Elaine Czech 21 September 2010 ARTDES 250: SEC 4 The artist and the environment. In my opinion the two can hardly be separated. Although I cannot say that a year ago I would have believed that statement. However, after taking CFC II I have come to understand that nature is in all art. Be it the material or the design. Even if we try to avoid it, it is there. Of course artist can choose to emphasize the naturalistic aspects of their work or hide them.
The artists whose work is on display on greenmuseum.org create works that interact with nature or even raise awareness about environmental issues.
Through their work, Conducting Mobility, artists Ryan Griffis and Claude Willey use information graphics to create an exhibit that raises awareness about some of the factors and concerns created because of consumers desire for cheap energy. The graphic online exhibit is separated into two parts; one that deals with the world’s collection and usage of energy and the other deals with the highways and means of movement around cities. Free Soil, one of the artist in the exhibit created a piece called F.R.U.I.T. which raises awareness about the distance food travels to get to the consumer. Another piece by kanarinka named It Takes 154,000 Breaths to Evacuate Boston, address the issue of the evacuation and the inefficiency of roads.
In another exhibit on the Green Museum website is enterchange which explores the relationship between the environment and performance. The Bird Brain Dance by Jennifer Monson is an exploration of bird migration, it educates while allowing one to connect with birds. Other artist in the exhibit, like David Haley, use their work to not some much connect people to nature but to specifically raise awareness about a topic. In Haley’s case in his work species nova he educates people on the effects climate change has on microbial evolution. Also in the exhibit artists like the Critical Art Ensemble use their art to unearth difficult questions. In their piece the Cult of the New Eve they question the miracles promised through biotechnology and Christianity.
In this week’s discussion, I thought that the idea of Jevon’s Paradox was extremely interesting and enlightened me on the troubles of today’s market. This “paradox” states that when a product becomes more efficient or efficiently made, the price of it will go down. When the price goes down, it is more available and more heavily used. Therefore, the idea of making a product more efficient inevitably leads to the product being used more carelessly. I have seen this many times, especially with gas. I know that I will base the amount that I drive off of the gas prices. When prices are high, I will tend to drive less or carpool more. When the prices are low, I will drive often and farther. I will become a thoughtless consumer, not worrying about the environmental consequences of the gas I use frivolously just because gas prices are down. I have realized that I need to always be concerned about the environment, and not forget about it when I need to pinch pennies.
I thought that the website, GreenMuseum.org was very interesting. I have been struggling to find the relationship between art and environment this whole class, and I think this website is starting to help me build the bridge. One artist that I found on the website that I thought was particularly interesting was Keith Barrett. He creates wooden sculptures from elm and hidden steel supports in various environments. What caught my attention first was the beautiful craftsmanship of these wooden forms. Once I visited his website and read more about the work, I learned that every piece is does is site specific. One piece, “Look Out,” was designed specifically for a lake and built to be a place of thought and relaxation. The viewer can sit in the structure and look out over the lake as though they are floating on it, becoming part of it. I loved how each of his pieces were designed to bring the viewer closer to the surroundings. I feel as though this is a great way that art and the environment can be connected to one another. Through art like this, I am being to see more of a connection between these concepts.
The website, GreenMuseum.org proclaims to be a "museum" of environmental art, which is art that raises awareness about our world and nature. What the website does is display the work and biography of environmental artists around the world, so that it is easier for the viewer to learn about them and their art in one place.
I was looking around the website for an artist that had interesting or inspiring work, and came across an installation by Gregg Schlanger, called "The Perfect Lawn" in Providence, Rhode Island. He states that his intention was to "create awareness about the obsession we have with the appearance of our yards." In this piece, Schlanger simply sets up a bench, a glass roof, and a raised bed of grass that sits in a pool of water. The water circulates from the pool to the sprinkler set up on top to produce "rain", and therefore illustrates the control of the environment, and the control we want over our lawn.
