Interviewee: Kristiina Koskinen (K)
Doctor of Arts - her dissertation examines the conceptions of nature in TV nature documentaries and how those conceptions are formed.

Interviewers: Curator Tiina Rauhala and Artist Maija Tammi, Doctor of Arts (T&M)

T: The artwork Hulda & Lilli plays with the theme of nature documentary. What is a nature documentary?
K: On one hand, nature documentary is an established genre that has even been parodied, but it tends to elude a fixed definition. My research is based on Anglo-American research literature, according to which the salient features of a classical or traditional nature documentary include, for example, visually striking footage, a dramatic plot, focus on charismatic megafauna, and the absence of politics, history and humans. In this context, charismatic megafauna refers to large wild animals onto which it is easy to project emotions and anthropomorphic features. 

T&M: What are the consequences of choosing individual animals as the focus of a nature documentary?
K: Audiovisual narration inevitably shapes the portrayal of nature. Often narrativity in nature documentaries also produces protagonist-like central characters whose agency is used in crafting meaningful chains of events to please the audience. In my own research I demonstrate how a forest in a nature documentary becomes a passive cinematic stage for individual animals. 

Questions have been raised on whether the narrative-driven nature documentary is a suitable format for portraying nature at all, or whether this kind of narrativity is in fact misleading.  If one considers a flock of birds, where no one individual starts or stops the swarming, and there is no specific beginning or end point on a timeline,  the nature of that agency is very different from a setting that focuses on the story of an individual.

T&M: Why are nature documentaries so popular and score millions of viewers? Does it have to do with the overt absence of politics, or the fact that nature documentaries are relatively cushioned: they do not show gory details or the suffering of animals? 
K: That is a very good question. There is actually very little empirical research on how nature documentaries affect viewers. There are many different theories on the matter, however, and some of them are well-grounded. 

One often-proposed explanation for the appeal of nature documentaries is the presentation of nature untouched by humans. This is an established tradition: the foremother of nature documentaries is considered to be the Walt Disney Productions series True-Life Adventures, which aired in the 1950s and 1960s. It has been said that the cinematographers were given clear instructions that there were not to be any humans or signs of human activity visible in the footage.   

This insight still captures something essential. Wild and untouched nature is appealing to us, even though it scarcely exists anymore. Combine this with a typical nature documentary narrative which frames the documentary medium as a window into the real world, and the result is a compelling armchair adventure into untamed nature. 

Also the escapism and visual splendor delivered by nature documentaries have been suggested as a reason for their appeal to mass audiences. Considering the argument that nature documentaries are relatively cushioned in not showing the animals suffering, it bears recalling the context in which people are used to watching nature documentaries: with the family. Few of us would be willing to gather with the whole family in front of the TV set to suffer and cry. 

T&M: What about the information in nature documentaries?
This is also an important aspect. As a rule, nature documentaries do make good on their promise of delivering information about nature. What we might overlook, instead, is the fact that we are watching a cultural work, built over several years by top professionals in the field of audiovisual arts, that often features skilfully crafted and clear emotional railroading.

T: How to make the cultural aspects of nature documentaries more understandable to the audiences? 
K: I think the artwork Hulda & Lilli is a great opening gambit on this question. Do we consider nature documentaries to be recordings of a reality that exists somewhere outside of culture, or do we consider them a cultural product or image of how we would like to see or experience nature? Another good question could be, what do nature documentaries show us about ourselves.

T:  What are nature documentaries attempting to record?
K: This question brings us back to the question of what nature documentaries are. Are they cultural products made by humans, in which we are trying to tell other humans a story about a concept  that we call “nature”, or should we consider nature documentaries  as something that allows us to document something that is outside of culture altogether. 

 My framework is shaped by theoretical discussions on documentary films, where for a long time the focus was on recording reality, and then shifted to the crisis of reality, how reality is very relative, depends on the point of view, and how positioning within a hierarchy of power affects our understanding of what is “real” or “reality”.  However, discussions on portrayals of nature often make me feel like those theoretical discussions never happened at all, and the notion that nature documentaries are simply a recording of nature still prevails. My point of view is that when we are watching a nature documentary, we are at the same time watching a recording of our own culture. 

M: Do you think the crisis of reality is on its way for nature documentaries, or has it already begun?
K: In a way it probably is already on; I think the depth of the environmental crisis has already shaken and stirred the essence of the nature documentary as a cultural product. On the other hand, it is a different question entirely whether nature documentaries should make a difference concerning the environmental crisis, and if so, in what scale. If we consider nature documentaries products that are created for entertainment purposes, what exactly is their role in environmental politics? I think that is a very good question.

M: Could we also assume the point of view that nature documentaries motivate us to protect nature? 
K: Stirring emotional responses and empathy is definitely important. In my discussions on nature documentaries with different people, many have emphasized how their love of nature has largely been kindled by nature documentaries. If we give people a stack of scientific facts on nature, it is unlikely to stir a love for nature in most of them. Mass audiences do not find that kind of material appealing. Cinematic material and skilfully crafted audiovisual narratives, on the other hand, can create strong emotional responses and make people care about nature. 

After I have seen a nature documentary that wowed me, I have played this game of closing my eyes and asking myself, ‘What new facts did I learn?’. Usually the answer to this question is ‘very few’, but what stays with me in my heart is that impressive experience. Of course this is just my own perception, but everyone can try it for themselves. 

T&M: What kind of changes would be welcome in nature documentaries?
K: Nature documentaries rarely feature, for example, portrayals of old age or sickness, nasty parasites or very intimate mating scenes. Mostly the focus is on the vitality of nature, growth and new generations, or visually appealing phenomena. On the other hand, I myself might not be too keen on watching a nature documentary on the ailments of disease or old age in animals either.   

The production of entertaining but documentary-style narrative material on nature for an audience that is aware of the environmental crisis is a topical and interesting question. The role of humans in the narratives of nature documentaries is definitely a phenomenon that is currently changing.

Also the notion of straightforward chains of causation inherent in the narrative format could use a good shakedown. For example, the narrative of a nature documentary can focus on the endeavors of a big cat, where the climax is the animal achieving its goal of catching a gazelle to feed its young. Thus the documentary portrays nature molding to accommodate the big cat’s endeavors. However, this kind of causality that seems straightforward from an individual point of view can reverberate in the natural environment in myriad, sometimes unexpected ways. If we shift the narrative into the point of view of a gazelle, a scavenger, intestinal parasites, or plant life, we begin to understand that considering only the big cat’s point of view is a gross simplification.

It also bears remembering, however, that the advantage of traditional nature documentaries is their ability to reach mass audiences. This can allow a possibility for even small nuances and breaks from the established narrative to give birth to large-scale changes.  

Translated from Finnish to English by Kataja Varisvaara.