Confessions of a Biophiliac

When I googled the word Biophiliac (a term that I made up and may be misusing in this post) I came across a blog that suggested people look at a video of puppies in a pet store to relieve stress. Here is a link to that video but I can't get it to embed in blogger so I am posting this one instead.



Between the puppy and the REM song, my heart is aching. Am I experiencing emotions connected to what Edward O. Wilson describes as biophilia in the first two chapters of his book The Biophilia Hypothesis? (link to text) According to Wilson, biophilia is the tendency for humans to relate to other living organisms emotionally. Through the history of evolution, humans have been "totally and intimately involved with other organisms" and we have developed genetic and hereditary psychological affinities and emotions towards particular species and ecosystems. These feelings come from what Wilson and colleague Charles Lumsden have termed biocultural evolution - a particular type of gene/culture coevolution where a certain genotype makes a particular behavior more likely because that behavior has produced enhanced survival and reproductive fitness in the past. These behaviors are overwritten with learned cultural narratives, behaviors and responses.

In the case of my response to this video, my emotional desire to see this lonely (my presumption) puppy cared for and freed could be biologically rooted in the interdependence of humans and dogs for survival in the past. Many humans still rely on dogs for all kinds of needs like protection, transportation and companionship. My survival does does not depend on a dog but perhaps I am biologically predisposed to soft feelings for dogs because my ancestors used dogs for survival. The feelings I have about dogs are very real and present in many people who also do not depend on dogs for survival. As evidenced in the video, we overwrite our biologically rooted emotions with cultural behaviors like the REM song, the puppy store and youtube. Modern existence has relieved humans of many of the interconnected relationships we once needed for survival yet we still derive self-esteem and spiritual fulfillment from certain interactions with natural life forms.

Given the nature of my work, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that the most interesting part of this reading for me was the aesthetic and symbolic sections of the second chapter. These sections raised many questions that I often think about when making pictures. If Wilson is right in thinking that our emotional responses to nature are at least partially, possibly wholly biologically and genetically rooted, can't representations (artistic or otherwise) elicit at least some response linked to the natural world? How much of the aesthetic power of nature can be translated through imagery and fabrication? What positive and negative effects can symbolism have on environmental initiatives?

The symbolic expression of nature is one way humans communicate emotional as well as scientific and biological information about the natural world. Wilson looks at symbolism through language, visual communication and technology and suggests the metaphoric potential of these platforms allows us to develop and transfer ideas about other living organisms that are crucial to our identity and capacity for abstract thought. Wilson gives priority to traditional "natural" forms of symbolism (as in language or gesture?) by questioning the effectiveness of technologically fabricated forms of communication. According to Wilson, symbolic attempts to imitate nature such as plastic trees or stuffed animals (and their fabricated kin?) cannot substitute for traditional natural symbols.


A cellphone tower in Raleigh, NC that looks like a tree (kind of). Have you seen these things JRay? They are all over the place down there.

First of all, plastic trees and stuffed animals are some of the least sophisticated technological imitations of nature. What about virtual reality, photography or youtube? The motive power of the video at the top of this post is, in my opinion, undeniable. The symbolic power of technology builds on language, aesthetics and emotion and often rivals a direct experience with natural organisms.


Some fake plastic trees that I made and photographed. Is the motive power of this photograph consistent with nature's motive powers?

Though aesthetics aren't always symbolic, anything that is symbolized carries an aesthetic. Wilson states on page 49 that "the human need for an aesthetic experience has been suggested by the apparent inequity of artificial or human-made substitutes when people are exposed to them." In other words, we tend to prefer natural design and pattern over built or urban views because natural views have an aesthetic motive power that can not be duplicated through human design. It is unclear what exactly Wilson considers to be natural and what he considers to be built or urban but that distinction seems to be crucial. Is a park, lawn or garden natural? Is the view from a car along the side of a highway or the birds eye view from a helicopter or plane natural? Can a photographic view be natural? If it is not directly natural, can it capture the motive character of a view?


Another photograph by me.

I believe that the motive power of imagery is so compelling that it often stunts our ability to relate to the natural world (to reframe Wilson's words on page 52). We symbolize nature as an aesthetic ideal, as paradise, as a locus amoenus, that is only half linked to reality. The ideal, utopic vision of nature is unreachable outside of representation, particularly in the post-industrial, post-biological age we find ourselves in. Our desires for a richly visual and distant interaction with nature are expressed daily through the symbols we embrace, the ways we eat food, travel, visit nature preserves, create and dispose of waste and consume energy. To a great degree, we are living in the age of the biophiliac. We embrace the emotions of nature but distance ourselves from long term interaction with it or wide-spread preservation of it.


The Great Munich Bug Hunt, Mark Dion (1993)

One artist who uses a direct approach to communicating the richness of life in tropic ecosystems rather than an idealized view is Mark Dion. In the piece The Great Munich Bug Hunt, Dion worked in public view and in collaboration with entomologists to reveal the diversity of invertebrates found in a tree removed from the Black Forest. This is the very sort of practice J. Malcolm Shick calls for in his article Toward and Aesthetic Marine Biology in the Winer 2008 volume of Art Journal. One question this reading seems to be asking is can an integrated understanding of multiple disciplines, in this case biology and art, lead to more informative, compelling, influential or meaningful artwork? In the case of Dion, I would argue yes. But as Shick points out, Philip Henry Gosse's illustrations lead to the poaching and destruction of the very environments he was illustrating.


Philip Henry Gosse

other artists to think about:

Pieter Hugo


Gregory Crewdson


Anselm Keifer


Adam Fuss