Environmental art is definitely a way to raise awareness towards certain environmental issues, though in this case, I feel that it looks too "pretty" to truly be effective, though on the other hand, I don't believe that environmental art should look gruesome or violent to be more effective. Nonetheless, we should look more into environmental art and possibly making our own work related to environmental art, because I think that we as artists can learn a lot by doing it ourselves.
Today's lecture related to the lecture where we talked a bit about over consumption and looked at the pictures of people and their homes. Americans now have 3x more than what they need in terms of home. There are less people living in bigger homes. We also talked briefly about self storage. In these big houses people have they buy so many things that they actually have to buy a storage garage for themselves just to store the remaining stuff that doesn't fit in their house. Again this all goes back to over consumption and buying things that you do not need for your survival, silly trinkets and new technology that you think you may need but is rally just a want.
I thought it was very interesting when Joe talked about the correlations between happiness and social status. It was stated that people of wealthy status and poor status are equally as willing to say they are happy. Some of the other studies between different people in the world have proven that the amount and quality of the things you have doesn't determine your happiness. It is instead family and friends etc. the relationships one builds with others is what determines their happiness.
The different equations surrounding the idea of consumption angles were interesting between IPAT and IWAC, environmental impact is equal to a combination of population, affluence, technology, political creativity, consumption alternatives, and quality of work. I found these interesting because it is nearly impossible to measure these things so it would seem like discovering this "equation" was almost not useful. If any, IPAT would provide more useful and measurable information for us to study but IWAC i think is far too open.
It’s interesting that Americans are so focused on what the individual can accomplish. We seem to think that every problem can be solved if each person does his or her own part, larger cooperation is not needed.
When it comes to the environment that sort of idea can no longer work. We need to get everyone involved, especially the government who can make regulations tighter and monitor big businesses. Perhaps, fifty years ago that single individualism could have helped in a real way, but we are down to the line and it won’t work anymore.
I think the two pictures, one of the amount of fresh water there is, the other of the amount of atmosphere we have, was really informative. I always thought of the atmosphere was being much bigger, but when put into a sphere on the surface of the earth it seems so small. Pictures like that help me to understand how small our planet and resources are, and how much we take them for granted.
Also, the cargo ships were fascinating. I never gave a thought to how we actually get things from other countries. Like shopping on Amazon, I don’t think past the objects materializing on my front porch. The amount of cargo containers and the immense chips that carry them was staggering. It really says something that it is less expensive to make things overseas and ship them thousands of miles, instead of manufacturing in the U.S. It’s rare to find anything in a store these days that is made in the U.S, seems like everything is produced on the other side of the world. Clearly there is a lot of space to change and start to make things again here. It would also give much needed jobs.
Today’s lecture about consumption was daunting and frankly, quite depressing. I know that this class is supposed to make us aware; not feel bad about ourselves, but that is what it does sometimes. By no means am I complaining – I think it’s okay to feel guilty about things. Feeling bad helps us to change things and act upon our feelings. It’s scary to think how much stuff we use. The cars, electronics, plastics, and even cigarette butts that pile up all over the place. The image of the cigarettes was shocking and informative – it really illustrates the problem we have and the first step to solving a problem is understanding it. I find it phenomenal that so many people need self storage units. My family does not have one – I honestly could not imagine what kind of things people would want to keep that are just going to be locked up in a metal box and never even seen. My family lives in a home larger than we need. Granted, there used to be two children but since we’ve moved away it is now just my mother and father left in a 5-bedroom home. Thinking about my own home, I realize that we have so much space we don’t need. Obviously that space is filled with furniture but still, not much else. I think we have a lot of things yet I cannot picture what on earth we would have so much of that we’d need to relocate it somewhere else; that we would need to pay someone to keep the stuff that we never look at. Some people try to get rid of something every time they buy something new – that seems like a good idea to me. Not only will it keep our stuff to a minimum, but if I were to get rid of something every time I bought something, I would certainly be more conscious of what I have and more hesitant to replace it. It’s so easy to just stick things in closets and drawers and not think about them. Not think about how much we already have that we don’t need and how much we waste everyday.
