Week Two: Jan 26-Feb 1: Weintraub, Linda To life! Eco art in pursuit of a sustainable planet: Complete the Personal Survey on pp. 321-322. Read: Preface; Art Genres; Art Strategies; Eco Issues; Eco Approaches; Introduction; Eco Art Is; Eco Art Is Not (pp. xliii to 18)
Thank you for all of your incredibly complex and interesting introductions. We are well represented globally in terms of teaching and learning. With the semester project, you will have an opportunity to make art and write about your art as well. We will talk about that later.
Week 2’s readings are from Weintraub:
Weintraub, Linda To life! Eco art in pursuit of a sustainable planet: Complete the Personal Survey on pp. 321-322. Read: Preface; Art Genres; Art Strategies; Eco Issues; Eco Approaches; Introduction; Eco Art Is; Eco Art Is Not (pp. xliii to 18)
(I'm using a Kindle version--follow titles and not page numbers--it will all work out.)
The introductions to the first part of the book is tedious, but the micro histories and intro material is very important and actually quite interesting and important.
I will pose separate questions/posts that you may respond to. Those prompts/questions are below and you can answer them right underneath each question. Keep in mind, that I'd like you to respond a minimum of four times per week. Some of you will be early posters; some of you will post late. I expect everybody to read ALL posts. That may mean looking back to finish reading late postings for a week. Remember, you have from Wednesday to the following Friday (ten days) to post. That's an extra two days. I will usually post new week on Thursdays.
Keep in mind that you do not have to respond to every post or question I make. Oftentimes, I will create many questions; one reason I do that is to appeal to what you might be interested in posting about. Feel free to create your own questions based on your interested and reflections on the readings.
Also, you may have to wait a day or so to reply to other posts. Do not post four posts in a row just to get it over with--wait and see how others are responding--that way we can generate a non-synchronous discussion.
As you have seen, it is possible for you to upload images to this blog. As far as I know, there are two ways. The easiest is to go to new post in the upper right hand corner and create a post where you can upload images and add text. Let’s do that if you ever have to upload anything. The sidebar to the right follows in chronological order, so we should be ok.
So, in review, all of us are authors. If you want to post an image, create a new post (look to the upper right hand corner of blog), and upload an image (330K or less; jpegs work); when you create a new post you can see all of your options.
You will notice that I will write: Post marker.--that is to let me know how far down I have read on the blog. That’s just for me. If you ever fall behind, post a missing week in the current week--just let us know you are doing that. Any questions?
A little more about our first book. Much of the info/strategies/words in this book might be fairly new to you. All I ask is that you be open to the new information. This will be my fifth read of this book. For many of you, this may be your first read. I like this book because it offers other ways to look at art and artists as research. It offers newer methods for creating research, new categories: bio art, etc. And, since many of you are making art or interested in beginning to make again, this first book is fascinating in scope, sequence and content—and research strategies. We are engaged in reading about how Weintraub theorizes the possibilities of eco-art and politics. This has always been the case when writing about histories of arts. Weintraub writes in a fairly accessible manner--she wants us to get it; she wants us to become part of some of these changes. Often, theory books are so dense it's impossible to understand what the author is writing about. Weintraub systematically discloses for us keys and ideas to help us become part of a mission to create change in ourselves and our communities--not just a style. That is partly what is revolutionarily interesting of this book for me.
I think back to some years ago in an outreach course that I taught at Tech, a Visual studies class team-taught an entire elementary school for a semester that didn't have an art teacher. I recall how two students, Rachel Jones and Vida Weekley, only developed projects repurposing everything--making their own paper for example. All of their projects were directly related to the environment or recycled materials. Our classes were usually 45 minutes long, but their 4thgrade cooperating classroom teacher let them make art with the kids all afternoon each week. They made dyes from vegetables. They were practicing some of the tenets that Weintraub is espousing.
Just a few comments once again from last week's postings—just lovely introductions. As you will see with our second book, I want you to invite your life and art and issues into this classroom. Some, maybe many of you, are new to blogging. For me, this is a more democratic way of engaging online—as we are all authors. In Blackboard for example, it’s more about surveillance and when people respond. Here, I just want you to be as honest and open as you can be. Hopefully I/we will draw more questions than answers.
As far as semester projects go, many of you could create something from your intros. This is just to get people to begin thinking about the semester project. Projects often come from our back school and home and community yards. You could do one of the following. Keep in mind, that both making art and/or examining teaching practices (or making art or writing about art or doing both) are ways to create research or to continue research on something you've already started whether it is related to making art or studying some aspect of art or visual arts or visual cultures. If you have an interest in creating art or a project based on a principle we read about--that is legitimate. That’s why we are reading the books, to influence us or at the very least to have some kinds of impressions. Making art and writing about it is a call to action. You could also decide to keep a visual/digital journal of your process, for example; a mapping; or create or document actual lessons or problems in your own lessons and ways you are rethinking responses--you don't have to have it all figured out. Or, you may already have an ongoing project that you would like to continue studying.
