AnimalTheory

Essay: See As No Other - Blind Photography

2011-09-11T11:39:00.004+01:00

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

2011-09-11T11:38:00.002+01:00

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

2011-09-11T11:37:00.000+01:00

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

2011-05-02T22:23:00.000+01:00

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

2011-03-08T14:34:00.001Z

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

2011-01-17T22:03:00.000Z

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

2010-11-25T23:58:00.000Z

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

2010-11-09T01:01:00.002Z

"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?

2010-09-22T22:21:00.001+01:00

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

2010-09-22T12:03:00.000+01:00

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

2010-07-14T19:18:00.002+01:00

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?

2010-06-09T21:05:00.000+01:00

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?

2010-06-02T12:46:00.000+01:00

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

2010-05-26T19:50:00.004+01:00

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

2010-05-20T06:00:00.000+01:00

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.

When did food stop becoming important?

2010-05-19T13:59:00.003+01:00

I haven't read David Kirby's book, Animal Factory, but the Washington Post recently published an interview with the author and he makes an exceptionally good point: why do we spend hours trawling the internet for deals on phones, cameras and cars; trying to find the best products as well as services, and yet many people will happily go to their local supermarket and buy the cheapest meat they can find to put in their own bodies and feed their children? Distant ancestors of ours had to hunt for their food and not-so-distant ancestors were rationed. Do we appreciate how lucky and spoiled we are to live in a time when food is available so easily and in abundance in the western world? I'm not sure we do. Since when did fuel prices for your car produce more of a reaction than the price of fuel for your body? More importantly, why do we not complain more about the quality of the food we buy? My guess is because we simply don't know what some food manufacturers are up to. According to the BBC programme 'Britain's Really Disgusting Food' our Food Standards Agency states that "beef burgers" need only contain 62% beef. If you market your burgers as "economy", you can get away with only 47% beef - so what's the other 53% of your 'beef' burger made up of? "Economy" doesn't inspire me to think it's something appetising. In fact, "disgusting" sounds just about right to me, not only in terms of taste, but also ethics.

The Bell Jar - animal rights and privacy

2010-05-05T14:00:00.002+01:00

You'd have to have been in another country not to hear the furore about 'animal privacy' that kicked off last week with the Guardian article: Wildlife documentaries infringe animals' privacy, says report. I'm not so interested in the article itself; what I find most fascinating is the response. The last time I saw such a flurry of re-tweets on Twitter in response to an animal story was the SeaWorld incident back in February when whale trainer, Dawn Brancheau, was killed. The reason I'm fairly dismissive of the media report is because a) it's the media and b) comments underneath the online report come mostly from people who won't have read the original article by Brett Mills that was published in the journal, Continuum. It saddens me the research is instantly dismissed and/or joked away by many because it's about animals and not humans, but - and it's a big 'but' - there is one fact that can't be dismissed: privacy is a human construction that protects us from one another. Animals do not know the word 'privacy'. However - and it's just as big a 'however' - privacy is also a concept around protection and surely all animals deserve protection? We share our world with other species and we're curious about one another, but maybe this and the SeaWorld story has hit a nerve. In our desire to understand, protect and - let's be honest - enjoy the natural world, do we suffocate it at the same time? I was recently researching bell jars when I came across this beautiful image of a glass bell jar used as a cloche. Bell jars were used in the Victorian era to protect plants in the garden, but at the same time, they have no air vent. This particular image struck me as a direct representation of our relationship with the animal world - there are both pros and cons. When an event like SeaWorld happens or someone like Mills comes along, it confronts our sense of enjoyment and we don't like it - we're used to doing what we want. Animals won't benefit from privacy laws, but surely they deserve a deeper consideration than instant dismissal when it comes to their rights? What l do know is that all professional wildlife film-makers and photographers go to great lengths never to disturb or harm their animal subjects (see Loving animals to death). If we tackle animal rights, the fight doesn't start here.

Never see a fish finger in the same way again

2010-05-04T15:32:00.003+01:00

Of all people, Banksy has been pivotal to my photography in relation to human-animal studies. I had no idea the graffiti artist had so much to say about animals until I came across a video of his Pet Store exhibition on Ecotube and I was then lucky enough to see it live at his Bristol exhibition last year. Photographically, it's incredibly difficult to be succinct in your message - a lot of research, both literary and image-based precedes your first shoot. After this comes the sometimes agonising quest to fit your message into a smaller and tighter bottle until finally, a whole book is whittled down to one sentence on one piece of paper. Banksy's creative journey in Pet Store goes down to one word in my view: Genius. It needs little introduction, just watch it.