Statistics are one way of educating the public on overconsumption, misuse of resources, and the abundance of waste produced every year. However, statistics come across as only words and numbers. They are an abstract concept that often times seem daunting and incomprehensible. 40- 80 tons of material used per person per year in western industrial societies is a number almost too large to visualize. Artists have that ability to their advantage. They can use the power of visuals to make an impact on people where numbers fail. Environmental artists is a new genre of art in which artists either integrate their art with the environment, or use the waste and overconsumption that is killing the environment to make art that creates awareness. These artists are using what is around them as the subject of their art, as well as taking modern concepts that everyone can relate to and are affected by, whether they know it or not. Chris Drury is an artist that uses the earth to connect nature and culture, blur the lines between microcosms and macrocosms, and relate inner feelings with the outer world. He is inspired by nature and uses it as a foundation for his work, altering it and adjusting to as to bring out a beauty that may not have seen without his art. He does not create a beauty that was not there before, but only helps the untrained eye see something it would have ordinarily been missed. He often works with mirroring and reflecting images so viewers can see things juxtaposed that normally would be impossible. Through his mirroring technique he combines elements of nature with the technology of science. Chris Jordan is an artist who’s work is concerned with American consumerism. He uses photography as a media to show consumerism in mass quantities. One of his projects, “Running With Numbers,” uses different amounts of material and waste to construct a larger image that correlates with the material from which it is constructed. For example, one piece, “Gyre,” uses 2.4 million pieces of plastic. These plastic shards are arranged to recreate Katsushita Hokusai’s “Great Wave Off Kanagawa”. The 2.4 million pieces represent the number of pounds of plastic that is dumped into the world’s oceans every hour. His work puts into perspective the amount of material waste produced by Americans and as large scale pieces, allows viewers to feel tiny compared to their consumption. These artists are both taking advantage of the abundance of excess materials available to them, and relishing in the still untouched nature to spread awareness of modern issues.
Just yesterday I was proofreading a friend’s paper that talked about what ‘happiness’ can be defined as. In her paper, she stated that she believed happiness to be relative and unique to each individual. She also discussed that despite this belief, the reality is that societal/cultural changes have led people to think that materialism equates to being happy; that instant gratification has substituted our idea of happiness. I was surprised at the coincidence because this was one of the topics of our lecture: the notion of manufactured needs and how more stuff=more happiness. From today’s lecture (Oct. 11) the thing that intrigued me the most was (in my own words):
Humans are biologically consumers, meaning that we find physiological satisfaction in seeking; we find pleasure in looking for that perfect outfit, the perfect car, or perfect house.
So, to a certain extent, it makes sense that we find instant satisfaction in buying new products and adding to our collection of possessions. It is unfortunate, however, that alarming speed of production is being matched by an exponential amount of spending. It is becoming evident that the notion of being technologically forward, having all the new products advertised on TV, is related to what people think of as being successful and in a lot of ways happy. On a more positive note, I was happy to see that when asked, people still stated that family and community were very important factors to their happiness. Maybe, and hopefully, people will continue to hold to this principal and resist the urge to buy their way to happiness.
I thought that this week’s lectures were informative, however a little repetitive. As consumers, it is important to be aware how what we consumes impacts environment, as well as culture. But, I think the point has been drilled into our heads enough. Maybe all Americans aren’t necessarily aware of the magnitude of our conspicuous consumption, but I think that we have been made well aware of it though ADP. Rather than focusing on the demise of the post industrial world though globalization, I think that it would be beneficial for us to focus more on how contemporary artists and designers are confronting consumerism and examining the solutions they create to these problems. I enjoyed the portion of the lectures about the two nature artists. I thought that their work was an interesting way of combining nature, technology, and art, and was an interesting contrast/response to the conspicuous consumption of western culture. Both artists’ work were a direct contradiction to most other forms of contemporary design; the pieces are made of entirely natural and local materials, and they are meant to decompose or disintegrate and return the surrounding environment back to normal. Also, they are one of a kind pieces which aren’t designed to be mass produced. I think looking at more abstract approaches such as these, as well as more literal approaches to contemporary design problems surrounding consumerism and technology would be beneficial in adopting a sophisticated perspective of art and design.
