In an earlier post, we discussed how art is able to influence one to make a positive change for the environment, but what if the artwork is not what it appears to be? Jo commented that she felt disheartened after seeing photographs of animals having their habitats destroyed, like the one below*, but she had concerns as to whether photographers and artists may over exaggerate their works. Are audiences able to tell if a work has been exaggerated and what implications does this have on art-making?
(*Note: I originally attached a photograph of a dying koala in a burning forest but due to copyright issues, it has been removed. If you would like to see the image, do let me know in the comments and I could share it with you privately.)
To see how audiences responded to artistic and photographic works, I conducted a survey among my peers (includes both BES and non-BES respondents), asking them for their thoughts on the photograph above. Many respondents expressed that they felt very sad for the koalas after seeing the photograph and 63.3% of them believed that it was real.
Results of the survey
Here comes the big plot twist: I fabricated the image of the koala (bet you didn’t see that coming)!
If you thought it was real, this can mean two things:
1. My Photoshop skills are fantastic.
2. Audiences can easily be manipulated to believe inaccurate information.
Although this was a fun experiment (and I probably burnt some bridges along the way), the second statement is rather worrying. With the advent of the internet and the advancement of photo editing software, it is getting easier to spread misleading works which could be used to misinform. Some may exaggerate their work because they wish for audiences to understand that environmental issues are no laughing matter. While it is commendable that some artists want to use their work for the greater good, there is a fine line between artistic representation and over-exaggeration. If artists are not careful in this aspect, their work may provide an inaccurate picture of the environmental situation. Furthermore, artists and creators should reflect on how this may affect their integrity and credibility as using such works may discourage audiences from taking action if they were to find out that some works are not what they seem to be.
It may sound like artists are the ones to blame but audiences have a part to play in this as well. As the results of the survey suggested, apart from a few sharp-eyed respondents, many were unable to tell that my photograph was fake, highlighting the need for audiences to be more conscious of the works they are consuming. Perhaps audiences could do a quick fact-check before sharing artistic works so that they do not contribute to the issue of misinformation being spread online. That being said, this issue is far from easy to solve, I hope that both artists and audiences can work together to ensure the authenticity of environmental artworks!
References
Image source for the forest fire: Bushwick, S. (2019). Watch a Raging Forest Fire Surround You in 360 Degrees. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/watch-a-raging-forest-fire-surround-you-in-360-degrees/. The image on the website was originally sourced from Getty Images (creator unknown.) “Raging Bushfire Kimberley Region Western” (n.d.) is licensed by Getty Images.
Image source for the koala: “Australian Animals” cover image (n.d.) by the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia (NFSA). Retrieved from https://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/curated/australian-animals
September 28, 2020 at 1:31 pm
Hi Sarah-Ann,
This is fascinating. Really glad you followed up on my suggestion, and delivered something so unique and chock full of insight. Super well-written too.
Mix this with some info from external sources to support your conclusions and you’re taking your work to the next level. Since many of your digital literacy, writing and thinking skills are already quite advanced, I invite you to go down that path.
jc
September 28, 2020 at 1:58 pm
Hi Dr Coleman, thank you for the feedback and the suggestion from two weeks ago, I will definitely take including external sources into account when creating future posts. Writing this was fun and I am really glad you liked it!
September 30, 2020 at 12:25 pm
Hi Sarah! I have to admit that when I first saw the photo, a part of me did think it was real, but given that I do photography, I was able to quickly realise that the colour of the koala just didn’t sit too well with the rest of the otherwise fiery background. Nevertheless, it was fun to look at and kudos to you for being able to pull something like this off haha (though I’m not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing).
Nevertheless, it was interesting to read your insights about using fabricated photos to get people to think a certain way. However, I was wondering if there was another way to look at this (i.e. fabricated photos might not do as much harm if they can convince people to do something good for the environment, provided that there is no malicious intent of encouraging donations etc.), and I am curious to hear about your thoughts on this flip side opinion!
I’d also love to hear your thoughts on words/ phrasing used too. For example, there was a GreenPeace video on unconventional sources of oil that I was shown in class back in Poly (it’s not available anymore sadly) and it was criticised by my lecturer due to the use of emotive language, which shouldn’t be the case. Do you think that the words used have much of a part to play as visuals, even if they might be easily missed (i.e. I’m more of a visual than an audio learner so I actually didn’t pick out the problems with the language initially)?
Looking forward to hearing from you soon!
October 1, 2020 at 12:46 am
Hi Natasha, thanks for stopping by my blog! I think it’s rather concerning that I was able to pull off an experiment like this and it was quite shocking to find out how many people actually fell for my photoshopped image. Some respondents even thought that it was an image taken from another website! I hope that more viewers would be more aware of the works they see online.
You mentioned that fabricated images can get people to think a certain way and I do think that there is some truth to this statement. While these photographs can be used to stir emotions and I think it is acceptable to include some artistic flair in one’s work, creators should be conscious of the messages they are trying to communicate to audiences. It may sound harmless to create such images but I think it would still be best if readers/creators do take time to understand what they are looking at as it is an important part of environmental literacy as well!
I think my geography teacher did talk about this GreenPeace video before, but I do not have much recollection of it. As for the language aspect, I think that it is acceptable to use emotive language (in fact our ENV1101 blogs use emotive language too!), but creators do have to be careful when using such language. Looking back at some of the content we have learned in ENV1202, emotive language can encourage others to make a change. Unfortunately, if it is not used well, using emotive language could come off as rather antagonistic towards some groups and it could end up turning them away from environmental causes. Perhaps this may be the reason some criticise the use of emotive language. I do think that language is a very important aspect when it comes to the communication of environmental messages! Both visual and linguistic elements play a part and I would argue that they are both equally important in effective communication. Hope that answers your questions!