98

ad Marriage, Quick Divorce.

The above subtitle from a paper by Marc Sagoff (1984) summarizes the state, then and now, of the relationship between the animal rights community and those concerned with the recovery and protection of endangered species. Accusations of flawed views and unreasonable behaviour flow both ways, reflecting seemingly irreconcilable values and ways of seeing. Dif ferent Worlds For the biologist interested in wildlife and habitat conservation, animal rights advocates are irresponsible, single issue activists who have failed to take on the issue of species extinction and who embark on emotionally driven activities without due consideration of their consequences. For instance, the “liberation” of thousands of farmed animals (such as mink) contributes to the already precipitous decline to near extinction of native species. Almost total opposition to captive breeding and scientific research on animals harms, in the long run, the chances of species

survival. The animal rights focus on sentience as the main criterion for awarding rights to animals leads to the following position: “What the rights view denies, at least in its current articulation, is that plants and insects are ‘subjects-of-a-life;’ and it denies as well that these forms of life have been shown to have any rights, including a right to survival” (Regan 2004, xl) – a position that is anathema to the conservation biologist and the environmental philosopher. For the animal rights advocate, on the other hand, conservationists are more concerned with science and with abstract technical concepts such as “species” and “ecosystems” than they are with the actual animals. The keeping of animals in captivity, the chasing, sedating, tagging, biopsy-ing and constant studying, monitoring and otherwise harassing animals in the wild causes pain and suffering, subordinating the very real everyday lives of individual animals to intangible and uncertain species and ecosystem benefit – not to mention that a significant proportion of studies are of doubtful benefit to the animals themselves, but rather serve either to feed the publication requirements of the involved researchers or the

B

FROM ANIMAL RIGHTS AND SHOCK ADVOCACY TO KINSHIP WITH ANIMALS

The visual cultures manifested in the advertising and communication activities of animal rights activists and those concerned with the conservation of species may be counter-productive, creating an ever-increasing cultural distance between the human and the animal. By continuing to position animals as subjugated, exploitable others, or as creatures that belong in a romanticized ‘nature’ separate from the human, communications campaigns may achieve effects that are contrary to those desired. The unashamed, cheaply voyeuristic nature of shock imagery may win headlines while worsening the overall position of the animal in human culture. We offer an alternative way of thinking about visual communication concerning animals – one that is focused on enhancing a sense of kinship with animals. Based on empirical evidence, we suggest that continued progress both in conservation and in animal rights does not depend on continued castigation of the human but rather on embedding in our cultures the type of human-animal relationship on which positive change can be built. Text by JJoe Zammit-Lucia and Linda Kalof

99

perpetuation of the self image of the conservation biologist as intrepid field explorer. The sanctioned culling of animals in the interests of preserving “ecosystem integrity” is difficult to reconcile with the rights view. The animal rightist would also argue that beyond abstract and far-from-convincing arguments, the wildlife conservation community has, to date, failed to come up with persuasive ethical and philosophical underpinnings for the preservation of endangered species. Absent such underpinnings, it is unacceptable to subordinate the rights of individual animals to abstract and intangible concepts. Our aim in this paper is not to enter into, or take sides in, the above debate. Rather, our intention is to show that, in spite of fundamentally different underlying values, there are similarities in the visual cultures of animal rights activists and those concerned with the preservation of natural species and spaces, and that, in both cases, those visual cultures may be counterproductive to their goals of persuasion. Based on the results of a study of animal imagery, we offer an alternative approach to visual communication that, we believe, can have important positive implications for human-animal relationships to the benefit of both animal rights advocacy and endangered species preservation and recovery. The Human vs. The Animal

The narratives and visual cultures of animal rights groups and wildlife conservation groups reveal similar attitudes about the relationship between humans and other animals. Much of the visual

language adopted by animal rights groups highlights the sorry plight of the animal at the hands of the human. Images are largely designed to be distressing to the viewer and to engender support through a combination of outrage and guilt. This is a visual culture that

Fig. 1. The Humane Society International Seal slaughter. Image courtesy of The Humane Society International

Fig. 2. & 3. Human destruction of Indonesian forests as the cause of orphaning orangutans and leading to their decline towards extinction. Left: Photography by David Gilbert, Rainforest Action Network (Creative Commons). Right: Photography by Lam Thuy Vo (Creative Commons)

