploaded to sites like YouTube will simply go under the radar and the Very Angry Cat footage demonstrates that negative hype can fuel just as much interest as common enjoyment. In the end, animal videos simply serve as entertainment alongside other popular online content.
1 mwesch 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU.

Book review: Why we Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows

I've blogged briefly about this book before, but here is a full review. It's an important book because the messages within it can cross over many disciplines. Specifically, it's a fantastic explanation of the invisible belief system around loving/eating some animals and not others, but I keep coming back to it time and time again in all areas of my research, whether it's interspecies communication or the environment. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in our complex and oftentimes baffling classification and treatment of different animals.

Read my review on nataliegilbert.net.

Fad of the Year

At the end of 2010, ITV selected twenty of the most popular TV adverts from the year and entered them in to their own competition to find the television ‘Ad of the Year’. This was the winning advert. To be clear, a dog rescue centre did not make the advert, it was made by an advertising agency called Thinkbox who use Harvey as an example to demonstrate how powerful TV advertising can be. The advert is of course meant to be light hearted and humorous, but its very existence tells a much deeper story about our relationship with dogs and the outcome of their domestication – the advert could not be a success if there were not a strong foundation to this story that engaged a TV viewing audience. Thinkbox has naturally chosen an animal and a situation to maximise impact and Harvey did just this: “Thinkbox’s TV ad has seen Thinkbox.tv traffic increase by over 400%, Harvey’s Facebook page attract over 7,000 fans... It has also attracted over a million online views following 260 million broadcast TV views,” (thinkbox.tv: 2010). It’s doubtful that the cockroach could generate such a surge of interest and likeability. Harvey is the very idea of domesticated bliss between Man and Dog where the essence of domestication is to operate as part of a team. This cooperation is merely a reflection of what happens in the wild:

“In mixed-species flocks, such as the herds of giraffe, zebra, and wildebeest that are always grazing on African savannas in picture postcards and wildlife documentaries, the members of the group gain an added advantage because the especially acute senses of one species can make up for the deficiencies of another... Pooling their resources gives them a greater chance of detecting an approaching lion than any one would have on its own,” (Budiansky: The Covenant of the Wild, 1992).

Harvey is forming a contract with his new owners in a domesticated setting where there is washing to be done, clothes to be ironed and children to be fed. He knows that new owners will feed him and offer him shelter so, in return and to convince them to take him, he advertises his ability to help around the house. However, in reality, humans are not keeping their part of the bargain. It is a sad fact that in the UK in 2009 the RSPCA found new homes for 90,493 abandoned or rescued animals (rspca.org.uk, 2011) and “investigated 141,280 cruelty complaints” (ibid.). Battersea Dogs & Cats Home looks after 10,600 cats and dogs every year (battersea.org.uk, 2011), whilst The Dogs Trust is looking after a further 16,000 dogs (dogstrust.org.uk, 2011).  The advert may be imaginative and effective, but it only forms a contract between Thinkbox and its clients. Harvey is only a tool for entertainment and to generate sales. His situation, however, is very real.

Badgers don't DJ

I've been struggling to work out why talking animals is quite so funny. Naturally, this shouldn't sit comfortably with me, since anthropomorphism (assigning human attributes to animals) holds many negative connotations in the wildlife photography world - animals that appear to be 'yawning', 'laughing' or 'waving' are in fact not, we've simply put our recognition of these actions on to the animal, it means nothing to them whatsoever. It's big business, however. These animal images are cute, funny and endearing - do they make us feel closer to the animal kingdom, or that we understand other species? Perhaps. It's hard to put it in a 'right' or 'wrong' category, but it opens up a big debate. So why, then, did I laugh hysterically at a prairie dog shouting "Alan" over and over again (see above), and again at DJ badgers? It's not that I feel we shouldn't enjoy animals, but it's hard not to judge the intentions when you study the subject; just the same as anyone working in the advertising industry would find it hard not to see everything for what it really is: manipulation to make sales. I tried to find some conclusions. First, I ruled out sales because the BBC is publicly funded - now I know the Beeb isn't without its criticisms, but it's not porning out these animals in ad breaks to sell toilet roll or washing up liquid. Second, I ruled out anthropomorphism - the animals in Walk on the Wild Side appear in the show not as quasi-humans, but only as a backdrop to a voice-over - there is a subtle difference. Eventually, I realised that Walk on the Wild Side is in fact not about animals at all - like most things produced by humans, it's about us. It's always about us! The animals in this show could be aliens, robots, children or plants - any manner of 'others' used as a soundboard for a good, long look at ourselves and - in this case - to laugh loudly at what we see. 

