Photographs of really nasty examples of zoo exhibits on show in San Francisco. The photographer is Eric Pillot. Red in tooth and bored: unimpressed zoo animals – in pictures Can anyone name and shame the exhibits shown here?
Pic 1 looks like Ouwehands dierenpark Rhenen Pic 2 maybe Munich? The mandrill and spider monkey maybe also Munich The "red bird" is an eclectus parrot in Wuppertal The Indian antelope is Diergaarde Blijdorp The giraffe maybe Praha The rhino could very well be in Berlin Zoo The elephant should be Dvur Kralove
The first one looks indeed like Rhenen, but it doesn't deserve to be called "nasty" (neither is it great). For the record, there's a whole flock of flamingos in that enclosure, not a single individual. But the painting is really ugly!
Yes, I chose badly when I used the word 'nasty', but I think 'ugly' and 'incongruous' are right. Of course these images are so selective that the concept is unfair, because other parts of these exhibits may be wonderful. Of course I think most ZooChatters would prefer to see a group of healthy animals in an unattractive exhibit rather than the opposite; but some visitors are put off by these sort of scenes. Zoos have to be so careful the design of their enclosures.
The problem is that most of these pictures only show a fraction of the enclosure concerned, so it's impossible to make a fair judgement on whether it's good or bad!
A good photographer with time can easily make even a very good enclosure with content animals look horrible - the reverse is also true. Many people often forget (or are unaware) of how easily the camera can lie without needing "photoshop" I've seen the kind of backdrop paintings before; they are very fake, but in enclosures where there are buildings or other structures or even in indoor areas it can provide a more pleasing background to view. Quite a few of thep hotos look like they are taken in the indoor portions of enclosures; which are often a bit more "clinical" in content than the outdoor segments they are oft attached to. I suspect that's part and parcel of good management of indoor areas - easy to clean and keep clean
Interesting concept. As a photographer myself, I can appreciate the aesthetic. The photos make a good series, as they have a very consistent feel. Creating individual photos that are dramatic or make a statement is relatively easy (assuming you have photographic talent). Creating a body of work where the images work together as a group (as well as being able to stand on their own) is much more difficult. The fact that they are square implies he is using a medium format camera (I suspect digital as film with its low ISO would have a tough time getting sharp animals in these indoor exhibits). As a zoo fan, I agree with previous posts. These may very well be the worse part of an exhibit that contains a much more pleasing outdoor section. A good photographer can make a good subject look bad (which may or may not be the case here) and a bad subject look good. However there is no shortage of substandard animal exhibits in the zoo world and many of these may indeed be as bad as they look.
And for those of us that live in tropical climes, it's important to remember that in parts of the world where it gets very cold and snows several months of the year, the only way to keep your tropical animals healthy is to give them inside access where it is warm. Many of them will stay inside for most of the day, and any 'naturalness' - like plants and grass - will be destroyed quickly. Concrete and tiles are quick and easy to clean. I've heard people say that painting a habitat on the back wall doesn't fool anyone, least of all the animals, but at least it describes the habitat to the public better than a plain background does. Hix