100

creates a divisive dichotomy – and a distance – between the Human and the Animal: the Human as the callous aggressor; the Animal as the helpless victim. A similar set of principles governs the conservationist’s visual culture. Here the Animal occupies an idyllically untamed space – the animal “running free in our imaginary and mythical wild” (Baker 1993, 294). This is part of a romanticized vision of a “Nature” that is separate from Culture, with the Human as the intruder, aggressor and destroyer of spaces and species that need to be protected. While coming at the issues from almost opposite poles, the animal rights and the wildlife conservation movements end up in essentially the same place. The animal is portrayed as something separate and distant from the human – in one case separate as a captive or persecuted victim, in the other, separate as part of a romanticised nature – and, in both cases, a casualty of an undesirable human disposition and reprehensible human activity.

Is this visual culture the optimal way to encourage the sort of human-animal relationships that might lead to altered human behaviours that bring unnecessary pain and suffering to other animals? Us ing Animal Port ra i ture To address this question, we examined a different approach to animal representation and the impact that approach has on viewers. “Animal Portraiture” is a broad term that can cover a multitude of artistic approaches, each having potentially different effects on viewers. We evaluated the specific approach taken to animal portraiture by photographic artist Joe Zammit-Lucia. Zammit-Lucia explores the use of animal portraits to examine the human ability to see animals as individuals with character and personality, rather than as generic specimens of species (see also Zammit-Lucia 2008a). Rather than traditional animal imagery, the artist uses, as his starting point, the techniques of classical human studio portraiture and applies them to animals.

Fig. 4. Joe Zammit-Lucia I Am Series #1, photography, 2007 Joe Zammit-Lucia

101

The Human Port ra it Portraiture is deeply embedded in human culture. When viewing a human portrait, we reflexively project imaginings of personality onto the subject portrayed. We “see” characteristics like wisdom, vulnerability, power, glamour, and so forth, depending on the particular portrait. The portrait has been used over the ages as a powerful propaganda tool. From the sculpted portraits of Roman emperors, to the recent, and now infamous, Shepard Fairey/Associated Press “Hope” image of presidential candidate Barack Obama, the portrait has been used to create strong, positive images of the subject portrayed. In achieving such positive projections, the physical likeness of the portrait to the subject is a small and largely insignificant part of the whole. Rather it is the overall form and content of the portrait that constitute the repository of the message being conveyed.

For instance, in the Obama “Hope” poster, the message is largely conveyed by the overall composition of the image. The central positioning of the portrait combines with the tilted stance of the face to create a diagonal composition that leads to a feeling of strength and dynamism (Condit, 2010). The use of repeating blocks of red and blue not only heighten the diagonal composition, but are used to evoke the American flag and, in Fairey’s own words, “convey the idea of blue and red states, Democrats and Republicans, converging” (Fairey and Gross, 2009, p7).

Context, on the other hand, conveys the message in Jacques-Louis David’s famous “Bonaparte Crossing the Great St Bernard Pass.” Here Napoleon’s “greatness” is implied as he follows in the footsteps of Hannibal and Charlemagne - the unstoppable hero on a symbolic white horse (Welch, 2005).

The individuality, or what Pope-Hennessy (1979) describes as “The Cult of Personality” that we read in a portrait, is not a result of physical likeness, but is transmitted through symbolism – be that symbolism contained in physiognomic codes and ciphers; in the carriage, bearing or gestures of the individual portrayed; or in the ancillary elements of dress, jewellery, context, or allegorical or other symbols.

Animal Imagery Animal images can also create strong, positive values. For example, experimental work has established that animal “attractiveness” increases

people’s support for protection and conservation. More support is expressed for large animals and those who resemble humans (Gunnthorsdottir 2009). However, traditionally, “animal art” has been about humans not about animals. In large part, animals have been shown as symbolic icons, as decorative items, or as human companions. “Portraits” of companion animals or working animals provide a commentary on human achievement or human possession. In contemporary art, many artists are concerned with social commentary. Again, much of this engages with human behaviours in relation to animals, and with human social and cultural frameworks as they affect animals rather than with the essence of the animal.

