Ecoporn, how to identify it and the effect it has on the public's illusion of nature

When I first started reading Ecoporn by Bart H. Welling it took me some time to get into the flow of his writing style. The first part of Welling's essay that really resonated with me was when I read Welling's argument that ecoporn was constructing an illusion of what nature really was. This idea really startled me because I couldn't imagine that what I had seen in nature pictures taken by NatGeo weren't real. And by not real I don't mean that they don't exist at all, but that they don't exist in normal conditions.

For example, take the images I have included below.


In Image 1, you clearly see that the tiger is jumping up for something but you can't see what it is or where the picture is taken. The second thing I noticed is that the image is extremely high resolution and you can almost see every perfect muscle in the tiger's leg. This image made me laugh out loud because it is a perfect example of ecoporn. By this I mean that it is highly unlikely that you will ever see a tiger jump and look like this. It just isn't going to happen. Welling stated that "instead of educating the public about ecosystem abuses and mobilizing dissent, [ecoporn] anesthetize[s] viewers by constructing and illusion of [a] pure [and] safe [nature]" (Welling). Though this picture doesn't necessarily give off the "safe" vibe, it does construct an unrealistic idea of what a tiger looks like. Now take a look at Image 2. This picture was taken by someone who works with tigers daily. This image is what tigers look like with out all the image enhancements. Yeah the picture doesn't look as appealing as Image 1, but it is what you would see if you were actually there. Image 1 is unrealistic while Image 2 is more practical.

Image 1.

(Image: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5602492)

Image 2.

(Image: http://www.singlevisioninc.org/Tiger_Training/tiger_training.htm)

Sometimes judging whether the image is ecoporn or not is pretty difficult, but generally there is one easy way of separating the wheat from the chaff. By taking into consideration who the artist or "author" of the image is, you can usually tell if the image is ecoporn or not. Lets take another look at the images from above. Image 1 was taken by Wrecked Earth Photography, a company who's sole purpose is to take beautiful photos. Knowing that the artist has some bias towards art-like photos allows you to put the photo in context. Now lets take Image 2, which was taken by a person who works with tigers daily. This picture is very natural and raw, this is because the artist had no need to doctor the photo. Image 2 allows you to see the whole scene, not just part of it. In other words the Wrecked Earth photo is greenwashed because it has intentions other than just showing a picture of a jumping tiger.

So why does it matter? Why cant we just live happily in our false reality and just go on with our daily lives? Well first off, because the ecoporn we see every day isn't realistic our safety can be put at risk. Take for example the story of a baby who's mother smeared honey on the hand of her child in order to attract a bear to lick it off. Many people see movies, videos, and photos of people interacting with bears. In these images bears are portrayed as being calm and kind creatures, which isn't always the case. Because of this ecoporn, and false sense of reality, this child was mauled and had their hand bitten off. This could have all been avoided by correctly portraying the dangers associated with bears and by not romanticizing them. This specific example of how ecoporn is dangerous is only one of thousands including but not limited to unknown pollution, deforestation, and unrealistic beliefs about animals. So before you go believing whatever you see, make sure you are not falling victim to ecoporn trickery and that you don't just take one image as the absolute truth.

Welling, Bart H. "Ecoporn, On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman"