Week 7- Presentation

For two years I have been photographing my father, sister and two brothers as they cope with my mother's depression. Not once in those two years have I ever thought about nature, nor did I think that I would ever actually address anything pertaining to nature within the images. However after reading the Edward O. Winston and Stephen R Kellert articles on Biophilia my whole notion of what nature is shifted. What I have realized is that this whole time I have been photographing my families relationship to nature without even knowing it. For my presentation I will discuss my work as it relates to the biophilia hypothesis. 

While gathering research  for this presentation I came across some great books/articles on biophilia and mental health which I was very excited about because of my personal interest in mental illness. These findings have lead me to want to explore the relationship between biophilia and mental illness for my final paper. 

I don't want to give away my presentation, but here are some of the photographs I will be discussing. 

The Death of Environmentalism - Week 6

Children rummaging through garbage in the slums of India,  Environmental issue? 

In The Death of the Environmentalism Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus challenge the modern environmental movement and create a new dialogue to help advance the future of environmentalism. The first issue they challenge is the narrow defining of what is "environmental."  Shellenberger and Nordhaus suggest that the problem is that "the environment" is defined as a "thing" that needs protecting, they state: "thinking of the environment as a "thing" has had an enormous implications for how environmentalists conduct their politics. The three-part strategic framework for environmental policy-making hasn't changed in 40 years: 1st define a problem as "environmental", 2nd craft a technical remedy, 3rd sell the technical proposal to legislators through a variety of tactics, such as lobbying , advertising, and public relations." They go on to argue that this narrowing defining of "the environment" as a thing that needs to be fixed leads to equally narrow solutions, such as energy saving light bulbs, hybrid cars, and more efficient appliances. However these things do not advance the worldview of environmentalism or solve any issues.

Shellenberger and Nordhaus suggest that we should challenge what does and doesn't get counted as "environmentalism." They raise the questions "why is a human-made phenomenon like global warming -which may kill hundreds of millions of human beings over the next century-considered "environmental"? Why are poverty and war not considered environmental problems while global warming is? What are the implications of framing global warming as environmental problem-and handing off the responsibility for dealing the it to environmentalists?." (pg.12) Susan Clark states, "when we use the term environment it makes it seem as if the problem is out there and we need to fix it...The problem is not external to us; it's us. It's a human problem having to do with how we organize our society. This old way of thinking isn't anyones fault, but its is our responsibility to change." (pg.12)

It is this questioning that I found to be the most interesting and thought provoking in the article because it suggests that environmental issues are not purely based on "sound science" but rather on culture. Shellenberger and Nordhaus include a great quote by the Sierra Club founder John Muir, which also appears in the article Every Corner is Alive, that reads, " when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." This quote articulates Shellenberger and Nordhaus argument that "environmental" have more than just one cause but are rather the result of many things that are connected, they write: "the problem is that once you identify something as the root cause, you have little reason to look for even deeper causes or connections with other root causes." (pg.15)

One issue that is stressed throughout the article as well in contemporary media and writings on the environment is Americans disinterest in "environmental" issues.   However it is not that people don't care about the environment but that they have so many other things that need immediate attention in their lives. Many of the green solutions don't apply to most middle to lower-class Americans because of the high costs of these "gadgets" and the inaccessibility of them. Money appears to be one giant issue when dealing with shifts in helping to protect the environment, but how do we overcome that? I found the amount that G.M. pays for health care a year was astounding ($4.8 billion) and the suggestion by Shellenberger and Nordhaus that if there was free health care G.M. could put that money to creating a more eco-friendly industry. This examination proved that everything is linked and if we want to save the "environment" we must stop defining it so narrowly and look at the larger issues. In many ways health care, and poverty are just as much of environmental issue as global warming because they are all effecting the environment in which we live.    

After reading this article its interesting to think about arts role in environmental issues because they are so much more complex than I think art could ever reveal. I do however believe that art can expose/question some of these issues. Eliot Porter and Edward Burtynsky are a good comparison because of the different approaches they take towards exposing environmenatl issues. Where Porter photographs the landscape as an attempt to preserve/protect its beauty, placing emphasis on the ordinary,  Burtynsky photographs the landscape to expose the effects of man and places the emphasis on the extraordinary. It is interesting to see how similar their style is, both make use of the full frame "in which there is no subject and background, every corner is alive." (Every Corner is Alive, pg .241) In Every Corner is Alive Rebecca Solnit suggests that this what an ecological aesthetic might look like because it refers back to the first principle of ecology that "everything is connected to everything else, all parts of a system have equal value." The form of Porter's and Burtynsky's photographs mimic this notion. I think that both Porter's and Burtynsky's photographs have had a significant effect on the way that people view the environment, but I'm not sure to what extent. I think these artist raise the question of whether a beautiful photograph is enough?

