I was interested to read the judges' comments on the "Pictures From the Surface of Aotearoa" competition. Much of the work was easily dismissed as "scenic." I didn't manage to achieve a "highly commended," so I wondered where I went wrong. Is my photography "scenic"? Is scenic the same as nature photography? Is nature photography art?
I was thinking about these things as I walked up the Bridle Path today, and here are my tentative answers.
Art is the original exploration of truth, aesthetics, form, or the human condition. It is the exploration of ideas, but not all ideas. Engineering, for example, isn't art. Perhaps, the human condition then is an essential ingredient. Perhaps art must have no practical purpose. (Sure, a decorated chair might be art, but is the decoration itself practical? Without the decoration, would the chair still be art or just something to sit on?)
Photography can explore any of these four aspects of art, although I think it is better at form. Conversely, a novel is probably a better medium for exploring what it is to be human. Nevertheless, I think good art explores all these aspects to some degree.
So how does nature photography relate to this definition of art? Wildlife photography I think is more a craft than an art. It's rather like hunting. Try photographing a sparrow well and you'll see what I mean. It's about getting in close, framing fast, predicting behaviour, and expecting to throw away a lot of pictures. Landscape photography is the other main wing of nature photography. Landscapes run from the cityscape at one extreme to the pristine wilderness at the other. Generally, only half of that range would be called nature photography: that's the half where nature is dominant.
So can nature photography, a field that diminishes or devalues the role of humans, say anything about the human condition? I would suggest that it is relatively difficult. But should it even try?
So is it an exploration of form? Sure, it can be. An unfurling fern frond is a (cliché) example of this. How about truth? Well, I don't know about that. Not really. Beauty? I think beauty is an important element in almost all nature photography. But does it explore beauty? To explore, you have to go somewhere new. Perhaps you have to challenge conventional ideas about what beauty is. This I think is where it gets difficult. How do you even do this? Do any of my pictures do this? Perhaps nature photography is very good at presenting us with conventionally appealing ("scenic") images, but not so good at breaking new ground.
So is it art? Is a photograph of a distant galaxy art? I think most of us would say that it isn't, although certainly a thing of wonder. To me, nature photography is an exploration of rapture: a celebration of the beauty around us. Perhaps it is in fact the opposite of art: the exaltation of the Universe, and the diminishment of the ego. What then is it exploring? Depersonalisation? The interconnectedness of all things?