We are mainly using this book as a theoretical lens to think through other spaces to create change. Eco art is one way--making art/making social/cultural/arts change. Examining a teaching practice is another way. Weintraub is giving us a structure and vocabulary to link us back to the ground we stand on everyday day. I think this will be enjoyable. So many of you already have a deep respect for the land and people. That's primary.
I'm reminded of a children's book about a cat, where the human says to the cat, to come into my house--my world. And the cat replies, come into my house, my world--the cat's house is the outdoors, it is nature. The human could only see her house as a legitimate way to live or house (I’m using house as a verb). The cat reminded her that all of nature is home to all sorts of creatures. (The Cat Who Wouldn't Come Inside)
I will post some questions. Weintraub covered a great deal of histories and definitions. Don't worry if you didn't get them or understand them all. We get to go through artists next where everything is applied. I am very excited about that. Just keep in mind that the terms Weintraub is using are legitimate ways to describe research; art as research; or reflecting about teaching as research. The latter about teaching qualifies in lots of methodological ways--action research, reflective research, autoethnographic research, and qualitative research. Google some of those approaches to give you a glimpse of the multiple ways to think about and write about art and teaching. My intent is that we are using the Weintraub book because many teachers join our MAE program
because they want to make art again. Making art constitutes research--making research. Weintraub gives us vocabulary to help us articulate about our process and journey. Also, our first book is a global book.
Once again welcome. You will get used to this format rather quickly. Sometimes it works better on Safari or Chrome—and other platforms. You will be creating your own blogspot.com page, so you may want to play with that. That is where you will be posting your project for this course. It’s a free format. Under settings, you can invite only us. We will all be looking at each others projects and commenting at the end of this course. If, for some reason, you create a project that is so personal, that you only want me to see it, or not even me, we can work with that.
One more point. I created all of this writing on MicrosoftWord and then copied and pasted it into the blog. The blog has limits as to how many words and sometimes will freeze, if you write too many words—so think about cutting and pasting so you won’t lose it all, like I did at times. Also, if posting a new post, remember to “Publish It” before you hit the “view blog” button again. You will lose all of your writing for that new post—you have to hit “Publish button” first. Then view blog. And also, this is a private blog. Only we can view it.
For anyone interested in studying in Lubbock Summer I, Glassblowing and clay will be offered in Lubbock Summer One first three-week session summer 2017. Some people have been asking about that.
There are no wrong answers to any of the posed questions. They are merely questions. Please feel free to post your own questions. My questions are mere guides to get a conversation going. And, always use "I" language...I think, I fell, My experiences, etc. Just reply under each question. Only create a new post if you are posting images, otherwise add your comments under each question. Thanks.
There are no wrong answers to any of the posed questions. They are merely questions. Please feel free to post your own questions. My questions are mere guides to get a conversation going. And, always use "I" language...I think, I fell, My experiences, etc. Just reply under each question. Only create a new post if you are posting images, otherwise add your comments under each question. Thanks.
I asked everybody to take a look at the Addendum; Personal Survey--What do I believe? What did you find out about yourself in terms of how you think about the earth and others? What are some of your relationships to the earth? How might these impact your thinking about making art? Or rethink?
ReplyDeleteDAVID Mesple': What jumped out at me in the survey is that I have many biases for and against certain statements. I prefer "Other" to most answers. While I am a generous gregarious teacher, I would rather work with materials than people. Wood never broken my heart, metal and glass never betrayed me. Paints never lie, paper never cheats, canvas never goes on an ego rant, and clay never steals. Reshaping the materials the Earth provides us is more fascinating than art history theories (the history is great, the theories are not) I read for content, not intent. People who search for underlying art theories are less interesting than the people who search for the meaning/properties of the stuff of art. My purpose in life is to understand as fully as possible the perceived nature of reality. Why? Because those who do not understand the complex properties of the place they live in will screw it up.
Delete1. The Earth is beyond complete understanding. The great myth of societies tells us we can control Nature. When we cannot control Nature, we invoke gods, fables, rituals, and miss what is really there. Then we look for scapegoats and saviors. We are small in the grand scheme of things, but our thoughts are not. Consciousness is what makes probabilities into reality.
2. When I envision my environment, I imagine gardens, arboretums, aquariums, and zoos. I grew up along the coast south of San Francisco, where there are micro-climates that change every 100 meters and the flora and fauna with it. Human constructed environments replicate these microclimates I thrived in. I like the micro over the macro. I love water- oceans, lakes, streams, rivers. Deserts and mountains are too homogeneous for me. My favorite animal is the Tasmanian Wolf (Thylacine), a marsupial thought to be extinct from Australian sheep ranchers slaughtering them. The last known ones died in captivity in the 1930’s. They are probably alive in remote regions of Tasmania and we should leave them alone and unseen. They evolved convergently and fill the same ecological niches as placental mammals. They fit in but are fundamentally different. (I can relate to that).
3. The interactions that sustain my life are with plants. I grow as many different varieties as my climate permits. If one dies, I cry. I have the greenest thumb. I know them like relatives. I treat them with respect and care.