Brocking good quote

"These days it's simply not good enough to use the old response... "If people know about it they'll care for it and do something". Wrong. They'll just go on being conned that it's all perfect out there, with endless jungles, immaculate Masai Maras, and untouched oceans. What planet are they on about?" 

- Richard Brock

http://www.brockinitiative.org/about.htm

This is quite possibly the most sensible thing I've heard uttered in an exceptionally long time when it comes to filming of the natural world. Having previously worked for the BBC Natural History Unit for 35 years, Brock knows what he's on about. As a wildlife photographer I understand Brock's sentiment in terms of my own practice. Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the odd nature documentary as much as the next person, just as much as I enjoy a sharp, vivid, awe-inspiring wildlife photograph, but - in all honesty - too many of them and I'm weary. Why? Because they're not real. They exist; the footage or the image (usually) comes from a real subject, but the context isn't real. There is no longer an endless stream of tigers, wandering around in the 'wilderness' looking majestic at sunset. Gone are the days when masses of baby gorillas hid between the leaves on the mountain top. And what about the giant panda? We rarely see those these days outside of a zoo enclosure. So why do we continuously see them on film or through the lens at their finest? Their cleanest? Their most effervescent? These animals I mention are the megafauna; the 'celebrities' of the natural world, but there are many more besides them. Are we to assume they're OK; they're still being found, and filmed, and photographed? Regardless of what we read in the papers and see on the news, we are glad to see that we can still consume them visually - for now, at least? I support Brock. I say we tell the real story. I say we show the reality of habitat destruction; the threat of extinction; the damage that's been done. People do know. They do care. Yet this has not converted into a stampede of action. Visual communication is vital to our understanding of the animal world, but with the pleasure must come the pain. Flawless reflections of the natural world still bloom the brightest, yet if such glossy portrayals of animal behaviour in the wild used to bring about compassion through understanding, I'm hard pushed to believe it still works.

Where does the animal magic go?

I recently blogged about Cow Adverts Getting my Goat, irritated by cows in food hygiene hats and 'Cow Baywatch' beach scenes in TV adverts, and yet I was positively enthralled by the sight of pigs synchronise swimming and an adorable-looking baby elephant hiding pens up its trunk in Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang. Why should the two be any different? As usual, our complicated relationship with other animals gets in the way of seeing in black and white - we're drowning in grey areas. I haven't seen the first Nanny McPhee film, but the second certainly portrays animals with reverence - they're part of the family and undoubtedly part of the action as two groups of bickering children come together to save the family farm. Most of the scenes are computer-generated, based on real animal 'actors', and the imagination of the writer and star of the film, Emma Thompson, brings their characters to life with a magical quality that has you laughing, giggling and cooing over them. I started to wonder at which point the magic of the animal kingdom gets lost. In kids' entertainment we tell happy stories about animals; we get to know their characters, respect their sameness and their difference, enjoying every element of the life we share with them on Earth - in essence, they're our kin. As we get older, we see animals used in advertising to help the sale of products. Only this week the Evening Standard published a feature called Animal attraction: the creatures that feature in glossy ads, commenting on a "new advertising trend" where animals are a big hit with helping to build brands - for example, Churchill the dog from the Churchill insurance ads: “The British public have a fondness for pets and, for a low-interest category such as insurance, the dog gets the brand noticed. He's a lovable, dependable character who gives it a warm, human voice." Past these fictitious stories comes the reality of factory farming. The animals we loved as children and wanted to protect are now slaughtered and butchered, without identity. I'm not against eating meat per se, as I continually have to justify to carnists, but I am against manufacturing living creatures for our own greed - both consumerist and monetary greed. I can't work out how we got here... I'm sure such light childrens' entertainment can't be seen as a bad thing; I'm sure too that owning pets can't ultimately be the start of it. So, when do we lose our love?

