The photos are mounted walls formed of shipping containers with brown paper for columns, the "cathedral"  space is designed by Japanese artist Shigeru Ban on the Santa Monica Pier

Mr. Kavanagh uses the word "prayers" in the last paragraph of his review of Michael Colbert's exhibition.  Indeed, the young people in Colbert's deeply moving images interact with the animals with what seems to be reverence.  Not only do they offer, bow and on one occasion read to the animals, but one derives the distinct impression that the animals are responding--especially the elephants.   In the spaces between the humans and animals there is a sense of interaction, of tender acceptance.  I have never seen anything more beautiful between animals and humans, nothing more poignant.  

Yet Mr. Kavanagh has denigrated this art by calling it "cliché."  I challenge Mr. Kavanagh to name at least one other body of art that evokes such respect and feeling of communication between humans and animals.  There is not one.  There would have to be dozens for it to be a "cliché"  Of course there are dozens, maybe hundreds of photos of elephants doing stunts with triumphant humans on their backs, or with scantily clad women trusting the large beasts to rest their feet on top of them.  Such circus animals are truly "dancing bears,"  another of Mr. Kavanagh's derogatory remarks.  On the contrary, Colbert's animals are in a natural surrounding, unfettered, and as at ease as might be possible--lounging in water, and embracing each other.  Many of the photos without humans show how social and emotionally interactive they are.  They are not made to "dance" or "bend to the will of a human."  If Mr. Kavanagh wants to see that, he need only look at how circus elephants are kept and treated.   Colbert's animals are a far, far cry from that.  

Kavanagh is offended because the photos suggest that a South Asian or Southeast Asian boy might have a knowing relationship, (or "secret wisdom" as he put it) perhaps even a mystical bond with the animals.   The animals are all photographed in their natural environments and countries, with humans who reside with or near them.  Does Kavanagh really want to see American or European people interacting with elephants?  How can he be offended by this?   How can it be offensive to think that an Asian child just might possess some reverence?  But  apparently it makes Mr. Kavanagh feel inferior.  What special knowledge does Mr. Kavanagh have with such animals?  He never gives us his credentials nor cites his experience with animals.

The children are not portrayed as "cute," a thoroughly offensive epithet used by Kavanagh.   One does not see individual features nor smiling faces.   Their serene and moving interactions are subtle-experienced through the whole body, not through the portrayal of superficial facial expressions.  They are evocative of a lost beauty that we do not know here in the Western world where such animals do not exist.  

Mr. Kavanagh prefers, instead,  the "put down" by stating that Colbert  used only the most important ("largest," "fastest" animals).  "Nary a titmouse in this temple"  Kavanagh said.  This is a lie.  There is a ground squirrel, plus wild dogs, antelope, zebras, and other animals, including several species of birds, such as penguins in their natural habitat.  

 Does the Arctic qualify as "exoticism," another of Kavanagh's misinformed epithets?  He used that word three times.  Exoticism first appeared as a derisive label for nineteenth century European art with an obsessive  fantasy --one of Near Eastern lavishness, sensuality and rich decoration.  Yes, some of the humans in the images probably are South Asian people, but that is apparent only if you examine them closely; it is not obvious, as there are no distinctive costumes, no exotic color, nor decoration reveled in for its own sake.  Why is it wrong to photograph whales from under the sea, or Burmese elephants with people in their native country?  Mr. Kavanagh needs to read-up on the term exoticism.

Mr. Kavanagh claims that the artist should have attempted to reveal competing realities, including the political and practical.  That's like telling Ansel Adams that he needed to show strip mining and refuse receptacles in his views of the wilderness.  I've seen the photos of whales rammed by ships, of animals abused, shot, overworked, clubbed, and chained.  How does one attempt to change human awareness?  Many photos by others have already shown human callousness and brutality.  But here we see beauty and compassion.  Colbert goes to the core.  Once the heart is touched, the mind opens and other realities can enter.  That is the only way to change the world.

Mr. Kavanagh is offended to think that Colbert is preaching to him, although he recognizes that there is the suggestion of something "prayerful."  But it is only a suggestion.  A suggestion of reverence is not the same as preaching.  Does the feeling of love in the gestures of young people make Mr. Kavanagh feel inferior?  Perhaps he's embarrassed  because he has never felt that way towards an animal.  I guess that means that no one could have more reverence than he.  If that were the case,  I should think that Mr. Kavanagh would be overjoyed to see that someone else has not only reverence, but is able to convey such a rich emotion in a photograph.  Could Mr. Kavanagh be jealous?  No?  Perhaps he feels he has to be critical--after all, if he doesn't find fault somewhere, then people will not believe in his all-knowing  superiority.

It is the duty of those who write about art to give the interested viewer some sense of what the art conveys.  If he can put the art into a historical or stylistic context that is helpful.  It should allow for the reader to be motivated to see the exhibit. To criticize out of a need to establish superiority is too often the sad condition of contemporary "criticism," unhappily displayed in Grist Magazine's presentation of Michael Kavangh's review.

Perhaps Mr. Kavanagh should look more closely at his comparisons before solidifying them in text. The only lawsuit that should be worried about is one served to Richard Avedon, for his advocacy of cruelty to animals, shown by the brutal chain the elephant in the far right of the image wears. Talk about a circus act.

Thank you, Sharon Hill, for your eloquently written retort to one of the most closed observations of this artist, his work, and his message.

1. Disoriented anxiety and fear as they are pushed through the water in boats -something totally contrived and contrary to their nature.
   
2. Shivering, hyperventilating fear as some of them have gotten wet, probably from trying to escape, and they now cower together as they have likely been hoisted unceremoniously from the water and forcibly replaced on the boats so Colbert can keep shooting.
   
3. An all out terrified scramble to save their lives as they run and jump off the boats, swimming desperately for shore.