Museumification of Nature
2010
Pierre Prins 20600547 pierre.prins@gmail.com 8 November 2010 B Tech. Photography
Specialist Essay Museumification of Nature Final
PLAGIARISM DECLARATION: 1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
I know that plagiarism is a serious form of academic dishonesty. I have read the section on plagiarism in INFOWISE (the literacy course given in Library Services on my Student Portal) and I am familiar with its contents. I have avoided all forms of plagiarism mentioned there. I have given in-text references (for example, Jones 2006:1) for all quotations (whether direct quotations, paraphrasing or summaries) and all ideas I have borrowed from others. Where I have used the exact words of others (direct quotations), I have indicated this by the use of quotation marks. I have not allowed anyone to plagiarize my work.
Signed: _____________________________________________ Date :____________________________________________
1
Museumification of Nature
2010
In this essay, the process of “museumification” of nature will be discussed. What have our impacts been on the natural landscape, to what extent have we transformed these environments to suit our own needs and how does this translate in the photographic document? Are there sufficient efforts to protect what is still left out there in the wilderness? Nature has been forced to morph into our urban environments and, in the process, has became a showpiece. The role of images in highlighting the need for preservation is relevant as the photographic document might be the only possession of nature future generations will have. Further, one has to look at the context in which these images are displayed as it influences how they are received. Does the advent of digital photography numb our sense of our impact on the environment as the world gets saturated with images? Would the photograph be held accountable for conveying the effects human development has had on nature‟s natural behaviour, and for portraying the physical changes made to the environment through repeat photography? This essay explores the advantages and limitations of how selective images of nature through captioning and gallery spaces. It interrogates how nature has been redefined by urban environments and constructed natural „show pieces‟.
It suggests that while engaging with nature
firsthand is better than experiencing it through the represented image, it is increasingly unlikely in the future at the present rate of human expansion. An estimated 6.8 billion people live on this planet that we call Earth. The global birth rate stands at four births every second. The global death rate, two deaths per second, implies the human populous is expanding a lot faster than it is contracting. Earth has limited capacity and living space is getting less, as more homes, factories, offices, power stations, etc. need to be built to accommodate our needs as humans. The more natural parts of Earth are being extinguished to a certain extent, to make room for the human race to live in. Do we even know to what extent we have really lost nature? What will we be leaving for future generations, as nature is diminishing? Can the human race further expand and develop land and still preserve and conserve what is natural? What is being done to create socially conscious developments within the last bit of available nature? Is nature becoming a museum display? Player (2001:12) states that one can‟t stop progress and that it is heart breaking to see concrete structures take the place of natural land. Is the natural environment considered in human developments? If so, what are the after effects on 2
Museumification of Nature
2010
the surroundings? Gobster (2007:105) suggests that the restoration parks that we create to preserve and conserve nature are becoming show pieces, as we are guided through these places via boardwalks and are told what we are viewing through signage. The concept of socially conscious landscapes implies environments that are aware of their surrounding conditions and aesthetics, which consider the natural biodiversity of the area, but also consider the social well being of those humans living within the environment. It is here where architects establish balance, so man‟s presence is visible, but does not dominate and considers the surrounding environment. (SeiboldBultmann. 2007) “Museumification” of nature may be described as being pieces of nature put up on a pedestal and presented to the public for view. Rouard-Snowman (1992:6) writes that the role of the museum is to conserve its collection and interpret it to its visitor by putting the museum‟s treasures on show and introducing them to the public. It could then therefore be implied that national parks act as museums, as they conserve their treasure (nature) and present it to the public. Treating nature as a show piece changes the way we look at the “natural” landscape. National parks and wilderness areas are created to “preserve” and “conserve” what is left of the “natural” environment. Csikszentmihalyi‟s (1998:177) writing on photographs discusses humans‟ visible impact on nature. Csikszentmihalyi uses El Captain, Yosemite National Park by Ansel Adams as an example to show how what was once serene and beautiful in the past is now somewhat spoilt due to large tourism activity or urbanisation. Viewers become dislocated from the true beauty and physical experience of nature due to the urban background that they come from. Master landscape photographers like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Koos van den Lende produced landscape photographs considered to be pristine, untouched by humans. Considering the fact that the photographs taken by Adams and Weston were captured many years ago, the scenes they have photographed have altered. “The act of taking a photograph fixes time, but it also steals time, establishes a hold on the past in which history is sealed, so to speak, in a continuous present” (Clarke ,1997:12) The photographs by Koos van den Lende, on the other hand, are more recent and these photos depict scenes in wilderness areas. These areas are very 3
Museumification of Nature
2010
remote and hard to access so one might say that these areas are still safe from man for now. It is useful to question the role of photographs, their effects on us and the purpose they serve us. Nüsser (2001: 242) refers to repeat photography, the practice of finding the location of an earlier photograph, re-occupying the original camera position and taking a new photograph of the same scene. The photograph functions to
assess
the
contemporary
landscapes‟
transformation
with
time.
