Sally Alexander

Still snowing/ raining and I am still surfing. I have been reading some old Carnival of the Vanities links and finding some really really good writing, and good interesting posts. I found this interesting article at a blog called Dances with Moths. The post examines the ethics of bird baiting in order to get great photographs. The central question is (I think) what is the role we play as watchers and photographers? Are we passive watchers or do we elect a more active role. Throwing out bait, whether to an owl, or a tiger is essentially crossing an invisible line. The watcher is no longer a passive and patient observer, watching and recording a natural world unfold. We are manipulating the world around us. So, if we take a photograph (and I am sure it would be a spectacular photograph) of a baited animal and we don’t disclose what we have done, we are in turn manipulating an unsuspecting audience. No one likes to be taken for a fool. We like to believe that what we are presented with happened naturally. To find out after the fact that a certain photograph has been essentially “faked” is to understand that we have been manipulated, and taken for a fool.
The other question is do we think that every single “faked” situation should be disclosed? Do we really want to know whether a certain documentary is all natural or that in fact there was an element of “cheating” involved? A part of me wonders whether such disclosure is really worth it? I wonder what proportion of nature photography and film making is all natural, and what proportion is set up with lights and mirrors? Do we rely on the individual ethics of photographers and film makers, not to “cheat” but to do things the long and hard way?
As an audience, I know that I do not want to be manipulated; that I want to believe that what I am seeing is a combination of photographer skill, and patience to capture a true and natural moment.