I visited the Green Museum website, and unfortunately I did not find much of it to be helpful in bridging the gap between ecology and art. I know that a great deal of art is made for the purpose of “raising awareness,” and while this is an admirable thing to do, I often find it too vague to really make a difference for me. The subject is often something that I am already aware of, but unless I am told exactly what is going on and what I can do to stop it, it will probably not stick with me. I was, therefore, happy to see an article on this site that seemed more proactive and helpful. It is called “Dear President Obama,” and it is a collection of letters to the president that are intended to be passed on in the hopes of reaching him. I like how the first letter directly addresses what the problem is, and discusses what artists are doing, in collaboration with scientists, to fix it. Most importantly, however, it had a list of what specifically can be done on the president’s part to help. Rather than a general plea for change, it suggests ways to change things. In this way, people can be more directly involved in what happens when authority figures decide to change things. Unfortunately, it is a long process, with an unknown end, but it is a proactive process, nonetheless. I am continuing to have trouble understanding what exactly we can do as artists that is different from what we can do as people in general. I find that it is our job to apply environmental awareness to our artwork, not necessarily to base our artwork around environmental awareness, unless that is our specific passion. If we want to create things that truly help the environment, it seems that we have to team up with scientists or engineers because there is only so much we can do as artists without knowing the science behind it all. I am, however, finding myself thinking more and more about what exactly I am using to make my artwork and if I am creating more than I am destroying, and that is certainly a start.
Melis Agabigum ADP III-004 Weekly Statement 3 11 October 2010
The notion of consumerism is upsetting. As a society, we have conditioned ourselves to become consumers, rather than producers. In the instances where we do “produce”, the items created are not sustainable and environmentally friendly. I was consumed with the idea that we are constantly searching for new things to consume. As humans, we focus on the new and improved versions of items that we own or have. The things that we throw out usually never get recycled, and ultimately end up in the dump. With this lack of being content with the materialistic items that we own, we doom the world and ourselves to a fate that cannot be changed. During lecture, it was stated that we used about 240-480 pounds of garbage per human per day. This rate is embarrassingly inflated compared to the rate of consumerism in third world countries. The statistic includes all of our interactions with the items that we are not discarding as well. The rate at which we consume is an outstanding amount compared to the rate that we rebuild. As someone who prides themselves in creating things, I begin to wonder how much I am adding to the consumerist culture. If I choose to create something, eventually it will be discarded and will not save the environment, but rather tarnish it. This notion of creating and adding to the waste then becomes a question of how we can save ourselves from living in a constant state of using, discarding, creating and then discarding again. How can I create and be productive in the direction of ultimately eliminating waste?
Eliana Gershon ADP III, Section 4 Weekly Statement 10/12
Today's lecture talked about consumerism, and I was, as usual, pretty appalled. The most shocking statistic of the day, and possibly one of the most shocking this semester, was the amount of waste a person in the West makes. Over 200 pounds per day? It is sick. Of course, this statistic is based on a number of factors. It counts the resources used for the appliances we use, the things we buy, and the ground we walk on. Regardless, it was enough to make me rethink what I really need to survive in this world. I know it has been a recurring theme for me this semester, but I keep learning of new alternatives to lower my carbon footprint. Do I really need to drive an SUV? Could I carpool or take public transportation? I probably could. Since moving to Ann Arbor, I've wasted significantly less resources from transportation. Sure, a bus produces more pollution than my car, but spit between the fifty/sixty people crammed onto it, it's really not so drastic.
Since lectures are often crammed with statistics and facts, I was pleased to see a lengthy section about art, as this is an art-related class. It was interesting to see how someone might incorporate these themes into his or her work. For example, Chris Jordan’s photographs of recycled objects in obscenely large quantities were enough to make me sick for our entire nation—exactly his point. Other installation work involving the environment can be truly beautiful because it lasts forever, always changing with the atmosphere it lives in. Art involving actual landscape have the opportunity to make an impact in a thousand different ways, because as the art changes, it constantly takes on new meaning and invites new evaluation from onlookers.
