Improving the world with a photo
Inerview by Helen Arusoo, journal Loodusesõber
Translation: Liis
The world may be more improved by a good photo than by politics. Urmas Tartes.
Urmas Tartes: Snow springtail
The award to nature photographer Urmas Tartes in the eminent Veolia Environnement Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest - belonging to the absolute elite of all photo contests - shines among the memorable events of the past year for Estonian nature friends. In the interview with journal Loodusesõber's editor Helen Arusoo, Urmas talks about why great photo contests don’t favour accidental winners.
Photo: Inga Tartes
Where now, Urmas, the mountain peak has been conquered?
On one hand there is a sense of security, you really are at the tip of the world. Earlier, there were hopes and assumptions. On the other hand now there is an obligation to go on doing as well. Certainly I have to start repaying my debts: start working with things that as a photographer I have touched very seldom up to now. You know that I have for instance been very sparing with books; every thing has to come in its own time. Man must be ready for the thing. My own web site needs substantial updating. So one has to live up to the dignity of the award, too.
There are no chance wins in that contest?
No. In the jury there are only nature photographers and people working with different aspects of nature photography from all over the world. To each photo the author adds a description, telling what is in the photo and how the photo was made. In the first stage of the contest, where more than 43 000 photos were submitted, there is probably no time to read these texts, but the works that reach the final are very thoroughly discussed. About 100 to 150 photos reach the final in each category (there are 17 categories – Editor’s note) and accidental photos just don’t get there. This means that the victory really boosts one’s self-confidence.
Is it allowed to play around with the photos, for instance create collages, add something?
No, nothing is allowed, no panoramas, no effect working. The photo must be authentic and natural.
It is interesting that the jury knows the names of the authors already before the selection of the photos – the photos aren’t anonymous as for instance in our contests?
When the photos are submitted to the contest there is no making up of a cover name. Even in the photo file names the author's name must show. They know in advance.
Doesn’t that make for favouritism?
I don’t think that it does. And anyway, the photos of certain photographers can be recognized even without the name being given. And it is not forbidden to submit previously published photos, so for published photos the name would be known anyway. So knowing the author’s name isn’t a distorting factor. I asked a jury member earlier about his opinion on previous publishing, and I was told that there are ageless photos that always appear fresh but also others that may have to step down for new ones, because they have become “used”, “worn out”, from viewing.
And one more thing: in this contest the jury always explains why one photo or the other won, something that strongly reduces the issues of previous publication / knowing the author’s name / favouritism. In our contests quite often no one bothers to justify an award, but it should be done. It is an effort-consuming but extremely necessary measure.
A matter of educating the viewer?
Just so. Because if a photo receives an award without motivation precisely then questions arise like “why should that win? I liked this other one much more ...” And of course for the photographers themselves the feedback is really necessary.
Photo: Mats Kangur
How many years of observations went into the photographing of winter insects?
I have been working on that subject – winter insects – for some years. I first discovered insects in snow in the spring but for a long time I thought that there were no insects to be found in winter. Actually there are quite many species whose imagos are active in winter.
Unfortunately some years can be lost years for work with winter insects. The winter before last was basically without snow and, photographing on February 24, the ground was bare and the snow springtail was on a birch trunk instead that time.
Unfortunately some years can be lost years for work with winter insects. The winter before last was basically without snow and, photographing on February 24, the ground was bare and the snow springtail was on a birch trunk instead that time.
How many so to say useless trips in nature do you make?
Useless trips are zero. You expected of course to hear nine out of ten? (laughs slyly.)
No. For an ordinary forest visitor all trips have a meaning; so I thought that photographers aim to get a photo, always.
There are no useless trips even in that sense. Only the number of photos may vary. If you have already been photographing for many days in a row, then you just can’t manage more than a couple of themes per day.
How much do you get out into the forest?
As much as possible. There are no dedicated days or routines.
How much can a photographer interfere with nature?
This isn’t much talked about – that nature photography without humans doesn’t really exist. The photographer is always there in the photo in some way; if discernible or not, that is another question. Another extreme is that in practice there are no virgin forests in Estonia. And many animals approach humans by themselves. The green lacewing (one of the winning photos in Nature Year Photo 2009 – Editor) came into the house by itself to winter. The key issue is that the photographer must not rearrange the environment at his own will, set up a scenario; he must act as part of the nature. If there is a road and it is crossed by an ants’ path, then it is unavoidable that I trample some of them. But I don’t go there with the intention to trample. In making photos too: if I bend some branches it doesn’t matter all that much. Or if I lie down and there will be marks on the grass – I don’t suffer pains for that, deer leave their lie marks too.
But the shaggy scaleheads (see the August 2009 issue of Loodussõber – editor): photographing them you had some qualms, you were there quite often?
Yes, there the thing was beginning to stretch the limits. Even though I visited the mushrooms about once a month, I began to notice my own boot tracks on the ground, something that doesn’t come with a single visit. Even now, two years after the photographing, these tracks are still discernible. Although when an animal makes a den for itself, then it also rearranges nature quite strongly after it own desires. But the shaggy scaleheads grow in Taevaskoja, there one must behave more prudently than an animal.