This
transformation, through the portrayal of nature in these photographs, creates awareness which encourages tourism, which then leads to the human mark being left behind. Furthermore, the creation of tourism to natural areas could offer us the opportunity of possession - possession in the sense that the places we have visited are captured in the photographs and transformed into signs of where we have been. “Photography offers us the joys of possession: by taking photographs of famous sites and then, at home, putting them into albums or showing them as slides, we gain some kind of possession of them. For some of us this can be the main reason for tourism. Between them, the camera and tourism are two of uniquely modern ways of defining reality.” (Horne, 1984:12) In addition, Adams, Weston and Van den Lende‟s works are well sought after and can be found in museums, galleries and private collections. It is here where the photograph transforms into object. Price and Wells (2009:62) suggest that placing these photographs in privileged spaces has an effect of embracing photographs as art objects. Thus one could say that this objectification also constitutes the museumification of nature as the reality of nature captured within the photograph now becomes a show piece to the privileged. As Ian Jeffery (1996:112) states, “Whatever is captured by the camera is inescapable to the viewer. The most irrelevant objects of the real scene can become most relevant on print. Not only does the camera freeze the world, preserving it for someone else, to see at another time, but it also takes what it sees out of context. This leads to the danger that it will be too fragmentary to preserve 4
Museumification of Nature
2010
a sense of the original. Conversely, the strength of a print is to emphasise, to abstract the salient features of the subject, and therefore clarify it. The process of selection thus becomes paramount.” As photographs are viewed in these spaces, it could be argued that the original meaning of the photographs is lost. The initial intention might have been to create awareness around nature‟s destruction or surveying sites, but in the museum or gallery context it is transformed to an art object which is seen as only having an aesthetic purpose. Price and Wells (2009:63) argue that the “photographs, doomed to the visual solitude of the art object, lose their plurality and their ability to transverse fields of meaning.” It could be suggested that the uniqueness of the scenes captured conveys the experience through the visual image and this, to an extent, could be interpreted as a disconnection from the real experience. Csikszentmihalyi (1998:172) writes, “The emotional dimension, like the perceptual, lurks behind every encounter with a work of art, if one is open to it, it can transform the experience in important ways.” Thus the visual image replaces the physical encounter. The digital photograph, by its prolific and instant nature, contributes to the concept of museumification of nature and our disconnection to the real. Digital photographs are more instant and mobile and can be transmitted across the world via email, web and mobile devices as soon as they have been taken. One thus has to ask what impact this has on the experience of the real, seeing that contemporary urban young people can gain access to nature through these digital photographs instantly. “Digital photographs are simultaneously everywhere and nowhere,” Bull (2010:27), thus one could argue that they have created a disconnection with the physical experience. In contrast to images of pristine landscapes, the work of photographers like Robert Adams, John Pfahl and Lewis Baltz is known for being part of the “new topographics”, where photographs resemble a man altered landscape (Steidl. 2009). The purpose of the photographic document is to show visually the transformation that housing, business districts and roads bring to a landscape, highlighting our footprint and our path of destruction on the landscape. As Bazin (1980) states, “The aesthetic qualities of photography are to be sought in their power to bare reality”. By
5
Museumification of Nature
2010
visually documenting human impact, photos are a means to create awareness for more socially conscious landscapes. Nature is altered as we make space to move into nature ourselves. It needs to be asked to what degree this is acceptable. It is claimed by 50/50 (2010) that zoos have become a very important part of our society, as these institutions are the last place of hope for saving and rehabilitating nature before it is completely extinct. This process museumifies nature, but if this manages to protect nature better for future generations, then it should be supported. One has to consider the dislocating effect this would have on nature though, as a photograph of a subject in an enclosed environment would be perceived differently to that of the subject in its natural environment, thus telling a different story in a sense. As Clarke (1997: 176) writes “...the camera indulges in its capacity to produce more that what is seen." Zoos preserve, but at the expense of the natural experience, as nature undergoes behavioural changes as the surrounding environment affects it. Photographers need to be accountable for what they portray in their photographs. If photographers do not highlight the changes, their efforts in being a moral compass through their images could be worthless. Merrill (2002: 5) believes that “media that people