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.