I am reading this book and, although I already have a good knowledge of the wildlife visual arts (both static and video), I am struck.
Once again it seems appropriate to ask to myself some questions…
Are we educating people and, above all, the young generations to look for sensationalism (which apparently is very human, but very Nature-unlike)?
Are we damaging and killing individuals and species trying to offer to the public close-up (never full-frame enough) experiences, expecially of the endangered ones?
Are the marketing-like techniques of capturing the public interest having the effect of being asked for more, more gory details, more invasive approaching, more image and appearance, more entertainment and shock, less real culture?
Isn't this walking into the wild to get the best prey I can (even if in pixels form), no matter what, quite off-mark?
Shouldn't some wildlife photography workshops be defined as hunt, even if they don't involve guns?
Some "clients" ask for guaranteed encounters, close and exciting.
They pay for that. They don't pay for the experience of being immersed in wild places, of breathing clean air, of learning something about the environment and its fragility.
They don't pay for the CHANCE of observing and photographing wildlife creatures.
They pay for guaranteed results… often not even worrying about putting the life of wild creatures in peril.
Isn't this hunting?
Isn't this asking for… game?