Welling: EcoPornography

I must admit that I at first thought that this idea or concept of Eco pornography seemed to be unorthodox. As I continued to read his arguments, I began to come to the realization that there are similarities in the way companies pose or arrange animals to look like human bodies or vice versa in order to appeal to a specific audience. “In accordance with agency there is a section that describes the invention by authors who are points of articulation” I related this to Welling because like the example used in the article about PETA, the originator or authors have to invent or create the connections between animal and humans in efforts to make connections to the audience.

With PETA the repetitious connection between animals and human in artistic ways of influence such as form, shape, figure and structural feature allows for this artistic connection to become appealing and acceptable, which also deals with agency. Welling also talks about the connection and views of animals by humans, which can in some aspects make the connection seem false or faulty but it does achieve the goal of connecting or appealing with the audience. For the PETA campaign this seems to be a contradiction because PETA wants a person to become one with the earth and nature, but animals are the controllers of the land and sea in some aspects. (68). PETA makes it seem as if anyone that eats meat is some sort of murderer, and not connected to the earth. PETA wants to continue to separate or dissolve the connections between animal and humans, but reconnect the connection between humans and earth, but animals live here as well. We can’t just disregard animals and connect to earth.

The earth is the domain of all animals. He makes a compelling point that some eco pornographic representations of nature do include humans. (60). this is because the concept must be relatable.

“Eco pornographers have become singularly adept at crafting images of animals and places that appear to be reciprocating our affections, gazing back at us longingly or inviting us to lose ourselves in primal bodyscapes that visually recapitulate the pastoral vocabulary employed by early explorers” (62) this is an example of allowing the connection between animals and humans regardless of how each are viewed effectively.

All of these techniques impose a style of rhetoric that engages any and all audiences that have emotions towards humans or animals. I guess this is some of the benefit of agency and rhetoric when it is working in the favor of the campaign. I somewhat feel that this is unfair. If humans don’t view animals as the pressure creature that I think that they are, then why try so hard to make a connect between animals and humans in a visual yet sympathetic way. I think it time to be fair to both animals and humans.