The animal becomes more central in genres such as wildlife photography, wildlife illustration, and in art which is concerned with the natural world. Here the animal is predominant, but in a way that is detached from the human. Scientific illustration objectifies the animal as a subject of study, whereas wildlife photography, while glorifying the animal, treats him as a

Fig. 5. Shepard Fairey Hope, 2008 Fairey/Garcia

102

specimen of species and, as we shall see later, places him or her in a “nature” that is separate from the human.

Few artists depict animals as “specific individuals.” Instead they “use animals as metaphors or symbols for the human condition, or as generic signifiers for the natural world” (Watt 2010, 77). In fact, “most forms of contemporary animal representation, whether or not in lens-based media, fail effectively to communicate an animal’s individuality, singularity or particularity” (Baker 2000, 179)[1].

Zammit-Lucia’s animal art focuses unashamedly on animals as unique individuals in the same way as the human studio portrait focuses on the individual portrayed. The artist’s hypothesis is that our embedded, reflexive reaction to human portraiture can be turned to an advantage when used in animal representation. Focusing largely on threatened or endangered species, the artist adopts a representational approach that (i) alters the context in which the animal is presented (i.e., a studio-like setting vs. in the wild or in a captive

setting), and (ii) frames the animal representation to mimic a human studio portrait (i.e., in a way that is culturally more often associated with human representation). The idea of animal individuality in these images, therefore, does not depend exclusively (nor even primarily) on the representational form of the animal – the recognition of the specific features of the individual animal – but rather on the appropriation of the general style of the human studio portrait and the impact of that style on the viewer’s spontaneous reactions to the imagery. This approach builds on the fundamentals of human portraiture where, as we have discussed above, individuality, personality and status are not communicated through uniqueness of features, but through the overall form, composition, context, and other features of the complete portrait.

Zammit-Lucia uses other devices to influence the subject-viewer interaction. Direct eye contact is common and can create a tension between the observed and the observer in the viewer-portrait interaction. The subject’s

Fig. 6. Joe Zammit-Lucia #2, photography, 2008 Joe Zammit-Lucia

103

stance is also chosen to allow viewers to project character and personality on the individual animal portrayed, while the overall composition – central composition or, alternatively, the use of large negative spaces – are used to enhance visual impact, substituting for the ancillary elements contained in human portraiture. A further important element distinguishes animal portraiture from human portraiture: human portraiture suffers from a strong undercurrent of inauthenticity, driven by the fact that the subject tends to engage in a performance. As Roland Barthes (1981) puts it: “I do not stop imitating myself, and because of this, each time I am (or let myself be) photographed, I invariably suffer from a sensation of inauthenticity, sometimes of imposture.” (p13-14). What has been variously described as “Fictions of the Pose” (Berger, 1994) or the “The Theatre of the Face” (Kozloff, 2007) is absent from the portrait of the animal. The animal is not complicit in the creation of his or her own image, thereby lending the portrait an unavoidable feeling of authenticity absent from the human portrait.

Using this approach, Zammit-Lucia hypothesizes that such images emphasize the very animality of the subjects portrayed. The imagery uses our own embedded cultural responses to human portraiture to enhance the viewer’s sense of kinship with animals, while maintaining respect for the animal for what he or she is (Zammit-Lucia 2008b). In his artist’s statement, Zammit-Lucia (2010) states:

In creating images of animals, I have little interest in what the animal looks like; in the animal merely as observed object. Rather my interest is in the deeper reality of what the animal might possibly be. Through these images, I am interested in exploring questions: How do I feel in relation to this animal? Can I relate to this animal as an individual rather than as a mere specimen of species? And, more interestingly, what could be the experience of being this animal?