4. The invisible part of the environment I pay attention to is physics and "devas" the spirits that care for the plants and animals. Physics explains much of the perceived Nature of reality. I don't perceive devas, but when I help with the work they do, I feel like I am supported whenever I am caring for their charges-plants, animals, and the land.
5. I am least familiar with social media, and wilderness (Nature you can’t control).
6. The state of the planet today is CHANGING, and it will eventually deal with its biggest problem, PEOPLE.
7. My instincts and observations inform my opinions about the state of the planet, plus facts I learn and never forget.
8. The people who most impact the place I live in NEGATIVELY are religious leaders, corporate managers, and financial authorities. The people who most impact it POSITIVELY are a minority of people who do not confuse wants with needs, and do not consume to “grow the economy” (I detest that phrase, because no one will admit what the necessary fertilizer is to “grow” it is –Greed). There are just 2 Deadly Sins: Greed and Wrath: Sloth, Envy, Pride. Lust, and Gluttony are all variants of Greed-greed for inactivity, what others have, adulation, sex, and food. Wrath is wanting revenge against those whose greed you believe harmed you.
9. In the future I anticipate massive and necessary change. No one will escape this. The one thing I can say with certainty is that we will all be surprised. And hopefully we will learn what indigenous peoples have known for millennia: we are the tenants, not the owners of the planet. Let’s hope the landlady doesn’t evict us for taking such poor care of it.
David - "My purpose in life is to understand as fully as possible the perceived nature of reality. Why? Because those who do not understand the complex properties of the place they live in will screw it up." I couldn't agree more!
DeleteIndeed, massive alterations to methods of human engagement with the environment will be necessitated in the future if we expect to continue to inhabit this planet. Maintaining the specific conditions on Earth that support human life is vital to our continuance - not to mention the fact that our system supports so many other life forms in an interdependent manner. For these reasons, the way that Weintraub's book (no relation by the way, but oddly enough I have met her in person) functions as a participatory text or resource for implementation seems incredibly significant to me.
Others for me are the people who have a bold myself in front of people. This myself separate them from the rest of the world and it can be one person alone or a group of people separated from the rest by any title. They are selfish and always there are boards that divide their own "myself" from the rest of the world. When I think of myself as myself comparing to others this is the time that I separate myself from a big unity and I limit and isolate myself as a person or a small group while communication and connection only have meaning inside this unity. I can not understand them and they won't understand me. So, how can I make art to communicate with them? Therefore, I am (or the ones in the group of myself) the only one that might understand my work. This is the same when we talk about the earth. The aboriginal people in Australia believe that we don't own the land, the land owns us. This is a spiritually view to the world but I think it is right. The sense of ownership that we have to the earth has given us the feel of which we have any right to destroy it. Our life is connected to the earth and it doesn't matter which part of it; destroying a part of it ruins the whole.
DeleteLike David I find myself answering "other to virtually everything" because in part the earth, nature, etc.. will be all of the descriptors but also none of them entirely. I recall some decade ago geological scientists emerged with an immense amount of data pointing to tectonics will cease to shift in approximately 700 million years. This means that the natural ability for our world to sustain life for carbon based life forms will end. This was a concept that struck deep with me as I recognized that 2 things became crystal clear to me. One is that we live symbiotically on this planet and have abilities and even necessities to eventually come up with sustain-abilities beyond natural occurrences, however that is all really bias to the notion that humanity matters at all. The second is that there is a nature that is beyond carbon based life forms and the world and so many others exist regardless if we do or not. Just a few short years ago it was discovered right in our own backyard of California that an arsenic based life form was discovered. It was things like this that made me question all that I saw as beauty. Sure like so many I saw forests, jungles, mountains, waterfalls, and so many other natural cites as truly beautiful yet now I see things beautiful I had not before such as flat lands, erosion, landslides. forest fires, droughts, monsoons and so many things we view as devastation. I of course fight to preserve our natural parks and landscapes of beauty but i acknowledge that this is bias that is not inherent beauty to the earth and is essentially what Earth is but instead is a preservation of a moment we deem as beauty.
DeleteThe art work derived from independent reflection of earthly sight specific engagement is something that takes observing our bias relationship independently with the earth. In my books I have my characters travel across a land like something out of mad max road warrior where sands have taken all the green from the environment. I am aware the landscape will begin to take on a personification if its own and becomes the unseen character that the protagonists are in constant struggle with. I wonder how others may interpret this very landscape. I hear so many say that lubbock is beautiful and yet it is almost impossible to see the natural landscapes unaltered by man. Is the beauty in the inherent bias love of the city? Is the sky alone where beauty lies in which it is not the earth but the negative space? When we destroy nature what exactly are we destroying? Again I am one that fights for preservation I just also am digging to answer these questions as I feel we may understand our symbiotic relationship more if we can really see beyond our bias natures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI live on the earth. Thus, my life and existence depend on the well-being of the earth. Earth is the source of life, not only for me but also all the humanity.
