(A young herder watches
his cows at sunset on the shores of Lake Tana, Ethiopia. 2013)
Last year I had the
great honour of joining the judging panel for 2015 of the World Press
Photo Contest (WPP), one of the most prestigious competitions in the
photography industry, if not THE most important competition in the
World for what concerns photojournalism. This has been of course a
very interesting and instructive experience for me. Although my
contribution was limited to the sole Nature category, I have been
nevertheless involved in the following debate triggered by the
disqualification of Giovanni Troilo's story on the city of Charleroi,
Belgium. The work of the Italian photographer had first been awarded
in the “Contemporary issues” category, then, because of
complaints forwarded by the Mayor of the city Troilo had photographed
and of alleged falsifications (ie. staging) of some of the pictures,
his submission has been scrutinized again by the WPP general jury and
more in-depth. Some picture information were not in compliance with
the competition's rules and eventually the prize has been withdrawn.
But the fact that some images appeared to be staged was probably at
the core of the issue. Well, this is nothing new, you might say, and
everybody can easily follow the whole story of this controversy on
the web rather than here. What is relevant, in my opinion, is the
massive quarrel that these news have generated concerning the basic
definition people have of photojournalism and documentary
photography. Many top names stated that if those images would have
retained the award, that would have meant the end of photojournalism.
Others instead tried to argument that photojournalism as we (want to)
know it is long dead and that we should finally come to accept the
different ways now one has to cover a certain subject and tell its
story. Interesting, but what on Earth does it have to do with nature
photography?
In a world where
photojournalism is still identified with authenticity, this story had
some huge repercussions and invited each of us to reflect more in
depth on the general idea of truth in photography. I asked myself
wether documentary photography can be still considered genuine or
not. I have looked at the issue from my perspective of nature
photographer and considering the various degrees of tolerance this
discipline allows. As you might foresee, I have realized that the
answer is definitely not a straightforward one.
I had already partly
written on this on my very first column appeared on these pages and,
in different forms, this is surely a topic that has been debated “ad
nauseam” on every possible existing platform. For example, I bet
that in every nature photography association or club you might have
knowledge of there must have been at least once a lively discussion
on it. And, almost always, such endless debates remain unsolved...
Most of non-nature
photographers (there are also some hardcore disbelievers, of course)
often assume that our hobby/profession must be one of the very last
strongholds of pure documentary photography and thus look in genuine
awe at our images, evaluating them by the odd and “exotic” worlds
they reveal to their eyes. Or, perhaps more naïvely, they do so by
commending the tremendous effort the photographer must have put in
them. People still consider nature images “true” or want to
believe they are. On the other hand, we all are aware of how far from
reality unfortunately all this can be. I don't think I need to summon
here the infamous facilities where animals are raised just for the
purpose of the visual media industry (we used to call them “game
farms”, remember?) or all the more or less harmful trickery we
regularly make use of to take memorable images. Humans' ingenuity
doesn't know borders and so there is a universe of available tricks,
perhaps as many as the nature photographers shooting out there: they
span from baiting brown bears with dog cookies, to spraying glicerine
drops as fake dew on flowers; from cooling down restless butterflies
in the refrigerator to simply whistle at a passing deer to make it
look at the photographer... There are indeed endless possibilities to
make our vision become “real”. The quality standards are so high
that we are almost forced to embellish reality in order to make it
more appealing, and because of this pressure the result often seems
to justify any method. Some ways are easier to accept than others;
some are “minor sins”, whilst other remain definitely bad
behaviors. Even if we know that the situations are not so realistic
anymore, in most cases we are not capable to judge the authenticity
of the images and thus accept them with good faith. Apparently there
is no hope for defining true nature photography, then.
Beware, I am not here to
draw attention again on the ethical aspects of nature photography,
but instead on what we consider as “true”. Let me explain it
better with an example I know quite well: myself. I have always
thought to be a true wildlife photographer. One who spends enormous
time researching on a subject and waiting somewhere for it to appear
or do something, and avoiding as much as possible any interaction
with it. I mostly refuse to use tricks and sometimes looked with
dismay at those photographers who made the goal prevail on the
process. On many occasions, my fundamentalist approach has not turned
very productive and I had to live with its consequences: much weaker
images than those taken with other methods. But it has been always
OK, since I strive to experience nature rather than represent
it and to inform people with a correct message.
I have long considered
this approach to be “authentic” and pure, but have never really
tried to look at myself from an external perspective. Does my
approach guarantee for true images or am I perhaps missing something?
The fact of being there,
of leaving my smell around of drawing incidentally the subject's
attention probably was already an interaction with the subject.
Besides, since we all know that photography is more about what is
left out of the compostion than what is in, my choice of lenses and
framing together with the editing process is also there to determine
entirely what I would end up showing people or not. These thoughts
opened my eyes. There is no way any of my pictures could be
considered fully authentic.
So, I started reflecting
on the fact that photography, even in a scenario (the natural one)
where our control can be minimal, is and will forever remain a form
of art: the realization of a strong mental image. Therefore, we can't
keep on fooling ourselves any longer by pretending photographs to be
100% true and pristine views of the world. We are humans and
photography can be of our tools allowing us to explore the Planet,
learn about ourselves, express our vision and share all this with
others. Great, but this comes at the price that we will always be in
the images, then. We must take into account the photographer's input
every time we look at an image. This doesn't have to be necessarily
bad, but can truth be found at all in documentary photography?
Of course it can! The
truth is still out there, shining bright as never before. Only we
shouldn't look for it in single images. The truth cannot be found in
the picture: it lies out of the frame. It spills from the
approach and the intention of the photographer. His or her choices
define the message and thus confirms the power, and the
responsibility, offered by this visual media. It shouldn't be seen as
a defeat but actually a great reaffirmation of the importance of the
individual's own vision and commitment.
pictures and words ©Bruno D'Amicis - www.brunodamicis.com. All rights reserved worldwide.