Fig. 7. Joe Zammit-Lucia Hunted, photography, 2008 Joe Zammit-Lucia

104

Does i t Work? We were interested in testing whether the artist’s hypotheses were borne out when viewers interacted with these animal portraits. While animal visual imagery has been the focus of a substantial body of research, to our knowledge there are no studies that have collected empirical data on whether animal visual imagery has the potential to change cultural perceptions of animals. Indeed, given the widespread use of visual material to persuade audiences to change attitudes and behaviours, it is surprising that there is a paucity of research on the impact of visual material on the public’s view of any single issue (Joffe 2008). Our study was designed to fill some of the gap in our knowledge of the impact of animal imagery on viewers’ perceptions of animals. We evaluated visitor experiences of the artist’s work mounted as an exhibit entitled Monde Sauvage: Regards et Emotions, which was displayed during Fall 2008 and Winter 2009 at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France. The detailed methodology and

approach to the study have been described elsewhere (Kalof, Zammit-Lucia and Kelly, 2011). Here we focus on the main findings and their potential implications for animal rights and other forms of animal imagery.

Our findings showed that the widespread traditional imagery and methods of communication about endangered species in Western Culture do seem to convey the expected messages. Prior to viewing the animal portraiture exhibit, visitors defined animals primarily as wild, free and sometimes violent and dangerous creatures that are part of “Nature.” Pre-exhibit, the thematic cluster of “Nature,” “Wild/Free” and “Violence” accounted for 60% of respondents’ overall perceptions of the Animal. After viewing the exhibit, visitors gave a different meaning to the word “Animal” compared to the meanings they expressed before entering the exhibit. The biggest single change was seen in the significant increase in the attribution of “Personality” to animals. However, the impact of this artwork was seemingly much broader than the increased attribution of

Fig. 8. Joe Zammit-Lucia Untitled, photography, 2010 Joe Zammit-Lucia

105

personality to the concept of “Animal.” We saw a wholesale shift from the Animal being perceived as something wild, natural and hostile – and therefore separate from the Human – to a perception of closeness and kinship between animal and human. Post-exhibit, the relevance to visitors of the thematic cluster of “Nature,” “Wild/Free” and “Violence” fell to 25% from the pre-exhibit level of 60%. Conversely, the combination of “Personality,” “Kinship” and “Vulnerable” now accounted for a full 75% of the aggregate intensity scores (a measure of the depth and emotion in the visitors’ perception of “Animal” based on the degree of elaboration and detail given in their response). These changes suggest that the effect of the exhibit went beyond isolated changes in perceptions around individual themes, to changes in the overall cultural perception of the Animal with possible implications for the nature of the relationship between the Human and the Animal.

Impl icat ions for Animal R ights and Conversat ion Imagery In the case of endangered animals, we believe that, in the long run, it is counterproductive to perpetuate a visual culture that portrays animals as wild, free creatures who are part of a Nature that is not only separate, but in conflict with human culture. We believe that this simply embeds the classical Cartesian dichotomy of the animal as inferior “other,” creating a sense of distance between the Human and the Animal – a sense of distance that is increased further by the scientism that is so prevalent in the conservation culture. We suggest that this dualism between the Human and the Natural has no productive future. Successful conservation efforts can only be built on a greater sense of closeness and kinship between the Human and the Animal (and the Natural) – a sense of kinship that fosters support for expanded conservation efforts and sees such efforts in a positive cultural light, rather than as the result of the job-killing, economy-stifling efforts of an environmental lobby wedded to the politics of “No.” There are similar questions to be considered in evaluating the long-term effectiveness of the visual culture associated with animal rights. There is little doubt that the heart-rending images that form the staple diet of animal rights groups represent effective fund raising fodder. Indeed, research has found that animal rights protestors are directly recruited to the animal rights agenda by moral shocks from visual imagery (Jasper and Poulsen 1995), and empirical work confirms that animal advocacy messages intensify pre-existing dispositions toward animals and animal abusers (Scudder and Mills 2009). Animal rights advocacy images are based on good versus evil, with clubbed baby seals and neurotic monkeys presented as the innocent victims of evil. Victimized animals who are furry, whimpering, crying, and spilling red blood elicited more sympathy because viewers could more easily anthropomorphize them (Jasper 1997).

Yet, animal rights organizations that use images of animal abuse in their own campaigns have also been critical of picturing animal suffering when they consider it gratuitous or when they do not feel that the context justifies it. In 2008, the artist Adel Abdessemed exhibited a video that included footage of six animals being bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer on a farm in Mexico. His exhibition was closed down after protests from animal rights groups (Watt

Fig. 9. Animal Portraiture Exhibit Flyer Image courtesy Muséum

national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris

.