DeleteI have been very concerned about the environmental issues since last several years. I believe protecting the environment is a moral duty for all humans. In other words, Environmental destruction and global warming are the major problems for citizens of the globe, and not only a nation or country.
The survey reminded me how much I am concerned about the issue. However, the survey showed me that my understanding of the problem, its solution, and its landscape of the future is very limited.
In my studio practice, I don’t engage Eco-art, although I am interested in looking at the artworks that involve issues around environmental destruction and global warming. I rather share my words, concerns, and information about environmental issues through direct words, news, or sharing scientific ideas than through the artistic practice. Thus, I activity engage the environmental problems through the social media.
I have two main reasons for making my decision about the mode of my response to environmental problems. Firstly, in sharing my thoughts or knowledge, I rather to be very literal, clear, and straightforward about the issue. Such clarity of convening a message is not in harmony my interest while making an artwork. Secondly, I think using scientific methods, and literal discussions about such the issue are more useful in solving the problem. Also, sharing the ideas with literal clarity will have more audience than a piece of art in a gallery, museum, etc.
I may be very wrong in having such reasons. I hope I can re-think my ideas more carefully by reading this book and participating in the discussions in this class.
Post marker.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe the earth is mysterious, frightening and most of all the earth itself is beautiful. The earth is mysterious, even too mysterious for me to speculate that's the beauty of the earth but in hindsight that's what makes it so frightening as well. All the many layers beneath the earth, the rigorous ocean waters and the creatures that occupy space in the ocean are all mysteries to me. Or maybe I've watched to many National Geographic Documentaries on mermaids just the thought makes my mind wonder and takes my mind off the daily grind.
DeleteAs the earth shifts, rumbles, quakes and spews out gasses, it’s hard to believe as much change the earth has endured over the years and yet it still keeps moving, creating, and thriving. The mystic motions of the earth are frightening to me and makes me realize the great catastrophes that occurs on our planet can swallow us up in a blink of an eye. Another frightening thought that comes to mind is the damage man creates, contamination of our water supply, endangered species, the invasion of our seas for the “greater good”. The scary list goes on and on, yet I choose to focus on the beauty of the earth for my peace of mind.
Preface: Is that all?
ReplyDeleteIs that all? And, it's so beautiful? What can happen when I explore further the products of my own answers to these two questions? Questions such as how do my art practices contribute to the sustainability of the environment/world and my community are very new to me. What can Weintraub's thesis of including these artists and histories do for me as an artist and a teacher? My studies? My curriculum? Why was I never taught about any of these artists? Those are just a few questions mulling around my head. I think about West Texas where I live and the big sky and flat terrain and how land is used.
No one ever talked to me about what kind of cultural or environmental steward or teacher or artist I might be. So, I wonder--what are--will be my responses to this book and the land? Your thoughts?
I really appreciate how this book is designed to function as an informative book for unconventional consultation. In other words, it contains discrete passages that can be read in any order and still inform the content as a whole. I think that for students who have grown up in the digital era (typically meaning access to high speed internet, smart phones, communication via text messages, unlimited data, social media etc.) this format is really innovative. And of course, the content is particularly relevant, which makes designing the book to its best advantage for use in subsequent generations all the more significant.
DeleteAs a student I was exposed to some of these artists. HOWEVER, and this is a big 'however', it always seemed like these works were validated by by my teachers by their being deemed art. As a teacher, I would like to think more about how to convey the importance of these works by conveying their significance in other ways. Perhaps this means emphasizing the idea of 'useful art'...or relating it back to the students' personal experience with the environment/world and their communities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAfter I started reading, I thought of these questions: What can art contribute to the environmental sustainability that other forms of communication cannot? In other words, what does make artistic practice distinctive and different from other fields, say, science about environmental issues? I think those are some significant questions regarding Eco-art movement and artists.
DeletePost marker.
DeleteThe idea of artist inclusion choices in the art curriculums is an interesting point that I believe is more and intertwined with political bias motivations. We see examples of schools from elementary to bid name universities that focus on very specific methods of teaching art. A classical old dead white guy approach will focus on discipline and styles of art that the artwork has deemed as fine art. I feel like works that go beyond the classical since, including eco art, tend to be disregarded unless there is enough public response to warrant accepting the art as a higher form. I often wondered if works like Spiral Jetti would be considered art in other periods or if it is because of public interest that if gained respect. I also realize that students are also victims of their instructors inherent bias so the works meaning most to the teacher one way or another will be expressed to the student. I believe ecoart is beginning to make more vocal statements with a wider reach and thus are becoming something more readily viewed. Some of the exposure is politic bias I would think and part of it is the more we shift away from classical the more it becomes acceptable to explore artist that would have been cast out otherwise. I can see that some of the examples are making there way in textbooks as examples for the "movement" but many I have never heard of and the work seems only addressed in terms of the movement which makes me really consider what limiting factors exist in the artworld.
