One of the more interesting bodies of work by Yann Arthus Bertrand is his series of portraits of people and their animals. Although he is best known for his aerial photography, his people/animal portraits are more humanistic and more engaging.

Bertrand has become involved in environmental issues in many ways and with a number of initiatives that are too numerous to list here but can be seen on his web site. His studio’s output has become prodigious with many interesting and powerful projects. One of his latest works is a movie called HOME that is available for free viewing on You Tube.

Personally, I find these portraits of animals with their people one of his most interesting projects. This work highlight the long standing inter-dependency between people and nature – in this case nature as ‘the animal’. Be it the raising and care of cattle for food or dairy, the use of horses for labor or show, or the important bond that we have with our companion animals, the link between the human and the animal is deep and unbreakable.

These images show that, in very many ways, our lives are inextricably linked with a non-human ‘nature’ and that humanity will be all the poorer – and likely non-viable without it. To me, this is a much more powerful way of highlighting the value of conservation activities than the usual and no longer interesting narrative of the Human as interloper and destroyer of a romanticized, perfect and untouched “Nature”. HOME – the movie, repeats this same narrative and therefore, for me, is less powerful than these intimate portraits.

These images highlight the fact that “nature” is everywhere around us – part of our everyday lives both practically and culturally. Nature does not just exist in wilderness areas and national parks.

For the first time ever, 20 foot trees from the Royal Estate were, at the request of the Royal couple, brought inside Westminster Abbey to line the ceremonial passage – particularly appropriate in this International Year of the Forests. The importance of Nature also made it into the Bishop’s address.

There is maybe nothing that expresses the culture constructed by humanity as much as the pageantry of a British royal wedding. It is heartening that, on this occasion and, maybe, in line with the thoughts and feelings of a new generation, Nature has, for the first time, become an invited guest.

The trees softened the Abbey’s severe, if grand, gothic vaults with the softness of nature and a celebration of spring. In somewhat of a post-modern twist, the Bishop of London in his address called for a shift from the modernist pursuit of knowledge and technology to a focus on wisdom and respect for nature – and each other.

“We stand looking forward to a century which is full of promise and full of peril. Human beings are confronting the question of how to use wisely the power that has been given to us through the discoveries of the last century. We shall not be converted to the promise of the future by more knowledge, but rather by an increase of loving wisdom and reverence, for life, for the earth and for one another.”

When nature gets invited to a Royal Wedding, maybe environmental and conservation values are truly becoming embedded in our society – at least among the newer generation. Time for celebration indeed.

Stanley Meltzoff was one of the foremost artists/illustrators who painted fish in their undersea environments.  The once mighty bluefin tuna was one of his subjects.

Meltzoff’s work was sought after as illustration by many technical/scientific magazines such as National Geographic, Scientific American and others. In more recent years, the widespread availability of photographic illustration reduced the commercial demand for the work of illustrative artists such as Melkoff.

This and other illustrative artwork, including the vast bulk of ‘wildlife photography’ and ‘nature photography’, raises questions about how such work should be evaluated artistically, and about the impact of such illustration on conservation efforts.

Much illustrative work (painting or photography) aims to be a faithful reproduction of ‘reality’.  In the early days of nature conservation, this served to bring a romanticized view of nature to a public that had little or no opportunity to travel and appreciate the beauty of nature.  The Hudson River School of painting in the US was one such movement.  In photography, Ansel Adams was among the first to use his images for activist conservation purposes.

These days, many have the opportunity to interact directly with nature in one way or another so the relevance of bringing such imagery to the public is significantly diminished.

Also, what is the impact of straight reproduction without artistic interpretation? It may serve a useful purpose as illustration or documentation but is it capable of making us think?