106

2010). The web site for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) encourages people to take action against portrayals of animal cruelty on the internet, but makes a clear distinction between animal cruelty imagery that is “educational, depicting the cruel behind-the-scenes reality of industries that thrive on animal exploitation and abuse” and “(o)ther sources (that) are merely depicting cruelty for shock value” (PETA, 2011). When is shock advocacy legitimately “educational?” When does art that depicts animal cruelty as part of its social commentary become simply gratuitous? Surely it is not simply a question of who is doing the dissemination that determines the acceptability of shock imagery.

There is no doubt that picturing the suffering animal has legitimacy as part of what we might call investigative journalism. Exposing – and documenting – animal abuse must be an essential component of the work of animal rights organizations. But it is a big step from that to creating a visual monoculture of grisly imagery and justifying its widespread dissemination as educational. What are the long-term effects of these shock advocacy images on the cultural relationship between the human and the animal – particularly now that exposure to acts of animal cruelty has moved beyond the still image to the almost ubiquitously available graphic video? In the context of exhibiting captive animals in a zoo setting, it has been argued that such a setting only serves to convince visitors that humans

dominate the natural world (Kellert, 1997) and substantiates “the dualism at the very origin of the relation between man and animal” (Berger 1980, 28). Is this effect also possible when we are bombarded with constant imagery showing human domination of animals in other contexts – such as images of factory farming, seal culls, or dog fighting? Could these images serve to undermine further the standing of animals in human culture by confirming them as the objects of human subjugation, entertainment and cruelty? It could be argued that generating shocking visual imagery is the easy option. It takes little thought and gets attention – and sometimes headlines – simply by its sheer awfulness. Yet it does so because of its unashamed, cheaply voyeuristic nature. To paraphrase Randy Malamud’s commentary about the zoo-going experience (1998), these images of animal abuse can be considered minimally imaginative, cheaply vicarious and inhibitive, rather than generative of a positive experience of the animal and its valued place in human culture. Further, according to Sontag (2003, 109) “our capacity to respond to our experiences with emotional freshness and ethical pertinence is being sapped by the relentless diffusion of vulgar and appalling images.” It may be undeniable that outrage is an important element in the fight against continued cruelty to animals. But how does it work and for how long? Myers (2006) points out that imagery,

107

Fig. 10. Animal farmed for his fur in Kemijärvi, Finland. This photograph was published by the Finnish animal rights organisation Oikeutta eläimille ("Justice for Animals") after an undercover investigation of Finnish fur farms (Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oikeutta_el%C3%A4imille_-_Fur_farming_in_Finland_02.jpg)

Fig. 11. Sharks after Finning (Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shark_finning.jpg)

Fig. 12. A baby monkey before being removed from the University of California, Riverside (Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Britches.jpg)

108

Fig. 13. Pig and piglets in a gestation crate (Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schweine-lsz61.jpg)

.

Fig. 14. Elephant killed by poachers, Voi area, Kenya (Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Elephant0567.JPG)

. Fig. 15.

Edith, a chimpanzee born in the Saint Louis Zoo, found by a PETA investigator 37 years later in a roadside zoo in Texas called the Amarillo Wildlife Refuge (Source:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edith,_PETA.jpg)

109

particularly highly disturbing imagery, is not immune to having unintended consequences. Such imagery may generate a form of mild post-traumatic stress disorder in viewers and evoke self-protective responses. These responses are both immediate (turning away, shutting the eyes, etc.) and long-term adaptation mechanisms that may involve pre-emptive avoidance of such imagery as well as habituation to it. “(T)he “reality” of the image will count for nothing if that reality seems too horrific to be countenanced” (Baker 2001, 220). Further, at the emotional level, the effects of such imagery become attenuated over time and/or, at the cultural level, the idea of violence may become normalized. Myers points out that such imagery does not work on its own, but as part of a complex interaction with people’s moral and cultural values. He suggests that “(e)ven ‘hard hitting’ images need to be analyzed for their nuanced meaning in the context of the moral narrative that is constructed” (Myers 2007, 30). Absent such understanding, one may end up only appealing to those who are essentially already convinced. Conclus ions Although animal rights groups and conservation groups are seemingly at odds on many of their fundamental values, they display remarkable similarities in their visual cultures and narratives. Both display the animal as separate from, and a victim of, the human. In an attempt to gain attention through shock, outrage and guilt, visual imagery constantly reinforces the negative aspects of human behaviour, and creates an ever-increasing cultural distance between the human and the animal. We believe that such approaches are, in the long run, counterproductive as people adapt, tune out, or even accept, the portrayed negativity both emotionally and culturally. Worrisome trends in the direction of cultural adaptation can already be seen. For instance, mobile platforms using the Android operating system have recently seen the release of KG Dogfighting - a video game application that allows players to “feed, water, train and fight” their virtual dog against other players (Android Market, 2011)[2] .

