At first glance, ‘756’ was just as I remembered – hundreds of huge animals on a grand African canvas. Beautiful, epic and historic.
The closer I looked though, the more intrigued I became.
I’ve always assumed ‘756’ is an aerial photograph, but the elephants in it don’t appear to be reacting to a plane. Normally, if you fly above elephants like that, at least a few will turn around to see what the noise is. If none are reacting, it suggests that something else is more important.
You're welcome. I have a different reaction, though. I think this is an example of the importance of context. I ran across this blog post in the replies to a tweet: Rather, it shows that a...
You're welcome. I have a different reaction, though. I think this is an example of the importance of context.
I ran across this blog post in the replies to a tweet:
Abundance dies twice - in the field, and in memory. One of the greatest struggles facing all restoration-initiatives in conservation is the tyranny of low expectations.
Rather, it shows that a non-expert can be misled by a photograph to have the wrong expectations - particularly if they were biased to begin with and using it to prove a point. Apparently the original tweet got 4 million views, so a lot of people are now under the impression that elephant herds used to look like that. (Unless they happened to see the right replies like I did.)
Without context, we don't know what we're looking at. The blogger had learned enough about elephant behavior and wildlife photography that something didn't seem quite right when he saw photo a second time, and he cared enough to do a bit of research to confirm his hunches.
But we aren't likely to do that just by sitting with a photograph, if we don't have the right experience. At most we might be a little puzzled, but there are lots of puzzling photographs. If you're curious enough, maybe you'll be motivated to do some research, but often we aren't.
(Also, it's possible that the blog post is wrong, too. I judge it to be plausible, but I don't actually know much about elephants. )
From the article:
This is a great example of what can get revealed the more you sit with a photograph, or any piece of art really. Great piece, thanks for sharing.
You're welcome. I have a different reaction, though. I think this is an example of the importance of context.
I ran across this blog post in the replies to a tweet:
Rather, it shows that a non-expert can be misled by a photograph to have the wrong expectations - particularly if they were biased to begin with and using it to prove a point. Apparently the original tweet got 4 million views, so a lot of people are now under the impression that elephant herds used to look like that. (Unless they happened to see the right replies like I did.)
Without context, we don't know what we're looking at. The blogger had learned enough about elephant behavior and wildlife photography that something didn't seem quite right when he saw photo a second time, and he cared enough to do a bit of research to confirm his hunches.
But we aren't likely to do that just by sitting with a photograph, if we don't have the right experience. At most we might be a little puzzled, but there are lots of puzzling photographs. If you're curious enough, maybe you'll be motivated to do some research, but often we aren't.
(Also, it's possible that the blog post is wrong, too. I judge it to be plausible, but I don't actually know much about elephants. )