Eliot Porter

Edward Burtynsky

I think the work of Ghanian artist El Anatsui, who creates sculptures from recycled trash. Unlike Porter and Burtynsky, whose art preserves and reveals issues of the enivronment, Anatusi "works with what his environment throws at him." The raw materials of Anatsui's work have a profound impact on the West African societies that use, reuse and discard them. Several of his metal cloths (pictured below) are constructed with aluminum wrappings from the tops of bottles from locla distillaries. Drawing on the aesthetic traditions of his native Ghana and Nigeria, Anatsui's work engage the cultural, social, and economic histories of West Africa. His pieces provide a commentary on globaliztion, consumerism, waste and the transience of people's lives in West Africa and beyond. Anatsui's sculptures suggest both literally and metaphorically that everything is linked and interconnected. I think that Anatsui's work is much more progressive, than Porter's and Burtynsky's because it creates a dialogue between many environmenatl issues rather than focusing on the environment as one "thing"... nature. 

Like a bird on the wire...-Week 5

                                                                               My Mother with a Parrot

In his essay A Bird Tapestry, written for the Birdspace exhibition, David S. Rubin examines the many ways that artists, both classical and contemporary, incorporate birds into their work. In the essay  Rubin states, " whether scrutinized in every detail or elevated as symbols for something profound or noble, birds have an impressive track record at holding the human attention span captive." But what is it that draws humans to birds? Rubin suggests the reason for this is that people see birds as part of humanity, which leads back to the notion of biophilia.  In many ways the Birdspace exhibition is a typology of Biophilia values, from humans utilitarian to negatvistic relationship with birds. 

There were several artists/ideas that I particularly enjoyed, the first being Ernesto Pujol's use of birds and their predicaments as metaphors for the temporality of life. Pujol states, " Life is fragile, vulnerable. And perhaps because it easier to talk about the short life of birds, and how they die from one moment to the next, I chose the visual essay as a metaphor for the brevity of human existence and the shock of death." Click link to view Pujol's installation The Silence of Songbirds. 

This statement by Pujol made me think about this photograph that I took at my mother's house a few months ago. 

Sitting on top of the television are my step-grandfather's ashes, a fake flower arrangement, the ashes of my mother's dog (Snickers), and the ashes of her bird(Pedro). In this photograph Snicker's and Pedro's ashes are equally as important as my step-grandfather's, which symbolizes not only the temporality of life for all species, but also the similarities that we have to other species, we all live and die. 

I also really enjoyed Annette Messager's series of stuffed sparrows swaddled in garments, entitled The Boarders. For this series Messager knits garments for the sparrows much like a mother would knit a blanket/booties for her child. The sparrows therefore become surrogates for children, evoking in Messager's words the "growing pains" of "childhood." I was very touched by this piece and it made me think of  Hemmingway's six word story, " For sale: baby shoes, never worn." There is a deep sadness in the metaphor of knitting a garment for the dead sparrow (which represents a child) and all that it implies.

                                       Annette Messager, The Boarders

The final artist that stands out to me is Roni Horn  and her use of the bird to explore identity. Horn having  grown up with an androgynous name is conscious of mistaken assumptions that can be made when based on person's name. This experience is reflected in her photographic diptychs which pair very similar photographs of the back of a taxidermy birds heads. The subtle lighting differences between the images make it difficult for viewers to determine if they are looking at one bird, or two different ones. The birds are void of any defining male/female characteristics, or rather any characteristics at all, they are "androgynous. The photographs suggest the question: how much do you know about a person just from the material things such as a name, or the back of a head? 

                                                                                      Roni Horn 

To continue on in my self awareness of my relationship with nature, I found all the items in my home that referenced birds and created a precarious little sculpture. 

click image to view larger

Nature, Friend With Benefit - Week 4 : The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature

What is the human relation to nature? 

In Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic, Edward O. Winston, applies the notion of Biophilia to answer this question. The Biophilia hypothesis asserts the existence of a biologically based, inherent need for human beings to affiliate with  life and lifelike processes.  Winston states, " biophilia is not a single instinct but a complex of learning rules that can be teased and analyzed individually... the feelings fall among several emotional spectra: from attraction to aversion, from awe to indifference, from peacefulness to fear driven anxiety." In The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature, Stephen R. Kellert explores the notion of biophilia by examining nine fundamental aspects for valuing and affiliating with the natural world: utilitarian, naturalistic, ecologistic-scientific, aesthetic, symbolic, humanistic, dominionistic, and negativistic. 

Utilitarian: practical and material exploitation of nature

Naturalistic: satisfaction from direct experience/contact with nature

Ecologistic-Scientific: systematic study of structure of function, and relationship in nature

Aesthetic: physical appeal and beauty of nature

Symbolic: use of nature for metaphorical expression, language, expressive thought

Humanistic: strong affection, emotional attachment, "love" for nature

Moralistic: strong affinity, spiritual reverence, ethical concern for nature

Dominionistic: mastery, physical control, dominance of nature

Negativistic: fear, aversion, alienation from nature

Kellert states " biophilia suggests that human identity and personal fulfillment somehow depend on our relationship to nature. The human need for nature is linked not just to the material exploitation of the environment but also to the influence of the natural world on our emotional, cognitive aesthetic and spiritual development." Winston and Kellert's biophilia hypothesis suggests that personal identity is shaped by nature.

The link between identity and nature in these two articles got me thinking about my personal relationship to nature, which I have never really done before, and how it has shaped me. As a result of reading these two articles I decided to go through my collection of personal photographs and find instances of the nine values (listed above) associated with biophilia in an attempt to understand my relationship to nature. After doing this I realized that I had a very narrow definition of nature which made me ignorant to the very close relationship that I as a human being have to nature. I agree with Wilson and Kellert that there is a very close link between personal identity and nature, it is just overlooked in our anthropocentric  conception of human identity. 

{click image to enlarge}

When reading the article Toward an Aesthetic Marine Biology, by J.Malcom Shick I couldn't help but think about the connections it had to Evelyn Keller's article The Biological Gaze because both  examine the relationship between art and science. In his article Shick discusses the similarities between the artist and scientist, "both on the quest for understanding the natural world...the vision by which we discover the hidden in nature is sometimes called science, sometimes art." What is it that separates the two? The artist is interested in aesthetics, as discussed in the Keller article anything that is touched by human hands is thought to be manipulated, while the scientist is meant to be a dispassionate observer. However Shick suggests that much can be learned from art, he quotes Leonardo Da Vinci, " painter's don't imitate nature by copying the visible, but thanks, to their understanding and analysis of the structure of the body, express it to the point of capturing the invisible breath of life." The notion of the "real" or "truth" is always a large topic of debate when discussing the relationship between art and science. Again this goes back to Keller's discussion of "looking" and "touching", in which looking is associated with purity while touching is associated with manipulation. I believe that sometimes to get to the "truth" you must manipulate the reality. 

Allison Carey's photographic series Organic Remains of a Former World is a visual representation of extinct marine creatures from the seven Paleozoic periods. Through her accurate seascapes Carey breathes life back into these extinct creatures, that would otherwise never be seen again. 

 

 

You can look, but you can't touch- Week 3:The Biological Gaze

In her essay The Biological Gaze,Evelyn Fox Keller raises the questions: Can we look without touching? and What exactly does it mean to look without touching? 

The notion of the gaze, which is most often associated with femininst discourse,  implies looking with an erotic male gaze. However in The Biological Gaze, Keller states, "in scientific discourse, looking is associated with innocence, with the desire to understand, while touching implies intervention, manipulation and control." Having stated this she asks what exactly does it mean to look without touching? Keller argues that there is no way to look without touching, "looking always touches us, at least metaphorically. " As the article goes on, Keller focuses on how looking touches the object, the material entity that we are looking at. 