We suggest that continued progress both in conservation efforts and in animal rights advocacy does not depend on continued castigation of the human, but rather on embedding in our cultures the type of human-animal relationship on which positive change can be built. Rather than positioning animals as

subjugated, exploitable others, we believe that visual and narrative approaches that culturally position animals as our kin, while having their own “personality” and their own visible worth based on their unique animality, are more likely to encourage the development of the sort of human-animal relationships that could resolve some of our most devastating animal exploitations. This approach finds support in the philosophy literature. It has been suggested that humans have “nested communities” of relations to others, some of which are closer to us and some further away (Callicott 1992). An ethics of care approach to this issue would suggest that it could be productive to explore ways that encourage humans to extend their more intimate circles of care outwards, developing greater kinship with animals – be they farm animals or those who are threatened or endangered. “Appropriate” animal representation may be a valuable tool to achieve kinship with animals with whom we cannot so easily develop a day to day relationship based on direct contact. A similar concept arises in Warwick Fox’s Theory of General Ethics where, as part of a much broader theory of ethics, he proposes that we have “an obligation to offer saving help only to supersignificant and significant others” (Fox 2006, 3838). He includes companion animals in these categories. While it is unlikely that we can elevate animals, other than companion animals, to the status of significant others, cultural constructs that emphasize concepts of personality, kinship and vulnerability are more likely to move us in that direction than the more distancing concepts of the animal as a dominated, violated other, or as a wild, free and violent creature who belongs in a distant, non-human Nature.

Some animal advocacy groups are moving away from, or trying alternative approaches to, shock imagery as the bread-and-butter approach to highlighting and communicating the very real issues in animal exploitation that need to be tackled. We could not find any shock imagery on the web site for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (www.aspca.org). The web site for The Humane Society of The United States (www.humanesociety.org) contains a number of sections clearly targeted at building positive relations with animals – though many of these sections still contain embedded videos of animal abuse. PETA has for some time added a “glamour” approach to broadcast their animal advocacy messages – especially when these messages are targeted at younger audiences.

110

We have shown that one particular

approach to animal imagery has the potential to promote a shift in how the animal is perceived. Our aim is not to promote any one approach over others, but rather to use our findings to raise questions about how different visual cultures may affect the human-animal relationship over the long term. We suggest that animal advocacy groups, like wildlife conservation groups, could usefully examine different approaches to their visual cultures and narratives. There may be opportunities to create more productive approaches before the easy option of shocking, voyeuristic imagery beats our audience into numbness and runs out of steam, even as it continues to embed the Animal’s position as a subjugated, exploitable object in our society. Notes

1 Baker also argues that the self-consciously serious post-modern artist may fear that attempts at individualizing the animal will be read as a sentimental over-investment in the animal’s appearance, thereby undermining the perceived “seriousness” of a piece of art based on rationality with a rather distasteful indulgence in emotional content.

2The publishers of this application make the following comments: “We are confident this game will be a net benefit to dogs as it has been in our operating agreement from the start of this project that a portion of the proceeds go to animal rescue organizations. Further, this is a satire about the ridiculousness of dog fighting and we believe in the power of a modern media tool to educate and raise awareness of the real horrors.”