DeleteProvoking thought happens when art or learning about art is more than learning about beauty. When a person goes beyond looking or thinking about a piece of artwork aesthetically it gives them an opportunity to understand the message an artist is trying to convey, whether it be about sustainability or any other pressing issue
DeleteJust a note--Don't forget to look at the online Auxiliaries for Instructors and Students--those appear in my kindle edition, directly after the table of contents. Weintraub has syllabi and lessons; teaching guides and student resources. Well worth investigating at some point. Just a heads-up on that for now.
ReplyDeleteSchematics/Indexes/Glossaries
ReplyDeleteHere we find a layout of multiple contemporary methods/genres (different ways to create research/art) that artists utilize: paint, print, sculpture, performance,photo/video, bio art, generative art, social practice, digital, public art, design, and installation. Some of these should sound familiar. Others will sound new--possibly strange. Welcome to contemporary methods. Note in glossary that these are all defined for us.
Next, Weintraub lists visual of Art Strategies--objectives if you will--and that may be too narrow of a way to look at them, but a beginning:
instruct
intervene
visualize
metaphorize
activate
celebrate
perturb
dramatize
satirize
investigate
...calls to action; calls to learn; ways to begin to heal... Weintraub cross references these with the artists we will learn about. The words look like a poem--a call to action to me. You?
David:
DeleteI looked at Weintraub's list of methods, and felt like something was missing. "Intervene" and "perturb" are heading in a direction towards where I think something may be missing, but they seem more passive than active. One can intervene passively by dramatizing and satirizing. One can perturb similarly and by instructing and activating. I am 100% for these methods (all of them), but maybe it's my age or the culture I grew up in, but the more active versions of "intervene" and "perturb" are "resistance" and "subversion." As much as I would like to see ago art and ecologists utilize the listed methods, if one sees humans as a part of Nature and not the masters of Nature, then it is not much of a leap to defend Nature with resistance and subversion, especially if we perceive Nature as indifferent to humans.
What would that look like? Well, it wouldn't be pretty or nice. It would be ugly and mean. Can art be ugly and mean? Anthropocentric art has often been one or both. Francis Bacon's work fits that description, as does many other artists' work. Can an eco artist be ugly and mean? I would hope that the sanctity and fragility of all life would dissuade eco artists from these more extreme methods.
I spent a week with members of the Critical Art Ensemble and watched a founding member, Steve Kurtz, have to defend his work after Homeland Security put him on the No Fly List as a suspected "terrorist". More on that another posting. I was amazed that Steve seldom embraced ugly or adopted mean methods as he was persecuted by the U.S. government.
So, what if the failure of the listed methods leads to a call to action that does not privilege humans? Eco-radicals spike trees in National Forests with long nails that will ruin chainsaws and even cause grievous harm to operators. Is that terrorism, vandalism, or a desperate move to prevent habitat destruction in the name of progress?
Here's where things get really messy, philosophically, for me. If an anthopocentric approach is based on the idea that what is best is what is determined by humans, then is spiking trees anthropocentric, ecocentric, or neither. As were are given "alternative facts" that claim that there is no human part in climate change (or if there even is any), AND if the listed methods are not having the impact needed to ameliorate the effects of human activity , what is the proper course of artistic action? I don't know the answer, but am confused if it is anthropocentric to initiate subversion (like spiking) or is it ecocentric to let things become tenuous until there is such an interruption of the human condition, that change takes place?
Here's an analogy from my life: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sought social justice for an oppressed people by advocating non-violent action. People were harmed and even killed in that effort. Many people found this so disturbing that perceptions began to change. The Black Panthers took a different approach that was, by comparison, ugly and mean. They announced that they would mete out the same levels of violence that was being perpetrated against their communities, and they scared the crap out of people who let established systems of repression keep inequalities in place. Suddenly, Dr. King was a prophet and a majority (then) of Americans thought his cause was just.
I will be interested as I read further in the Weintraub book if there art Eco artists analogous to Dr. KIng, as well as Black Panther-style Eco artists, especially in the charged political climate we find ourselves in today.
Post marker.
DeleteSchematic of Eco Issues:
ReplyDeleteenergy
waste
climate change
technology
habitat
sustainability
resources
chaos
complexity
systems
reforms
...a list of dynamic issues facing teachers, artists, students, communities. She connects these issues to specific artists.
And finally, a schematic of approaches:
conservation
preservation
social ecology
deep ecology
restoration ecology
urban ecology
industrial ecology
ecosystem ecology
sustainable development
...another list of exciting possibilities to merge art making and pedagogy. To learn more about my community. A gift of a contemporary vocabulary list.
Your thoughts on the words and possibilities?