The tourist trap: 'Loving animals to death'

2010-04-28T19:06:00.000+01:00

A friend very kindly send me an article from the Times today: India to stop tiger tourism in attempt to prevent species extinction. I'd been looking for an article just like this when I was studying tourism and gorillas for my thesis, yet since there was nothing available of this definite caliber, I'd guess India takes the remarkable step forwards here. Gorillas are now in a trap where tourism is what pays to keep them alive, but at the same time endangers their lives when humans carry more in their luggage than they realise - for example, viruses that gorillas can't fend off. As well as this, can we consider the quality of life for all the wild and wondrous creatures we call flagship species: the gorillas, the tigers and the bears? I can liken it to celebrities and the paparazzi, the only difference here is that celebrities have the option of hiring security guards, not going somewhere they know will be busy, or even moving to another country where they won't be permanently harassed. There's no need to cut off all interaction with these animals, but we do need much stricter regulations on tourism and I applaud India's decision. The general public could also do better by learning the methods of the wildlife photographer: know your species, never disturb its environment and leave only footprints. It's only the same as checking the web page for the Embassy of another country for its rules and regulations - walking into the Taj Mahal in a bikini it is not.

Diane Fox photography: UnNatural History

2010-04-27T06:53:00.001+01:00

I've been looking again at the photographic works of Diane Fox. Her work is shot in natural history museums and the "UnNatural History" she speaks of seeps out from every pore of her images; slowly and eerily until you become aware that you are being confronted by your own objectification of the 'subjects' - animals. Fox uses reflections in many of her images to unsettle otherwise calm re-creations of 'natural' settings. The animals are nose-to-nose with themselves or vandalized by information boards and ghosts of other subjects in the room. The works become busy and confusing, out of line with the 'natural' scene we have come to expect. At the same time, I feel Fox captures exceptionally well the discomfort we sometimes catch a glimpse of within ourselves whilst observing caged animals in zoos - pacing up and down - or when we're looking at dead, stuffed animals in museums. We might wonder if this is the 'right' way; is it educational or is it just manufactured nature, served up cold? You can see Fox's work at Greyfriars Art Space in Kings Lynn, UK, on Saturday 10 July 2010.

Voting for animals on election day

2010-04-24T15:10:00.001+01:00

The Institute of Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) hosted their first European conference in Liverpool yesterday with an interesting and varied programme. Jasmijn de Boo from Animals Count gave a political talk about how our UK votes affect animals. It got me thinking and since it comes at such a poignant time, I thought I'd share her research results with you. The Conservatives came off worst with a vague mention of 'promoting high welfare standards' in a 131 page manifesto. Labour went so far as to also mention 'protecting species like polar bears, seals and bluefish tuna' - seemingly an empty support for flagship species, popular with the media. The Liberal Democrats were much more considered in their manifesto, considering the bigger picture: they would 'establish an Animal Protection Commission' and state animal ownership is not a 'responsibility that should be abused'. Overall, I'd say this is a pretty disappointing expression of interest in animals from all of our main political parties. The Green Party, as you'd image, has a thorough agenda for both animals and the environment with plans to abolish live animal transport, phase out intensive farming and more. Their problem is that people wonder if they are a one-policy party. Jasmijn de Boo introduced Animals Count as a new political party, but surely concerns about their overall agenda are significantly worse. Why other living beings can't exist politically on a level playing field with humans - not as an aside, but equally, not as a spectacle, shows a widespread culture of animal abandonment in a so-called nation of animal-lovers.

Earthlings: Do we need to see this?

2010-04-24T13:29:00.000+01:00

A documentary from 2005, I watched Earthlings this week. It's taken me a good few days to mull over just how much this footage is or isn't necessary viewing. The film covers five areas of human ownership and/or consumption of animals: Pets, Food, Clothing, Entertainment and Research. Narrated by Joaquin Phoenix with music from the most famous vegan of all, Moby, Earthlings is called 'the vegan maker' because it exposes unimaginable cruelty to animals and some of the methods used to torture living beings were news to me. It's fundamentally important that each and every one of us realises what's going on around us: how our food is produced, where our clothes come from and to understand the complexities of pet ownership. However, I'm not convinced this is the way to do it and the film only makes vegans out of people who care enough in the first place to buy or watch the documentary. I wouldn't show this film to a child-teen because it's so disturbing, but I would want them to know about its contents. I stand by the words I've already written in AnimalTheory: How long have you been a carnist? because in order to reach the 'innocent bystander', which I was myself for many years, it's more important to inform people about decisions they are making unknowingly by closing their eyes and ears to reality. Witnessing it graphically by sight for a straight hour and a half, I don't believe is so effective - it's simply upsetting, makes you feel powerless to stop it - regardless of whether or not one more vegan is made, and although the last fifteen minutes of the film are mildly aspirational, you're not given any understanding about how this can happen in the first place, why you contribute and what steps you can take to promote effective change.

Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations

2010-04-20T10:08:00.001+01:00

I'm pleased to see another fantastic-looking conference on offer for human-animal studies, this time from the Department of Semiotics at the University of Tartu in Estonia. One of the key topics at the Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations conference that's of real interest to me is the "semiotic perspectives on animals in literature, art, films etc. (e.g. seeing man in animals, and the animal in men)" and I'll be submitting my undergraduate dissertation for consideration in the Call For Papers. Human-animal studies conferences seem few and far between and it's who you know, not what you know when it comes to hearing about them. I'm looking forward to an event closer to home this Thursday: Animal(s) Matter(s) in Liverpool, UK, from the Institute of Critical Animal Studies.

How long have you been a carnist?

2010-04-19T19:34:00.002+01:00

I did a lot of research for my photography projects last year and 'Convenience Food' kicked off a gruesome journey into the exploration of food - what's in it, how it's produced, and how the choices I had been making (or not making) effect all our lives. I was horrified by what I found and I'm not talking about butchery or battery hens, albeit those things are naturally abhorrent to any compassionate person. What horrified me most was our detachment from the food we eat and our complete ignorance about the level of deceit included in the recipe. Most memorably, there was Marcus the sheep who was reared at a primary school to teach students about where their meat comes from. The Daily Mail (of course) reported outrage from parents who were upset about Marcus going to the abattoir and presumably right after they enjoyed a Sunday roast. There was Lochmuir salmon from M&S - sounds nice and wholesome, doesn't it? Except Lochmuir is just a brand name and clearly used to play on people's desire to do better and buy organic. There was so much rotten information I became sick of reading about our own greed and hypocrisy - so much so, that I haven't been able to eat meat or buy milk since. I'm not against meat-eating per se; what I really can't stomach is 'the industry' and I now hope to contribute to it as little as possible, which - as it turns out, is actually very, very difficult. If you'd like to understand more about the choices you're not necessarily making of your own free will then I highly recommend Melanie Joy's new book: Why we Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows. She gives the name 'carnism' to the "invisible belief system" in the "violent ideology" of choosing to eat meat, regardless of how it came to be edible and where only meat from certain animals and not others is acceptable. As an ex-carnist I find this debate fascinating and hope to continue to represent such questions photographically and without judgment. Although, next time I get asked how long I've been a vegetarian...

Great Apes, by Will Self

2010-04-18T17:04:00.000+01:00

I just can't recommend this book enough. It's over a decade old now (1997), but it's no less relevant or striking: "Great Apes is a brick dropped into the stagnant pond of contemporary English prose" - New Statesman. Having just written my dissertation on gorillas and human compassion I found this book the perfect accompaniment to my final thoughts about the screwed-up world we share with other animals and great apes especially. Great Apes is filthy - disgustingly so in parts, controversial, fiercely intelligent and it made me grimace or laugh with a real sense of satisfaction. I couldn't find any way to better tell this story. Read it and reconsider your human smugness. Are we all just animals like these Great Apes? Are we great or are we gross? We need more of these stories; more questions, more change.

Stop the humans, not Save the animals

2010-04-18T15:39:00.000+01:00

I was really pleased to see an interview with Jane Goodall from the Ecologist this week entitled 'I'm not going to fight for animal rights'. Ideally, all animals would have rights, but 'Save the animals' is no longer working and this is something I think about in my work all the time. Why? Because people are desensitized to animal abuse images and we're fatigued by pleas from do-gooders. I've spent my adult life donating to charities and volunteering time, but none of it seems to have made a jot of difference to the level of animal cruelty. I don't think it's about showing the results of our actions any more, I think it's about inspiring a fundamental shift in the way we think about animals in the first place. Dr Goodall is "fighting for human responsibility" and I agree this is the only way forward. I'll continue to use my images and words to confront tradition, tolerance and acceptance of routine animal abuse and killing; questioning our choices.