Bibl iography Android Market. 2011. https://market.android.com/details?id=kagegames.apps.KG_AppD1&feature=search_result Baker, Steve. 2000. The Postmodern Animal. London: Reaktion Books. Baker, Steve. 2001. Picturing The Beast. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Barthes, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections of Photography. trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang. Berger, John. 1980. About Looking. New York: Pantheon Books. Berger, Harry Jr. 1994. Fictions of the Pose: Facing the Gaze of Early Modern Portraiture. Representations 46, 87-120. Callicott, J Baird. 1992. Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again. In Hargrove, Eugene C. (ed.). The Animal Rights/Environmental Ethics Debate: The Environmental Perspective, 249-261. Albany: SUNY Press. Condit, Anne. 2010. Hope: Propaganda and the Portrait of a President. Compass – A Journal of Leadership and Service at Birmingham-Southern College XII, 16-19. Fairey, Shepard and Jennifer Gross (eds.). 2009. Art for Obama: Designing Manifest Hope and the Campaign for Change. New York: Abrams Image. Fox, Warwick. 2006. A Theory of General Ethics: Human Relationships, Nature and the Built Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Kindle Edition. Gunnthorsdottir, Anna. 2001. Physical Attractiveness of an Animal Species as a Decision Factor for its Preservation. Anthrozoos 14(4), 204-215. Jasper, James. M. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jasper, James M. and Jane D. Poulsen. 1995. Recruiting Strangers and Friends: Moral Shocks and Social Networks in Animal Rights and Anti-Nuclear Protests. Social Problems 42(4), 493-512. Kalof, Linda; Joe Zammit-Lucia and Jennifer Rebecca Kelly. 2011. The Meaning of Animal Portraiture in a Museum Setting: Implications for Conservation. Organization and Environment 24(2), 150-174. Kellert, Stephen R. 1997. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development. Washington DC: A Shearwater Book published by Island Press. Kozloff, Max. 2007. The Theatre of the Face. New York: Phaidon Press Inc. Malamud, Randy. 1998. Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity. New York: New York University Press. Myers, Eugene Olin. 2006. The Psychology of Photographic Imagery in Communicating Conservation. Unpublished contribution to the International League of Conservation Photographers. PETA 2011. http://www.peta.org/action/get-active-online/cruelty-on-the-internet.aspx.

Fig. 15. PETA anti-fur campaign (Image courtesy of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)

.

111

Pope-Hennessy, John. 1979. The Portrait in the Renaissance: The AW Mellon Lectures in Fine Arts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Regan, Tom. 2004. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Sagoff, M. 1984. Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 297-307. Scudder, Joseph N. and Carol Bishop Mills. 2009. The Credibility of Shock Advocacy: Animal Rights Attack Messages. Public Relations Review, 35, 162-164. Singer, Peter. 1998. Interview on Start the Week, BBC Radio 4, 11 May 1998. Sontag, Susan. 2003. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Picador. Watt, Yvette. 2010. Art, Animals, and Ethics, In Marc Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, Volume 1, 77-81. ABC-CLIO. Welch, David. 2005. Painting, Propaganda and Patriotism. History Today 55(7), 42-50. Zammit-Lucia, Joe. 2008a. First Steps: Conserving Our Environment. New York: Matte Press. Zammit-Lucia, Joe. 2008b. I AM - Musings on Animal Portraiture and Its Role as a Conservation Tool. Unpublished. www.jzlimages.com. Zammit-Lucia, Joe. 2010. Artist Statement. Unpublished. www.jzlimages.com

Dr Joe Zammit-Lucia is an artist, author and independent scholar. Working at the intersection of many disciplines he explore issues relating to the relationship between how we organize human societies and our interaction with the non-human world around us. A widely recognized animal portrait artist, his work has been featured in the leading fine art photography magazines worldwide and his exhibition of photographic art entitled “Experience, Personality, Emotion” is currently touring across museums and public exhibition spaces in Europe. He is the President of WOLFoundation.org, a member of the Dean’s Advisory Board at the College of Arts and Sciences, Florida International University, and has served as Special Adviser to the Director General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. He is a Board Member of the African Rainforest Conservancy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Linda Kalof is Professor of Sociology and Founding Director of Michigan State University’s interdisciplinary doctoral specialization in Animal Studies (http://animalstudies.msu.edu). She has published widely in animal studies and currently edits The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies (Oxford University Press) and The Animal Turn (Michigan State University Press). She is serving a three year appointment to the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council Committee to review the US wild horse and burro management program, and is co-curator of Interspecies, an exhibit on cross-species cooperation at The Gallery Project, Ann Arbor, MI.