Talking about eco art and various eco approaches I am curious about how the artists have examined about what we call sound pollution and its effects on the earth and nature. The author explains about Urban ecology which concerns with a "broad range of city problems". She didn't specifically mention sound and anything related to sound pollution but it definitely can be an issue that this eco approach examines its effects on the world. However, industrial ecology is another approach that sound can cover this topic. searching for different artists mentioned under the name of this approaches, I wasn't able to find any example regarding sound and eco art in the list but I found Bill Fontana's works that are related to the urban environment. He has used the sound of the urban environment as a musical source which is living source and he has recorded it. His best work, I believe, is "Sound Island" in which he transferred the live sound of the sea in Normandy to Arc de Triomphe by broadcasting the sound to the 48 hidden loudspeakers. Through this installation, he created an illusion that cars moving around without sound because the sound of the sea has masked the cars' sound. (http://resoundings.org/Pages/Resoundings.html)
DeleteNow, can we consider his work as eco art? Are his works reflecting some eco issues such as technology and energy? Are his works "innovation an essential aspect of a masterwork of art"? these are the questions that I like to find the answers in this book.
Basesd on 4 qualifications mentioned to fulfill the eco art, topics, interconnection, dynamism, and ecosenterism, I think this work does not reflect the forth one because it is a n anthropocenterism that reflects human experience.
DeletePost marker.
DeleteRaha, I think you brought up a very interesting point. I am not sure how sound pollution may impact the ecosystem destructively, though the environmental issues can surely reflect themselves in the sound. Indeed, any kind of change in our environment can be seen, and can be heard.
DeleteI have to disagree that even if it is anthropecentrism I wonder why we are so quick to dismiss it as eco art as it is getting the viewer to question these positions. As for whether or not sound pollution is destructive to the ecosystem is a discussed matter and without sound evidence proving it is not then it is mere opinion which wouldn't be enough to denounce the merit as ecoart. We have to consider that even if we do not agree with a position we have to consider that if it largely can be accepted than we must accept it as artwork pertaining to those ideas. This I believe is crucial in are observation of these pieces as we must try to remove our own bias and see how the audience at large may perceive it. It can for sure be seen as controversy and I respect that but the controversy is then whether you believe in the message not in the merit of whether it is ecoart or not.
DeleteRecently trending here in Lubbock the noise city ordinance, some are for city regulation and others disagree how it infringes in business and the music and art scene here in Lubbock.
Deletehttp://z2codes.franklinlegal.net/franklin/Z2Browser2.html?showset=lubbockset
Introduction
ReplyDelete1960s watershed years for eco art. Artists looked for ways to work with nature rather than have power over it. Green Revolution created new ways to think about land and life:
zero population growth
voluntary simplicity (I love this one)
back-to-land movements
organic farming
vegans
birders
solar energies
recyclers
alternative architectural practices
sustainable land developments
community-supported agriculture
...multiple ways to sustain futures. I read that eco art is: diverse, experimental, ways to explore and inquire--words I use in teaching and in my art making. Historically, I read that in the Middle Ages infinity and eternity rule--and today, materiality and progress rule. Entirely different life and land approaches to thinking, learning, creating and living.
What happens when humans are part of the life equation; but not its entirety? In ecocentrism, humans are not center. What happens to me as an artist and teacher if I think about and apply the Gaia hypothesis?; of interdependence and mutuality? What might that mean for my teaching, making art and living?
DAVID: Ah! 1960's, the glorious years of my youth. It was the best and the worst of times. The worst was going to school every day under the terror of Mutually Assured Destruction, the concept that the Cold War tensions would prevent the Soviet Union and the US from launching nuclear missiles at each other. I honestly believe that the reason so many of my generation got into drugs was to push this below consciousness. As I walked to school every day, the idea that I would never see my mother, brother, sisters, and everyone I knew. Worse was the idea that ALL humans might die. Those creepy '"duck and cover" nuclear attack drills scared the crap out of me.
DeleteBack to the positive: solar energy was exciting, organic farming was available through farmers' markets. The published Whole Earth Catalogue reflects Ed's list. I was fascinated with geodesic homes (still want to live in one). I was a vegetarian in-the-making, I just couldn't stand meat so it slowly dropped out of my diet. Pork first then red meat, then fowl (which was somehow NOT meat?) I just never liked it and my mother would force me to eat some at dinner, not just vegetables. We encouraged birds in our suburban California yard and I started transplanting plants and taking care of the large backyard we had.
Voluntary simplicity was the clarion call of my generation, until greed turned Hippies into Yuppies, then hedge fund managers. Art supplies were precious (and not cheap) and I passed on material things in order to afford tools and art supplies, scouring Flea Markets for both. I took over the garage (my family called it "David's garage" for over a decade. No cars were ever put in there. It became my 1st studio.
But I wasn't an Eco artist cognizant of a complete global view. I did not desire material things as my life was limited by finances. I wanted to know how artists/ craftspersons made everything. I was thrifty & used recycled materials, but my goal was to make art. Those materials were my material wants.
The Middle Ages terrified me! The lost skills of Ancient Greece and Rome were replaced with superstition and plagues (the ultimate non-voluntary zero-population growth mechanism). Somehow I developed an Eco-aesthetic, but it was anthropocentric because I viewed craftsmanship as an epiphany in material form. My brand of materialism was not to possess consumer products but to possess the skills and tools of craftspeople as I grew into the 1970's. Didn't own a car until my late 20's and I bought my clothes at Army-Navy Surplus Stores and "restored" everything, from my clothes to my dumpster-acquired furnishings.