The nature artists that were shown in class were very cool. I loved how Andy Goldsworthy could go out and create artwork without any tools or materials other than what he found around him in nature. His artwork is carefully crafted and beautiful even though it may only last seconds while he gets his photograph. It also must be frustrating if he spends great amounts of time building something and it collapses. Although working with nature must ease the pain of that a little, because if he had used expensive materials and built it in a studio it would be even more of a frustration and a loss, but he only invests his time. The photographer that displayed large amounts of recyclables and garbage really effectively illustrated the large numbers that are so hard for us to imagine. Hearing a statistic doesn’t have as much impact as seeing it, and I think that his work is pretty powerful in making an impression on people. The other artist was also impressive. I have seen a lot of people, via Facebook, start a “project 365” by photographing something every single day, or even taking a photograph of their face ever single day. The artist who collected an item on a walk every day for a year had a much more creative approach to project 365. His spore prints were also a very cool way to use nature as artwork. In lecture it was emphasized that there is no perfect balance anywhere in nature, and that a constant, healthy push and pull relationship is as close as it ever gets to harmonious existence. I hope that we will discuss at what point it becomes a problem, when does the give and take go too far. Or is that too much of a gray area open for debate? The levels of happiness poll could lead to some really interesting research and discussion. Although it was a simple survey that didn’t account for all possible factors the surface results are enough to beg more questions. What makes somebody happy? Are people less happy if they have experienced a different or better happiness at some point in their lives?
Brooke Adams ADP III Section 4 Weekly Response 10.12.2010
I thought it was interesting in lecture when Professor Trumpey began talking about how there never has been a perfect balance. I always assumed that Native Americans lived in perfect harmony with nature, as they were so resourceful with all the animals they killed and how they lived off the land. When Trumpey told us that there is no perfect balance I found that hard to believe. The ecosystem is always in flux, but I always saw that as a natural balancing act. Sometimes there is a drop in a particular prey, which leads to the drop in a particular predator, and so the prey population increase and so on and so forth. To me, this is balance. What humans do, be it depleting an area of land completely or just generally producing unrecyclable waste, that’s the definition of an unbalanced system; but, it is interesting to know that an animal- like the elephant- also destructs nature as it passes through; though, in that particular example, the trees will grow back. I feel that humans have been and are still hurting the earth in such a disastrous way that we should not be trying to sugarcoat the issue. We are hurting the earth, our ancestors for centuries have been hurting the earth, and we’re getting to the point where our footprints are permanent.
Another topic that I enjoyed during this week of lectures was on Chris Jordan, the mass scale photographer. I love his ideas and efforts to bring the mind numbing scale of modern day statistics down to a palatable size. His depictions of the number of plastic bags used per five seconds or disposable paper cups used per 15 minutes are astounding and frightening.
I thought today’s discussion in class about depleting our resources and moving on to new planets was interesting. I’m interested as to why it is important to keep our resources on one planet rather than moving to new ones. What’s the point of conservation? I suppose diversity is important, so if we deplete the diversity of elements and nature on Earth we’ll be losing key information and resources that could unknowingly help us out in the future. I took a conservation biology course and I learned that animals are like data, holding billions of pieces of information for us to decipher so that we can do things such as cure diseases or save resources. Killing off animals is like burning books we’ve never read. I wonder if the depletion of fossil fuels would be acceptable in people’s minds though. We have no information to gain from studying oil as far as I know, and if we do, we can always keep a small amount. Oil seems like such a precious resource though, because it’s made of dead plants and animals accumulating over millions of years, so it’s tremendously unlikely that we’ll ever find oil on another planet. Jevon’s paradox is disturbing, because it suggests that as technology improves for better fuel conservation, we’ll actually use more fuel instead of less because costs will go down. Some economists suggest that a green tax would keep prices high and therefore consumption would be lower, which sounds hopeful. I still can’t help but feel that every effort for curbing our consumption will eventually be futile, that this oil crisis is a ticking timebomb, because oil is such a non-renewable resource.
