Search
  • Home
  • Game
  • Amba Opa Dupa
  • MS/Bridget
  • Singles
  • Contact/About
Close
Menu
Search
Close
  • Home
  • Game
  • Amba Opa Dupa
  • MS/Bridget
  • Singles
  • Contact/About
Menu

Will Clarkson

photographer

March 21, 2014

Matthias Klostermayr, Social Politics of Poaching and Photography

by Will Clarkson in conservation, documentary photography, photojournalism, photography, wildlife


The gruesome execution of Matthias Klostermayr (wikipedia)

The gruesome execution of Matthias Klostermayr (wikipedia)

The gruesome execution of Matthias Klostermayr (wikipedia)

The gruesome execution of Matthias Klostermayr (wikipedia)

Ever since the concept of ownership of land and the hunting rights that come with it, poaching has been deeply counter-cultural and anti-authoritarian. Disappointingly today this is poorly covered in photography; the images coming out reinforce the mistakes being made. The global scale of poaching is a war but it is covered photographically entirely from the anti-poaching side, not only is this counterproductive but it also reveals a misunderstanding of lessons learnt from the past. 

From early humans to civilised ones, hunting for food became poaching - illegal, immoral and subversive to landowners and authorities alike. It was at the same time heroic, daring and countercultural in the eyes of the peasants from which most notorious poachers have emerged.

Today it has taken on a global scale and developed an ugly new definition. Species become more rare and demand rises inexorably. It's also a stark representation of a global gap in wealth - resulting in the clash of preservation. for the interests of a group that can afford to not exploit the wildlife, and necessity, for a group that have limited choice but to exploit. 

Matthias Klostermayr was a Bavarian outlaw and folk hero from the 18th Century. His story is reminiscent of Robin Hood's; both are shrouded in legend and rumour, both are remembered as working class icons, irrespective of their backgrounds and of the fact that many innocents died on account of their actions. Forgetting their political significance, it could also be argued that these characters were a considerable problem for the smooth running of their areas of operation.

The legends surrounding them reveal social resentment, something we have come to take for granted in the past and sometimes ignore in the present. The Bavarian Haisl, as Klostermayr came to be known, started out as a poacher and with growing fame he became the leader of a gang that robbed and plundered southern Bavaria. Exploiting fragmented territories and principalities, he was incredibly hard to catch and through theft was able to help the impoverished and poor he was surrounded by. Princes and high clergy saw him as a criminal and on catching him subjected him to a gruesome torturous death. In fact many of these stories end in capture and gruesome death, a manifestation of the anger and fear inspired in the authorities under threat. 

He was more than a criminal though, he was a manifestation of the poor cooperation and petty rivalries in the area and was indicative of a deeply unhappy impoverished underclass.

Traditionally, poaching in the UK is an enjoyable play of cunning and wits, romanticised by the likes of Rhoald Dahl in Danny the Champion of the World and Fantastic Mr Fox. Outwitting the gamekeeper/farmer was daring, exciting and glorious adventure. Of course this was a dangerous trade, again punishments were severe for those who were caught. 

It has been a major news story in recent years as rhino and elephant populations have plummeted in the interests of the illegal ivory trade. A potent cocktail of fragmented territories, poverty, instability, porous borders, industrialisation, and globalisation (the last two aside, there's little difference between Klostermayr's Bavaria and Southern Africa today) has made it a massive and unsustainable problem. There's little doubt that the likes of South Africa see the crisis as an insurgency, their sovereignty inextricably linked to their flagship national parks, from which poachers seem to be able to remove ivory at will. 

Most of those shooting for ivory are poor; in fact poverty and poaching hotspots are closely associated in Africa. They will either be arrested or shot (often the latter) if caught. The gap in understanding is staggering - it seems to me that the more militarised the defence of national parks, the higher the price of ivory. Those who claim to be defending the rhinos are actually creating a tighter market, decreasing supply, increasing risk.

They're actually creating the market that they are so adamant in stopping. The more they militarise, the better the ivory trade and profits from it. 

Klostermayr and Hood were heroes of their time, beloved subversives, thieves and poachers. Poachers today are unnamed and anonymous for the most part, expendable impoverished entities in a massive global trade. If they do nothing there's little to no paid work, if they poach they risk death and incarceration.

Julian Rademeyer's excellent book Killing For Profit (published 2012 and well worth a read for anyone interested in the subject) states on the final page that "...more than 80 per cent of arrests continue to be those of poachers - low-level hired guns from impoverished villages in Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. They are cannon fodder, easily replaced." 