I developed a suburban Ecocentric ideology: if things are built to last, they don't need to be replaced (planned obsolescence is a concept I find vexing). "Fix it yourself or do without" is my mantra. My dismay with new technology is largely based on its planned obsolescence.
While I believe that humans are important, I never thought we had dominion over other life forms. I understand that we are not necessary, but consciousness is. As philosophers struggle with the "Hard Question" of consciousness, David Chalmers (who coined the phrase) has started to tackle the "Hardest Questio”, does consciousness collapse the wave function and produce physical objects? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL1h-QgeD96
The Rosicrucian Order, a semi-secret society created in late Medieval Germany believes in animal rights and population control, with the maximum human population held at 500 million. Perhaps the Middle Ages had it right? Reducing human numbers to less than 10% of present numbers would solve most of the ecological problems threatening the Earth. Would this be a form of ecocentrism? I worry about the future younger generations face. I still embrace my original art ethic. Art should not degrade Earth's resources, wrong lifestyles do. With only 500 million humans, art-making wouldn't measurably impact the Earth.
Post marker.
DeleteI think ecocentrism is defiantly a dramatic shift in the humans’ perspective to the life, themselves and art. Particularly, in the Western societies, after the Renaissance humans find themselves and their faculty of reason at the center of the universe! Ecocentrism, thus, is big move and thus can create radical transformations in the artistic movements. In making art, or teaching I think considering such historical shift is very crucial.
DeleteMoreover, Gaia hypothesis of interdependence and mutuality, I think can call for having a more global and intercultural communication regardless of culture, language, nationality, etc. Thus, as an artist considering these ideas will make me to think of a way of artistic expression that is as universal as possible and can be looked by a big number of audience.
PMII.
DeleteEco Art is...
ReplyDeleteinterconnection, dynamism, and ecocentrist.
Eco art is not...
Check out Weintraub's discussion of the distinctions of three vanguard artists. In terms of what she puts forth as her thesis. Notice the differences between ecocentrist and anthropocentrist. According to Wikipedia, "[Fernand]Braudel has been considered one of the greatest of the modern historians who have emphasized the role of large-scale socioeconomic factors in the making and writing of history." I learned about him in grad school in the 90s. Rather than write histories about the world in terms of people, he wrote histories about the land.
Note how Warhol, De Maria, and Kawana address their art in terms of power over and not sustainability. The differences showcase what eco art has to offer us as research strategies and inspiration as artists and teachers and community members. Different approaches to think about learning and making--in union with the earth.
Your thoughts or reactions....
These 3 artists have such diverse approaches and media, that Weintraub made a strong case about the possibility of ecocentric and anthropocentric approaches that shows their art to not be Eco art. Warhol's Flowers is no more eco art than Bierstadt's great landscapes. Both are mimesis of somewhat idealized, or at least contrived, examples of nature. Warhol was the easiest to illustrate what Eco art is not, using Production as an overarching way of analysis.
DeleteWalter DeMaria's Lightning Field clearly utilized non-mimetic lightning. It's the real natural phenomenon, merely directed or attracted to sharp metal rods, a fact known in the time of Benjamin Franklin's early research into electrical phenomenon. Is Lightning Field a "living system"? If we understand that lightning was a likely agent in the creation of organic chemicals during the Earth's formation, then it is responsible for creating biomass. Does DeMaria's art add biomass to the ecosystem? I do not believe that is being measured, but it could be. Is in a net addition to biomass against the loss of biomass in production of the 400 stainless steel poles a fair way to analyze this measure? I assume Weintraub will elaborate in subsequent chapters. The rubric of Longevity seems to more definitively disqualify the work as Eco art. I get this to a point (no pun), but even Nature designs for longevity. With essential 2 ways to effect longevity, immortality vs. reproduction, Nature favored the latter where individual entities are short-lived while (hopefully) species are long-lived.
I keep finding myself playing devil's advocate, but would Lightning Field be ecocentric if a nature renewal process of reproduction had been employed to attract lightning strikes? Since stainless steel poles don't reproduce themselves, is there a naturally-reproducing system which could replace them? I can't think of one, what with vertical growing forms unlikely to fare well under the enormous heat of a lightning bolt.
Karawa's case is deceiving because at first one apprehends ideas in his conceptual work, thus not violating Weintraub's Perspective rubric which posits a "relationship that persons or cultures form with components of their surroundings." Ideas form relation ships with people and cultures. But they are conveyed via signage, a human construct both physically and conceptually if we look at: notation, language structure, and spatial demarcations. These problems make me wonder how the ideas could be transmitted in an ecocentric way. Beyond spoken words, I haven't come up with much, but here's my best effort for a physical representation: if prairie grasses were fertilized with organic fertilizers in the patterns of the language symbols, those words would become visible during the growing season. There would still be the need for spatial mapping to arrange the application of the fertilizer, though, a kind of human intervention. But intervention is one of the methods Eco-artists employ. Think of the art thus made as positive crop circles. How interesting it would be to see the land writing us messages! Well, this is the first art idea that this course has generated for me. I'm sure there are other ways to have Nature write us messages that are at least as interesting. Collectively, this would be a very interesting series of work.
