On Photography And Birds
©2004 Harri Vainola
©2004 Harri Vainola
Recently, while browsing trough a photography discussion forum, I stumbled on a post, where a participant made it quite clear, that he was not at all happy with his photography. He had accumulated a large collection of photos of various subjects; technically competent, but not very memorable. In his despair, he asked the forum participants, what was wrong with his work, and how to improve his standard.
To me, the answer was obvious; his work did not show an interest, or love, towards his subjects. Photography is an inherently romantic form of art; photographers choose a scene we care for enough, to be frozen in time, to be later revisited by ourselves, and others. Remove the emotional content, and we are left with, perhaps, "interesting" photographs; I find this a terrible expression to use, about a work of art of any kind; left, when no other description seems appropriate.
An image may stir an emotion, make you think, or ask questions (or, try to make you buy something; an object, or an idea). However, missing the emotional connection, none of these are likely to take place.
Our photographer in despair might do well to think of exactly why he is taking photographs, and what he wants to tell by them. Photography is, in itself, an enjoyable pastime; lacking a reason, though, tends to show on the work.
The photographer went on to ask, which of the shots were the best ones (as art).
This is, I think, a quite an easy question (considering it being a question of taste):
Of the two otherwise equally good photographs, the better one is the one you haven't seen before.
People yearn for new images, as would be testified by the motion picture industry, as well as tour operators in exotic locations. This might have something to do with our millennia-long past as nomads, before we settled into villages, surrounded by farmlands. Being a painter or a photographer, you are likely to do well, should you be able to create images, that have not been seen before.
For better or worse, I never had to struggle with the question "what to photograph?"; I always knew, that I'd have to photograph birds, when diving into photography. In fact, I'd like, in a way, to photograph other subjects as well, but I never seem to be able to; I'm drawn to the waterside.
One doesn't choose the subjects one loves, but it was not only my liking of the feathered kinds (I also like cats, great and small, but I don't photograph them); the way the birds are often portrayed in traditional bird photography troubles me somewhat. I go on to explain this in more length on my next essay, but, in essence, I believe the birds should be portrayed as they are, as individual beings, with personality, as oppose to "Passer domesticus Showing Behaviour".
The question "Why do you photograph birds" still surprises me; how could I not ?
Some people dismiss the idea of photographing birds (or nature, for that matter), for the reason it being wrong, to take "pretty" pictures of animals, as our environment is suffering for our wrongdoings. The bird I photograph today, may die tomorrow in the hands of a hunter, who considers taking a life for fun "a sport", or "managing wildlife". The bird's home might be also destroyed by the increasing loss of habitat, or by the environmental pollution. Surely it is wrong to show a happy bird ?
I disagree. Granted, we will have to treat our fellow beings, as well as our environment more kindly, or we are surely going to perish with them. But the world is not all doom and gloom; there are moments of happiness to be shared, both for the human and feathered kinds. What else can we really hope for ourselves, or for the other creatures we are shearing this world with, than some moments of happiness, on the brief time we are here ? If showing these moments brings joy to the viewer, and, perhaps, trough the better understanding of our fellow beings, even some long term benefit to the birds, I can see no harm with this. The birds I photograph will always, in a way, stay with me, even after they are gone.
I wish them well.
To me, the answer was obvious; his work did not show an interest, or love, towards his subjects. Photography is an inherently romantic form of art; photographers choose a scene we care for enough, to be frozen in time, to be later revisited by ourselves, and others. Remove the emotional content, and we are left with, perhaps, "interesting" photographs; I find this a terrible expression to use, about a work of art of any kind; left, when no other description seems appropriate.
An image may stir an emotion, make you think, or ask questions (or, try to make you buy something; an object, or an idea). However, missing the emotional connection, none of these are likely to take place.
Our photographer in despair might do well to think of exactly why he is taking photographs, and what he wants to tell by them. Photography is, in itself, an enjoyable pastime; lacking a reason, though, tends to show on the work.
The photographer went on to ask, which of the shots were the best ones (as art).
This is, I think, a quite an easy question (considering it being a question of taste):
Of the two otherwise equally good photographs, the better one is the one you haven't seen before.
People yearn for new images, as would be testified by the motion picture industry, as well as tour operators in exotic locations. This might have something to do with our millennia-long past as nomads, before we settled into villages, surrounded by farmlands. Being a painter or a photographer, you are likely to do well, should you be able to create images, that have not been seen before.
For better or worse, I never had to struggle with the question "what to photograph?"; I always knew, that I'd have to photograph birds, when diving into photography. In fact, I'd like, in a way, to photograph other subjects as well, but I never seem to be able to; I'm drawn to the waterside.
One doesn't choose the subjects one loves, but it was not only my liking of the feathered kinds (I also like cats, great and small, but I don't photograph them); the way the birds are often portrayed in traditional bird photography troubles me somewhat. I go on to explain this in more length on my next essay, but, in essence, I believe the birds should be portrayed as they are, as individual beings, with personality, as oppose to "Passer domesticus Showing Behaviour".
The question "Why do you photograph birds" still surprises me; how could I not ?
Some people dismiss the idea of photographing birds (or nature, for that matter), for the reason it being wrong, to take "pretty" pictures of animals, as our environment is suffering for our wrongdoings. The bird I photograph today, may die tomorrow in the hands of a hunter, who considers taking a life for fun "a sport", or "managing wildlife". The bird's home might be also destroyed by the increasing loss of habitat, or by the environmental pollution. Surely it is wrong to show a happy bird ?
I disagree. Granted, we will have to treat our fellow beings, as well as our environment more kindly, or we are surely going to perish with them. But the world is not all doom and gloom; there are moments of happiness to be shared, both for the human and feathered kinds. What else can we really hope for ourselves, or for the other creatures we are shearing this world with, than some moments of happiness, on the brief time we are here ? If showing these moments brings joy to the viewer, and, perhaps, trough the better understanding of our fellow beings, even some long term benefit to the birds, I can see no harm with this. The birds I photograph will always, in a way, stay with me, even after they are gone.
I wish them well.