Quote:
Originally Posted by leica007
This is all very good: but I guess the problem remains on the emphasis on feeling rather than meaning and ideology. A pure aesthetics with out politics, or a naïve politics, or worse, aesthetisation of politics. Adams’s photos of nature are devoid of human beings, nature is wild and uninhabited – a space for escapism, a form of idealism. This is a dangerous vision for environmental politics – which I study for my doctoral degree – it advocates conservation of nature without providing any space for human beings. For this vision, human beings are antithetical to nature. The world has seen many such efforts of purging human beings from the natural habitat; Masais of Kenya are one such victim.
|
You raise a fascinating point. Having always wanted to visit Yosemite after seeing Adams' portrayals of it, I was fortunate enough to do so last year. Despite much 'commercialisation', the park has areas which have been 'purged' and still remain 'natural'. The point that I would make is that the vision shown by Adams is what many visitors travel to the park to see - an apparent natural wilderness devoid of humanity! The 'dangerous vision' which you comment on is also used globally in innumerable adverts on the TV all the time. In a very crowded world it is important to retain areas which can still be photographed and appreciate 'natural' beauty in the way Adams did. I MUST try to visit the exhibition (150miles away unfortunately), thanks for commenting on it in such a detailed way.