Post marker.
DeleteEco art is not...
ReplyDeleteAfter examining Weintraub's assessment of the artworks by Warhol, De Maria, and Kawana, I was struck by how pervasive anthropocentric attitudes are in modern/post-modern/contemporary society.
What is particularly interesting to me is that this type of thinking can even inform what can be considered the most deliberate method of artistic practice - conceptual art. Although the majority of my training has been in conceptual art practice, I acknowledge that there will always be unintended consequences to human action. Still, I admit that it can be tantalizing to imagine conceptual art as the objective carrying out of "pure" ideas.
Thus, in considering Weintraub's argument for Kawara's work as a "reflection on contemporary 'perspectives' on the environment, longitude and latitude [which are] ...culturally significant", I realized more fully that perception and subsequent externalizations are without exception the product one's contextual existence, no matter how analytical the approach.
In terms of what Eco art is, I like the idea of dynamism. This is the acknowledgment that matter - which I took to mean materials (natural resources), landscape, environmental conditions, etc. - is inevitably transformed over time. Weintraub explains that although change is certain, the pace of change may vary.
But while the idea of a variable rate of change can invite belief in the power/effectiveness of our (human) endeavors, it also confronts us (humans) with the humbling realization that our species (humankind) is a product of chance and will remain as such.
In my studio work, I incorporate an interplay between intent and inadvertent occurrence. Specifically, the work is driven by a dual process of "deliberate" research (tactical exposure to knowledge) and play (improvisation). In this way, I am in between a strategist who "proceeds according to a plan" and one who has supreme reverence for relinquishing the illusion of control.
I suppose it's natural that humans develop a limited perspective when they achieve a high degree of manipulation over matter and environmental conditions. However, this thinking is hard to come to terms with when faced with the consequences for future states of being that are brought on by human behavior over time. I'll end by saying that as an art practitioner, I find solace in this phrase from the preface of Weintraub's book, "...art has long served as the conscience of a culture."
Sylvia, I think Weintraub's quote of the function of art regarding culture can have another approach in which we see culture has served art consciencly. I mean art and culture have served each other. You have mentioned about your experience on making art which an incorporation between intent and inadvertent is the result of your work. I believe both are the result of the culture. What you have learned from art world that you intentionally use in your work and what your unconscious has gotten from the culture that help you accomplishing your work. I think the resean she claims that Kawara's work is a "reflection on contemporary perspective" is the product of the culture even if a work critics the culture.
DeleteRaha, I couldn't agree more that "intentionality" and (un)conscious mechanisms are largely effected by culture. I suppose I see the idea that art serves as the "conscience of a culture" as art manifesting a profound truth or acting as a sort of moral compass. Yet the issue of morality is tricky; on one hand, the act of making assertions as an artist could be considered an imposition of a subjective or personal belief/assessment onto society at large. On the other hand, there is great value in the freedom from constraints involved when professionals literally solve problems. That's why I'm so interested in how Weintraub's book describes Eco art as strategies that are functional (not claiming to be exist solely as art), resulting from the creative collaborations among artists and professionals. Indeed, Kawara's work illustrates a perspective derived from contemporary culture. But going back to the idea that Eco art can catalyze a change pervasive attitudes is precisely what allowed me to see the effect of culture on Kawara's concept.
DeleteWhile culture is virtually the only thing that can derail innate aesthetic sensibilities, I do not believe that art evolves. It's too easy for historians to connect the dots from one art movement to another. If you can't connect a movement to the other dots, then the movement is deemed retrograde, a dead-end, or inconsequential. While society changes and art reflects the society to itself, the idea of evolution is misguided. To me intention is the driving force behind art. Conscious and unconscious motives are still generated by a sentient mind, and as such, fall under the control of intention. Even inadvertent occurrences fall under intention. If that wasn't the case, art would make itself in the absence of a maker or an audience. Then Nature would be art and there would be no need to make that which we are surrounded by.
DeleteNevertheless, I see Weintraub's point. I am wondering if there will be a demarcation between Art and Nature within Eco art? If there isn't, then I will either have to rethink long-held beliefs or or accept maker-less and unobserved manipulation of matter as art. Even conceptual art requires a maker and and audience. If an unexpressed idea was art, then every idea we have would be art?
Post marker.
Delete
DeleteNote I must admit what Eco art isn't is what I am most familiar with, Warhol pop art etc. I would like to consider myself more of an egocentric person but the reality is I am self indulgent and unconsciously self centered. The entitlements that one consciously or unconsciously demands on the earth and nature are the repercussions we see in everyday nature catastrophes. This reminds of the documentary Living on a dollar a day, a few young men live in Guatemala for 2 months and live like the natives of the land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtL_nsWCo7s