This article suggests that we cannot look without touching. Keller uses the microscope, x-ray, and other forms of technology associated with looking to prove that the eye is not a purely passive instrument for study, from the light that is shined upon the object that is being gazed upon to the manipulation of its environment, technology merges looking and touching into an unified act. Though Keller is not concerned with the gaze as  metaphoric rape, I think it is important to think about when discussing the biological gaze. As previously stated, in scientific discourse looking is associated with innocence because one looks to understand, and touching implies intervention, manipulation, and control. However I believe that looking involves just as much intervention, manipulation, and control. The biological gaze is very closely associated with Laura Mulvey's defintion of the gaze because they both are based around notions of control. The other day in class we used the term eco-porn, which suggests that looking at "nature" becomes just as stimulating as looking at sexualized bodies. How do we separate looking as a means to understand, from looking as a way to stimulate? 

In the article, Art is Nature, the question is raised, what does darwinism have to do with contemporary art? Darwin described nature as a material system in which all living things are a kin. Most contemporary art focuses on the human figure, artifacts or technology and nature is merely used as a backdrop or stageset, but is not meaningful itself. However there are several artists such as, Helen and Newton Harrison, David Kremer, Gary Scheider, and Eduardo Kac, who center their art around nature itself. Helen and Newton Harrison, create watershed perserves; David Kremer creates "live art" through genetically altering E.coli bacteria; Gary Schneider examines his own body through x-ray's; and  Eduardo Kac created a genetically engineered rabbit that contains a jellyfish gene. This article suggests that these artists explore art as a part of nature by working respectfully with other living things. However do these artists really work respectfully with with other living things or do they just affirm traditional notions of man's power over nature?  

Sara Sze sculptures are flowing structures consisting of a conglomeration of small-scale household items that respond to and infiltrate the surrounding architecture.  Sze's sculptures mimic plant life, growing from the gallery floor towards the light (artifical and/or natural), and often incorporate a live plant within the structure. I thought Sze's work was interesting in regards to the Art is Nature article because she both works with nature and mimics it. Sze's work also raises questions of technology and nature. 

Carrie Schneider's series Queen of the Island, Schenider wears suits she creates from "natural" objects such as tree bark and moss. These photographs are both an intrusion upon nature as well as in attempt to blend in with nature.  

For the series Fallen Women, Schneider photographs herself caressing the beautiful landscape that she has "fallen upon." I view these photographs as an illustration of humans inability to look without touching, however they show the artist's interaction with nature as tender and loving rather than intrusive,  Schneider embraces the grond as if it were her lover. 

You Say Nature, I Say Nature: Week 1 - Defining Nature

What is Nature? 

After reading the excerpt from The Dictionary of Ideas and The Etiquette of Freedom, by Gary Snyder, I realized that defining nature is not such an easy task. These readings suggest that there is no singular way to define nature, but rather that the term nature is fluid and varies from culture, religion, and science. 

In the Dictionary of the History of  Ideas,  it is stated, "the natural is held by some to be better than the artificial, the customary, the contemporary. Of these four terms only the supernatural is usually considered to be better than the natural." This statement suggests that the natural is not that which is artificial, customary, or contemporary, therefore natural is defined through a set of oppositions of what it is not. In order for something to not be, it must have something to be measured against.  

In Etiquette of Freedom Gary Snyder also explores  nature, the natural, the unnatural, the supernatural, the wild, wilderness, and human nature through a series of dichotomies. Snyder's examination of the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of wild demonstrates how we define these terms based upon our own experiences as humans, he writes " the wild is largely defined in our dictionaries by- what from a human- it is not."

The Oxford English Dictionary defintion of wild

Of animals- not tame, undomesticated, unruly

Of plants- not cultivated

Of land- uninhabited, uncultivated

Of societies-uncivilized, rude, resisting constituted government

of individuals-unrestrained, insubordinate

This definition articulates what the wild is not, however it does not state what it is. I feel that this is also applies to popular definitions/notions of nature, nature is not artificial, it is not touched by mankind, it is not human. Nature is either defined very narrowly by category (a flower, at tree a park, a wilderness preserve) or very broadly as "the physical universe and all its properties." There are also innumerable connotations of these terms, something can be in nature, or something could be in someone's nature. It appears that nature is something that one cannot control, what is natural is subjective. 

Patricia Piccinini, Silicone, acrylic, human hair, leather, timber

Patricia Piccinini's sculptures focus on the changing conceptions of life and nature under the onslaught of technology. Her sculptures meld together that which is human/unhuman, natural/unnatural/supernatural, real/unreal.