Polar bears gathering dust

I'm about to start an MA in Anthrozoology, so I've been reflecting on some of the artists in the human-animal realm I learned of during my Wildlife & Environmental Photography degree. Snaebjornsdottir & Wilson just cannot go without a mention. Their Nanoq project is particularly impressive: a large record of taxidermied polar bears, originally collected for museums and such like, that the duo traced over the course of two years. I was lucky enough to receive a lecture by Mark Wilson at college last year and his professionalism, interest and avant-garde attitude to creative research projects provided significant backbone to this project, I'm sure. The image above is one of the most significant, in my view. This polar bear was once a trophy; conquered by man - killed and stuffed for display in the midst of human wonderment and marvel at this magnificent one-wild creature. Now, it sits dead and dormant in a back room; the irony of the 'danger' sign behind it. 'Void' seems much more apt. So, what was it all for? Now the polar bear has been seen and not spared? This sad image represents our human whims and desires; the killing of wild animals for our own aspirations and interests that eventually fade and move on to other things. Snaebjornsdottir & Wilson really have managed to successfully pull together a quite overwhelming exhibition that demonstrates the enormous complexities of our historical, tangled relationships with other animals.

Cow adverts getting my goat

Perhaps you've seen cows running down beaches like the bovine version of Pamela Anderson before? You might have observed them wearing food hygiene hats as they produce the butter we humans consume? No? Me neither. And this kind of TV advertising from Anchor: Butter Made from Cows and Muller Corner: Thank you Cows, which shows just that, is not harmless fun. When I started to investigate meat eating nearly two years ago I suppose I knew what to expect - slaughter, abuse; animals being raised in filthy enclosures with general disregard for their lives. What I wasn't prepared for was the reality of the dairy industry... I simply hadn't a clue. I can't speak on behalf of Anchor or Muller Corner, I haven't investigated these brands, but I strongly believe this kind of advertising (as I suppose all advertising is designed to do) does nothing but continue to lead general consumers down the garden path to where the elves and fairies live in a wonderland of blissful ignorance. Yes, these two adverts are creative; well put-together and many might watch whilst saying 'oh, how I love cows' - but what you really love is the idea that cows are roaming free, 'naturally' producing gallons of nutritious milk for us to 'naturally' drink. This is not the case where factory farming is concerned and the more we continue to swallow such fantastical imagery streaming over our airways, the longer the factory farmed dairy cow continues to suffer. There are undoubtedly good dairy farmers out there, but whilst the industry is still spoiled by the curd of this trade then fairytale notions of cows enjoying their 'job' or being liberated only encourages the fanciful beliefs of society to continue.

For an introduction to the truth about the dairy cow aka the "overworked mother", MilkMyths.org.uk is a great place to start for factual content that isn't sentimental.

No animals were harmed in the making of this film?

Last year I witnessed two very disturbing programmes: My Monkey Baby from Channel 4 and Mr and Mrs Wolf from Five (UK). Both documented confused human-animal bonds where an empty-nester applied lipstick to a monkey she kept as her 'child' and 'Mr Wolf' shared meat and saliva with a wolf pack he lived with, hoping to become 'one of them'. Still, however deranged these relationships might be, what I find most distasteful about this kind of programme is the hunger for them. Why does shocking, depraved footage make the most headlines these days? What's the point? Money? Yes. Money is the point. You watch it, these people make more of these programmes; they make more money. These might be a couple of the more extreme examples and the animals are captive, but veteran wildlife filmmaker, Chris Palmer, exposes the truth about wildlife documentaries at their worst in his recent book, Shooting in the Wild. These TV programmes are not exceptions they are simply a consequence of amplified viewer trends, which in turn drives production. Palmer confirms that "many honorable filmmakers today spend countless uncomfortable hours, days, months and even years out in the elements to bring us rare and amazing footage" and this applies for wildlife photographers too - absolutely. There may be a case for leaving other species alone altogether, but documentary is presently a vital aid to conservation and if interactive science were also not a part of animal conservation, Brady Parr from National Geographic says "as scientists we would be doing nothing more than documenting their extinction". It's not easy to get the right footage in the wild and sometimes behaviour is staged for the camera - Palmer's quote from David Attenborough explains: "If you say, 'I wish to explain how scorpions copulate, because it's very interesting,' then you have to do that as clearly as you can. It may involve getting them to do it on glass so you can see underneath. It will certainly involve getting an adult male scorpion and an adult female scorpion together. What it does not involve is sitting around in the Mojave Desert for nine months, waiting for some scorpions to copulate by your feet" - of course, nature does not answer to our beckon call and nor should it. What "Nature Porn and Fang TV" (as Palmer calls it) does not have is this conservation purpose - it simply takes staging and "Sins of Omission" (Palmer's Chapter 9) to the next level, way beyond an informed and respectful desire to share knowledge and increase protection. Simply, it sells out and it shouldn't be encouraged.