accept and support will survive and thrive; media that people dislike or reject will suffer and die. This is ultimate accountability.” In order to make sure that environmental awareness can be promoted through photography; one could apply the notion of using humanity as a viable approach. Plato once said that vision is humanity‟s greatest gift and that the mind‟s eye sees all that is perfect in an imperfect world through two imperfect eyes. The photographer can take into account what is potentially endangering (imperfect habits) to future generations, and influence the public, through their photographs, with the vision of the good they can achieve by adopting more environmentally friendly habits. It is here where the photographer can construct a photograph so that its sign becomes indexical to its cause. Nüsser (2001: 242) spoke about repeat photography showing the change in the landscape‟s environment. The photographer could digitally construct an image showing what might and/or will happen to the landscape in the future, thus highlighting the potential human impact. In this the cause, the photograph is the judge and critical observer. 6
Museumification of Nature
2010
Furthermore, it is here where the photograph becomes part of the bigger world as a picture, as suggested by Krauss (2004), “A world picture, when understood essentially, does not mean a picture of the world, but the world conceived and grasped as picture.” The photograph replaces the physical experience. In effect, it is the museumification of nature as nature is represented as a photographic document instead of as an actual experience. “Aesthetic experience is simply an intense involvement between a viewer and a work.” Csikszentmihalyi (1998:172). The photograph itself creates the experience. As a scene is photographically documented, the photograph becomes an object in which it de-contextualises nature. Bull (2010:41) writes that this is automatically what happens when a photograph is made. The viewer only gets to view what has been photographed and has no idea what is happening on the outside of the frame. At this point, the photographer has the power to further his/her cause as he/she selects what the viewer perceives. In addition to these selective compositions in the photographs, the photographer can omit certain human elements in nature to convey the museum process that already exists in certain areas. For example, this is evident in national parks‟ signage and boardwalks, placed to direct the visitor to where they may or may not go, as well as indicating what the viewer is looking at along the way. Capturing these elements that already exist, informs those viewers who have not noticed the museum effect already taking hold of nature. Edward T. Hall (2006:210) states that, “A keystone in the arch of human understanding is the recognition that man at certain points synthesizes experience. Another way of stating this is that man learns while he sees and what he learns influences what he sees.” Moreover, photographers need to consider the way they caption their photographs. Captioning the image can make a remarkable difference to how the meaning is conveyed by the photograph. The text can be seen as the voice of reason. If the image has no voice, it could lack the ability to convey the photographer‟s message fully. In her essay “the myth of photographic truth” (Sturken, 2001:19), Sturken suggests that the image can be read better from a cultural and historical context when the photograph is accompanied by a caption. This being said, the photographer needs to understand that the photograph he/she is using to create 7
Museumification of Nature
2010
awareness might be geared towards a specific cultural group. Therefore, the captioning of the image could be understood differently in various other cultures. Captioning the photographs, in a sense, pins down what is being photographed in the same way as description tags on trees in parks. This process, arguably, furthers the notion of museumification of nature through the photographic document. “Photographic images are pieces of evidence in an ongoing biography or nature.” Sontag (1979:166) Furthermore, when considering the gallery as the context in which the photograph is viewed, one might deduce that the concept for the series of photographs is better presented. So for example, in showing constructed landscape scenes in such an environment, the photograph itself does not necessarily grab the full attention, but rather invokes the deeper thought the photograph represents. As Robins (1984:213) states, “the photograph, instead of being presented as a depiction of reality, was now something created to show us things that were felt rather than necessarily seen.” The actual experiences of nature versus the represented experience through a photographic document are inseparable. Photographic documents of places may create the desire to experience them as, through development; they might disappear, leaving the photographic document as the only visual reference to what was. Schama writes, “for although we are accustomed to separate nature and human perception into two realms, they are, indivisible. Before it can be a response for the sense, landscape is the work of the mind. Its scenery is built up as much from the strata of memory as from layers of rock.” In conclusion, the photographic document plays an important role in conveying existing nature and as a moral compass to help conserve for the future generation to come.
