Prior to reading Bart H Welling's "Ecoporn: On the Limits
of Visualizing the Nonhuman," my definition of pornography was akin to
wiki's definition of "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of
sexual gratification." The reason Welling chose to coin the word
“Ecopornography,” was to link attributes associated with the word
‘pornography.’ Rather than being strictly of sexual subject matter, ecoporn,
like pornography, depicts scenes that are often ideal – better than real life –
and in the act concealing the reality of the situation. Rather than pursuing
sexual gratification, the pursuit is in viewing majestic, beautiful, feminized
depictions of unspoiled panoramas.
Additionally, I would guess that Welling chose
pornography as a comparison because of the negative and controversial nature of
pornography. Porn is often looked down upon in society; its content is often forced
underground out of the public eye; Its actors are ‘dirty,’ and can’t fit back
into society, blocked from ‘clean’ jobs like teaching (but not politics.)
Ecoporn is similar in argument that it is ‘bad,’ to the degree that it causes
more harm than good. It is argued that policy is altered due to the use of
ecopornographic images distorting the public eye of the truth behind the
scenes. Such as with the argument Welling puts forth about Great White Sharks
being manipulated into expending a great deal of energy hunting decoy seals for
the purpose of capturing images.
His first reason is that “ecoporn perpetuates
ways of seeing feminized,” such as with the roles of wildlife films in changing
the perspective of Africa as an “untouched animal paradise;” which paved the
way for the displacement of indigenous populations (Welling 58).
His second reason is that “ecoporn places the
viewer in the role of the male surveyor… to Nature’s aestheticized female
object.” Which Kappeler’s argument reinforces, “The fundamental problem at the
root of men’s behavior in the world…is the way men see women, is Seeing
(Welling 58, Kappeler)
His third reason being that ecoporn is fueling a
fantasy of what Kappeler called the “wild animal-woman, the sexual beast.” (Welling
58, Kappeler)
Although Welling has provided a number of
compelling arguments of how ecoporn is shaping our world, not all his arguments
are about ecoporn, but rather nature itself. Such as when he makes the argument
that ecoporn is designed to arouse fear in women and to promote their need for
male protection because of images that promote “nature as dominated by aggressive
and violent males.”
I do agree though, that ecoporn is created at the
disadvantage of the nonhuman subjects. The lion being displayed or the
landscape being romanticized has only ill to gain from being ecopornisized. The
practices that result in ecoporn are also often questionable, but the worst
part is how ecoporn is being used. The business of profiting from ecoporn
rarely benefits the animals being exploited.
But then again, Ecoporn is not always a bad
thing... What do you think about these? :
Works Cited
Welling, Bart H. "Ecoporn, On the Limits of
Visualizing the Nonhuman"
I have to agree with the concepts you brought to light in your blog post. The different connotations of porn vary depending on personal views, but for the most part it has a negative implications. Ecoporn, which is a term I had never heard of, is a very interesting concept to me. Very rarely does a viewer see a picture of a wild animal in their true natural habitat. Whales are always jumping out of the water, lions are always running through the jungle, bears are always catching salmon in a river. This makes animals very glamorous, when in reality they are not always in action. It is the same concept as how average people view famous individuals. Celebrities do not always have on ball gowns and a full face of makeup. To me, this is the same idea as “ecoporn”.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, I was very curious about the concept of ecoporn and what the reading would be about. Porn is always associated with sexual actions and seems somewhat taboo, not a subject to be talked about casually, especially in an English class about rhetorical theory. As I read, I agreed with everything you stated. Porn is just the idealization of an action that is not always as glamorous or picture perfect as it may seem, regardless of the content. So in this case, the picturesque nature of the animals being discussed are subject to the “porn” that is being explained.