The Bear Isn't Porn

Bart Welling Makes an interesting argument in his article "Ecoprorn: On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman" and it seems that the way it is presented, there are very few things that can not be "ecoporn." In fact, Welling describes ecoporn as "ecoporn-as-porn places the viewer in the same asymmetrical, sexualized relationship to its subjects as standard pornography, even if its primary goal is not sexual arousal" (Welling, 56). He also notes that "Ecoporn also conceals the doubly invisible forms of damage inflicted on the nonrepresented, nonphotogenic landscapes that are logged, mined, dammed, polluted..." (Welling, 57).

When looking at pictures depicting animals, it is indeed important to think about how those photos came to be and what they are not showing. Much like a movie, it is the director's choice to show or not show their production equipment, the town over the hill, etc. In any case, Welling proposes that ecoporn feminizes nature. To say that nature carries a feminine characteristic is quite true. English has no masculine or feminine nouns, but if you take French as an example, “La Nature” is feminine.

I would like to draw a difference, however. This picture of a polar bear sifting through trash is, I would propose, not ecorporn. Welling, I imagine, might disagree. Here we see a creature that does not “look back” it appears “unaware that they are being photographed…” (Welling, 66). This is also a polar bear, one of the most awed creatures around. For centuries they have held a status similar to that of lions: powerful, graceful, dangerous creatures. That they could be “captured” in film seems already to “feminize” them. That man could subject such a creature to a photograph, to get it vulnerable enough to submit to something like that seems like a feminization to me. It is an ideal continuation of the idea of “male heroic narratives in nature programs often follow hard on the heels of hunting plots and colonial discovery narratives” (Welling, 61).

And yet, I do not believe that this is ecoporn. There is something distinctly non-sensual about it. First of all, this land is not “virgin.” It is covered by human garbage. The apparent ignorance of the bear is likely due to the fact that it does not care and probably has nothing to do with the kind of subjugation Welling speaks of. The bear must know the photographer is there, but he is disinterested. This point is not hidden by the photograph. The bear is not immersed entirely in its exploration of the trash, but could just as easily be looking at the photographer. The bear, effectively, breaks the “fourth wall.” Instead of being ecoporn, this picture represents a very real subjugation. There is nothing sensual about it. It is notable only because of its juxtapositions and the fact that most people do not commonly see polar bears. And yet, contrary to Welling’s argument, the polar bear does not “speak” for itself. It is simply a polar bear rummaging through trash, ignoring the cameraman. What speaks is subjugation. Not an animal, but rather a situation.