It however, equally has the potential to be a replacement of a physical
encounter. Nature has been forced to morph into our urban environments and in the process became showpieces. The process of “museumification” of nature implies a process of preserving, dislocating and curating what is seen and experienced. Our human
8
Museumification of Nature
2010
effects on the landscapes have been interpreted in photographs through documenting changes over time and constructing images that reflect dislocation. The concept of socially conscious landscapes implies environments that are constructed with an awareness of surrounding conditions & aesthetic, the natural biodiversity of the area, and that consider the social well being of those humans living within the environment. As a scene is photographically documented, the photograph becomes an object in which it de-contextualises nature. Captioning the image can make a profound difference in how the meaning is brought through by the photograph. The actual experiences of nature versus the represented experience through a photographic document are inseparable. Photograph offers one with the joy of possession, through capturing the places one has visited. When the photograph enters a privileged space, i.e. gallery, it has the potential to portray its awareness of the effects humans have on the environment better. Digital photographs have a further dislocating effect on us from nature, as one is able to access photos instantly via the internet. Zooâ€&#x;s are good environments for saving and rehabilitating nature, but at the same time causes behavioural changes in nature itself. It remains crucial that the photographer takes accountability for their photographs in order to be the moral compass in highlighting their cause. Repeat photography is equally important in documenting the impacts humans have on their environment. Finally, constructed images that imply a view of the future can be literal witness to what is likely and where it needs to change for better sensitive development in the future. In effect to try and stem the reality that future generations may have no physical encounter with wild nature, and may only experience the idea of it in photographs
9
Museumification of Nature
2010
Reference List Bazin, A. 1967. The Ontology of the Photographic Image. In Trachtenberg, A. (Ed). 1980. Classic essays on photography. New haven, Connecticut: Leete‟s Island Books Bull, S. 2010. Photography. London & New York: Routledge Bunnell, P.C. 2006. Inside the photograph. New York: Aperture foundation Clarke, G. 1997. The Photograph. New York: Oxford University Press Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1998. Spaces for the Self. In Neff, T.A. (Ed). Photography’s multiple roles. Chicago & New York: Museum of Contemporary Photography & Distributed Art Publishers. Gobster, P.H. 2007. Urban Park Restoration and the “museumification” of nature. Retrieved on April 25, 2010 from http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/8905 Heidegger, M. 2004. World as picture. Retrieved on August 9, 2010 from http://sauerthompson.com/conversations/archives/002569.html Horne. 1984. The Archive. In Well, L. (Ed). 2000. Photography: a critical introduction. London & New York: Routledge Merrill, J.C. 1975. Accountability. In Retief, J. 2002 (Ed). Media Ethics: an introduction to responsible journalism. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Nüsser, M. 2001. Landscape and Urban Planning. Bonn: Geographisches Institut, Universität Bonn Robins. 1984. Photography and the Post modern. In Well, L. (Ed). 2000. Photography: a critical introduction. London & New York: Routledge Rouarad-Snowman, M. 1992. Museum Graphics. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Steidl.
2009
New
Topographics.
Retrieved
on
August
23,
2010
from
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2010/03/steidl-new-topographics-2009.html Sturken, M. 2001. Practices of looking: an introduction to visual culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press Sontag, S. 1979. Critical reflection on realism. In Well, L. (Ed). 2000. Photography: a critical introduction. London & New York: Routledge Wells, L. 2009. Photography: a critical introduction. London & New York: Routledge 50/50. (2010). SABC 2. Monday 27 September.
10
Museumification of Nature
2010
Reading List 1999 A GREEN VITRUVIUS: Principles and practice of sustainable architectural design. Malta: Gutenberg Press Berger, J. 1974. Understanding a Photograph. In Trachtenberg, A. (Ed). 1980. Classic essays on photography. New haven, Connecticut: Leete‟s Island Books. Dusmann, R.F. 1988. Conservation, land use and sustainable development. In Martin, V. (Ed). For the conservation of earth. Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing Miller, D. 1998. Art and Idea. In Neff, T.A. (Ed). Photography’s multiple roles. Chicago & New York: Museum of Contemporary Photography & Distributed Art Publishers. st
Player, I. 2001. Wilderness – The spirit of the 21 century. In Martin, V.G. & Muir, A. (Ed). Wilderness and human Communities. Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing Retief, J. 2002. Media Ethics: an introduction to responsible journalism. Cape Town: Seibold-Bultman, U. 2007. What does sustainability look like? Green architecture as an aesthetic Proposition. INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE REVIEWS, 2007, VOL. 32, NO. 1 Van Rensburg, E. and Möler, H.T. 1996. Essays in time: A Photographic affirmation of life. Cape Town: National Book Printers
11