How does The Great 'food' Dance translate?

View this movie at cultureunplugged.com

When was the last time you ran for four hours non-stop to get food? My guess is never. That's true for me. The most I've had to do is walk or drive four minutes to the local shop. Meet the San people in the spellbinding documentary, The Great Dance. This is not a film about killing, survival or meat per se, it's about a relationship with the land, the elements, animals and God. I'm not for a second suggesting we abolish supermarkets and all carve a bow and arrow, but there is something important to be learned from these bushmen: something vital. "/XAÂ is the word for DANCE in the !Xo language of the Kalahari, and also means to REVERE, or to show ONENESS" - the affinity  between man and animal in this film is captured beautifully by directors, Craig and Damon Foster. It's a story we can all relate to - a family needs to be fed - and I'm sure had the hunters been provided with more rain and then more animals they too would have taken all the meat they could to see their wives and children happy at the provision of food, just as we do in the UK. The difference is, we in the western world have taken this Dance to a new level and it's no longer Great; it's Greedy. We don't know the faces of the animals we eat; we don't know where they lived or died and sometimes we don't even know that it's 100% meat we're eating. I'd go as far as to say that some children can't even connect the dots between the food they eat and the animals they pet. Humans have supposedly conquered the land, beaten the elements and controlled the animals, but are we winners if we no longer know or respect our ancestral Dance? I'm not so sure.

Sacrifice a fly, but never a monkey

As a continuation from my last blog about the work of Catherine Chalmers I've found a fascinating account of a 1970s study held with students, which relates well to the Food Chain series by Chalmers. The study is documented in the book I'm currently reading: 'Shooting in the Wild' by veteran wildlife film-maker, Chris Palmer. In my last blog I documented Chalmers' ideas for 'Food Chain' and highlighted important parts of related interviews with the artist, so all that remains is the account of the study from Palmer's book: "In the 1970s, Jeffery Boswall gave lectures in which he would ask audiences to vote on a graded series of...moral problems. He invited people to imagine, first, that they were making an important conservation film and needed a shot of a spider eating a fly. How many of them would be willing to artificially introduce a fly to a spider, rather than wait days, maybe even weeks, for it to happen naturally? Most audience members typically thought that staging a spider eating a fly was perfectly acceptable. Then Boswall asked them if they would be willing to introduce a worm to a frog... a snake to a bird, and the votes continued to decline. How about a monkey to a boa constrictor? ... monkeys are routine prey for boa constrictors, but by this time very few hands, if any, were left in the air." Chalmers' desire to explore our hypocrisy over the food chain and its hierarchies is well validated here. We are all surely guilty of hypocrisy and favouritism where killing is concerned.

Cockroach executions and Catherine Chalmers

Catherine Chalmers' work is quite exceptional in my eyes. You may recognise her best for her 'Food Chain' series - a stunning collection of imagery showing just that - starting with the humble tomato and a caterpillar; finished by a frog eating a praying mantis. In an interview with the artist, Chalmers said "At first I was horrified by the idea of raising an animal to feed to another animal. It disturbed me that I was going to be governing life in that way. But when you think of how central food chains are to all systems in life, it makes a certain amount of sense. Western society has become divorced from the act of killing the animals we eat. I wanted to see why". She also talks at length about her Cockroaches series, which includes video of both burning and hung cockroaches as well as 'imposter' imagery in which they are painted to look 'beautiful' and enchanting as other, more popular insects, might look. I won't spoil the detail behind the work, since this can be found in her words, but you may be interested to consider your own reaction to the works in light of the popular hatred and disgust for the species.