So what's this got to do with photography and photojournalism? Well, a little and a lot. The story is being covered exclusively from the side of the "heroes" defending the rhinos and elephants. Brave men yes, soldiers yes, efficient maybe, effective no, as is clear in the Kruger. I'm yet to see a story that tells me why impoverished Africans are inclined to take the paycheck for ivory. I'm yet to read an article in a national newspaper telling me about the incentives to poach, I am yet to see a photo project telling me about these poachers. The photography being produced is not useful - it perpetuates and justifies what is already going wrong and makes heroes of the soldiers enacting a "just war", something that is incredibly hard to come by nowadays. It also criminalises the poacher, potentially the greatest weapon in turning the tide in this war. 

Conservation photographers are moving across into this pseudo war photography and some are doing a fantastic job. It would, however, be great to see a balanced view of the situation and get to understand the other side better. Poachers aren't aliens - there's a reason they do what they do and risk their lives in doing so. The better we understand this the faster we can solve the problems - their problems are inextricably linked to their environment. 

 

TAGS: poaching, africa, kruger, national, park, insurgency, war, poverty, misunderstanding, photography, photojournalism, ivory, trade, globalisation, social politics of poaching, klostermayr, haisl, bavaria, bavarian, robin hood


February 14, 2014

I am not a wildlife photographer, I never was.

by Will Clarkson in wildlife, photojournalism, photography, outdoors, documentary photography, conservation, blood sport


I left my City job three years ago, all the gear and no idea, with the intent of being a wildlife photographer. I've wanted to be one as long as I can remember, but on closer inspection I was met with a great sense of disappointment. I no longer want to be one. The change is a seriously hard process, the imagery I always wanted to make suddenly does little for me. 

I set out with enthusiasm. Some of the work was good and I still use it today, but most matched my inexperience. With modern equipment and a decent budget it isn't totally inaccessible to become a wildlife photographer, but becoming a good one is very difficult. 

What constitutes a good one? A better question is what is a wildlife photographer? Frankly, I don't know. I began to realise that all these photographers I had grown up worshipping were good image makers (some great), but the message was misleading. I tell myself that's just life - never meet your hero, they will inevitably not match the unfair expectations you lay on them. Some think a good one is the one that got results, but this implies that the means justify the image, and clearly they do not. Wildlife photographers have contributed enormously to conservational work, that much is true. But not all of them, not by any means.

What really disappointed me, and remained disappointing under closer scrutiny, was that the image being produced was idealistic, every time. A portrait of an animal always denies the surroundings, hiding from the viewer a true view for context.

This opinion of mine doesn't garner many friends in that world, sadly. The intellectualisation isn't welcome. It's perceived as a threat, which is really isn't. The dissemination of imagery is so important that we must discuss it. It's reminiscent of the struggle of all photographers, new things mean new threats to photography, a medium changing at an alarming rate. This change is opportunity for rebirth. Lewis Bush puts it far better than I do, "To be sure we have our own photographic monks and monasteries today, eager to retain their privileged positions as custodians of creation or curation".

I took a portrait of a young red grouse in my endeavours in 2011 and it's not a bad one (pictured at top). It looks wild, exciting, conveys images of unkempt moorland, perfect light (luckily) and captures the grouse in a rare moment of revealing itself. It was, in fact, a wonderful experience. It was, in fact, just by a road in the Peak District. Red grouse are, in fact, abundant in that spot because local grouse moor shoots facilitate an unnaturally high number of red grouse in the area. On this moor they are not shot, the moor is open to the public, so in effect it is a safe haven. Can you get that from this image? Is this image telling us about red grouse? I personally think the second image below, of two grouse in burnt heather, is much more relevant, however I am repeatedly told that my image isn't good, irrespective of relevant content. It's still idealistic and lacks proper context, but it shows that the grouse live on in burnt moorland. What's more important? A pretty picture or relevance, meaning and depth? I'll take the latter every time. 

_MG_5879 (2).jpg

How many tiger images have we seen? How many people want to see a tiger in the wild in India before "it is too late"? The images we see of tigers, on the whole, must be taken from the vehicle, this is the law. As soon as one is seen there will be a traffic jam of safari trucks descending on the spot where this tiger is. The image won't tell us that. Have a look at Tony Heald's image from India. This is what is actually happening. On a smaller scale in the UK we are intruding, interfering, tweaking and "helping". 

This is the most significant change I have taken since leaving my old job, and has taken a while. It's a stressful one as my plans needed to reboot.

I am not a wildlife photographer - I never was in truth. Frankly I don't even know what one is. The experiences I've had have repeatedly told me that human influences and interferences are the most ubiquitous and relevant element, and it is there that I will point my camera. 

TAGS: red grouse, lapogus lapogus, moor, grouse shooting, blood sport, context, wildlife photography, commoditisation of wildlife, change, modernisation, tiger, india, safari, conservation, critique, lewis bush, disphotic, peak district, muirburn


  • Newer
  • Older