Tell me - how is it in Estonia: is there a balance between our numbers of hectares and of people or are we too many?
At the moment things work out rather nicely.
When you were in London to get the award ...
… oh, I just wanted to get away. It was fantastic to get around for 2 days, but then that was the limit.
Some nature people think that most people should keep to cities, to save our nature. Tell us what you think as chairman of the Commission for Nature Conservation of the Estonian Academy of Sciences?
Please, let’s leave the titles outside this … It is this issue of leaving tracks – when I put my foot on the ground I leave a track. Nothing else is possible. The track should have disappeared during the next vegetation period. But when there are thousands of track-makers in one place then the tracks stay.
I have been considering this purely theoretically: as much area as is covered by asphalt and urban structures – roads and settlements –as much we should have of sustainable natural environment where people don’t have any business to go. Nature conservation has many levels, some areas should be untouched.
Half joke – all bars and casinos might apply to KIK (the Estonian Environmental Investment Centre), for grants; just imagine if all who hang around there would be out in nature instead. But there must also be areas where it is possible for all to go.
So if all Estonians should want to be out in nature, then there wouldn’t be room?
No. Suppose that all inhabitants in Estonia would wish to be out in nature as much I am there: then we would have problems, yes. Because of this we need organising and directing.
Organised rambles like the bicycle hikes of the Greens are excellent then, a sort of airing for our community?
Surely. But to make the most of nature one must go on one’s own too sometimes, and think, not only hang on in the tracks of others. The organised thing is good, but when you go on your own – that goes deeper into mind and memory.
You are a recognised ideologist in your own group, on nature photography as well as on general issues of ethics in nature. Whatever issue one asks you about: you have already thought it through, and have a considered opinion on it. What about animal rights and welfare, furs and other such issues?
My view is that man is part of nature. But when there are a number of dead insects on my car’s number plate – do I suffer qualms? No, I don’t.
You kill the mosquito?
It depends. If the mosquito really is very annoying, then I kill it, yes. But when I make a mosquito photo, then the one who has been “modelling” for me escapes, usually … Animal rights people as such aren’t protectors of nature, they go to another extreme. Actually: a nature protection person will never become an animal rights person. Which doesn’t mean that nature protectionists would handle animals carelessly. Certainly someone engaged in nature protection won’t leave an animal in a bad state. But the extreme greenness – getting around throwing oneself down outside a sausage factory – is unsound.
But I do have a photo too where there is a dead mosquito. You can guess who killed it? (Urmas’s eyebrows rise expectantly.)
Mmm...Urmas Tartes in person.
Yes, and on my own arm. When I show that photo in an auditorium it stirs a certain recognition reaction. At the same time, for me the photo also raises pity. But when I concentrate on photographing and the mosquito is really a nuisance ... The point is in the limits, it is not necessary to kill off masses of them. But I too have my rights to defend, haven’t I?
In society you also stand up for others, once you were even a candidate for Minister of the Environment …
No, at that time the position was called spokesperson. In the corridor talks it might have been handled as a ministerial chair.
But if the offer were made – would you go into politics
Certainly not any longer. Definitely out of question. I have much more experience now, I can imagine how that kind of life works. It is at a level where at a certain moment you must go against your conscience – given that this conscience exists at all. Or you are pushed into conflict. Theoretically I might consider being a politician in a stable society like Finland or Sweden, where it is possible to work with things based on facts.
But let’s express it like this: I think that in Estonia there are considerably more mediocre politicians than good nature photographers. There is no point in trying to struggle with several things at once. And I know too where my shortcomings in being a politician would be; I know how to hide them and so maybe they don’t stand out. But a fact of life is that at a certain level you may manage to work with many things in parallel, but when you want to go deeper into something, it needs full attention. I see it very clearly when I can write something at leisure, it works out so much better than when I am pressed to find time in between other things. If you want to do things well, then you have to have time and be free from other interfering noise.
So that leaves only the Club of Rome?
Yes (laughs), I am a member there, true.
Photo: Mats Kangur
You are a world improver? And through politics things can be influenced?
This is what I think: all right, you change one person or two, you may put some proposal to the government, which will be considered or not. But talking of nature protection and care, it must be understood that if we are only environmentally conscious and conscientious we are running into trouble. If we start working with nature education, love of nature, there will be environmental awareness, but not the other way round. Because of this I believe that the photos that I have made have a much greater impact on improving the world than any ministerial work whatsoever. Images are seen directly, no interpreter is needed. When I show these photos in a kindergarten or to adults I see how this works and comes about. Overall the impact of this is several levels stronger than any convulsive forced lecturing. Which moreover tears at one’s own nerves and wastes time. And I want to go on living too, and do the things that aren’t done yet. All men need not necessarily die before retirement age.
Your new nature photography book, with Arne Ader - that is a work to make the world better?
Absolutely. In this book for instance words like Canon, Nikon, Pentax are used only once – in the introduction, in one sentence. A text extraordinarily free of commercial company PR.
The impact of nature photo is enormous, I believe that the power of a good nature man is greater than that of a professor. What do you think, how much has Fred Jüssi given to the world, compared to politicians?
The interview was published in the December 2009 issue of the journal Loodusesõber.
Eesti | 
Tags:
Tags: 