Elaine Czech
ReplyDelete21 September 2010
ARTDES 250: SEC 4
The artist and the environment. In my opinion the two can hardly be separated. Although I cannot say that a year ago I would have believed that statement. However, after taking CFC II I have come to understand that nature is in all art. Be it the material or the design. Even if we try to avoid it, it is there. Of course artist can choose to emphasize the naturalistic aspects of their work or hide them.
The artists whose work is on display on greenmuseum.org create works that interact with nature or even raise awareness about environmental issues.
Through their work, Conducting Mobility, artists Ryan Griffis and Claude Willey use information graphics to create an exhibit that raises awareness about some of the factors and concerns created because of consumers desire for cheap energy. The graphic online exhibit is separated into two parts; one that deals with the world’s collection and usage of energy and the other deals with the highways and means of movement around cities. Free Soil, one of the artist in the exhibit created a piece called F.R.U.I.T. which raises awareness about the distance food travels to get to the consumer. Another piece by kanarinka named It Takes 154,000 Breaths to Evacuate Boston, address the issue of the evacuation and the inefficiency of roads.
In another exhibit on the Green Museum website is enterchange which explores the relationship between the environment and performance. The Bird Brain Dance by Jennifer Monson is an exploration of bird migration, it educates while allowing one to connect with birds. Other artist in the exhibit, like David Haley, use their work to not some much connect people to nature but to specifically raise awareness about a topic. In Haley’s case in his work species nova he educates people on the effects climate change has on microbial evolution. Also in the exhibit artists like the Critical Art Ensemble use their art to unearth difficult questions. In their piece the Cult of the New Eve they question the miracles promised through biotechnology and Christianity.
Kellyn Carpenter
ReplyDeleteADP III: Section 4
Weekly Response
In this week’s discussion, I thought that the idea of Jevon’s Paradox was extremely interesting and enlightened me on the troubles of today’s market. This “paradox” states that when a product becomes more efficient or efficiently made, the price of it will go down. When the price goes down, it is more available and more heavily used. Therefore, the idea of making a product more efficient inevitably leads to the product being used more carelessly. I have seen this many times, especially with gas. I know that I will base the amount that I drive off of the gas prices. When prices are high, I will tend to drive less or carpool more. When the prices are low, I will drive often and farther. I will become a thoughtless consumer, not worrying about the environmental consequences of the gas I use frivolously just because gas prices are down. I have realized that I need to always be concerned about the environment, and not forget about it when I need to pinch pennies.
I thought that the website, GreenMuseum.org was very interesting. I have been struggling to find the relationship between art and environment this whole class, and I think this website is starting to help me build the bridge. One artist that I found on the website that I thought was particularly interesting was Keith Barrett. He creates wooden sculptures from elm and hidden steel supports in various environments. What caught my attention first was the beautiful craftsmanship of these wooden forms. Once I visited his website and read more about the work, I learned that every piece is does is site specific. One piece, “Look Out,” was designed specifically for a lake and built to be a place of thought and relaxation. The viewer can sit in the structure and look out over the lake as though they are floating on it, becoming part of it. I loved how each of his pieces were designed to bring the viewer closer to the surroundings. I feel as though this is a great way that art and the environment can be connected to one another. Through art like this, I am being to see more of a connection between these concepts.
The website, GreenMuseum.org proclaims to be a "museum" of environmental art, which is art that raises awareness about our world and nature. What the website does is display the work and biography of environmental artists around the world, so that it is easier for the viewer to learn about them and their art in one place.
ReplyDeleteI was looking around the website for an artist that had interesting or inspiring work, and came across an installation by Gregg Schlanger, called "The Perfect Lawn" in Providence, Rhode Island. He states that his intention was to "create awareness about the obsession we have with the appearance of our yards." In this piece, Schlanger simply sets up a bench, a glass roof, and a raised bed of grass that sits in a pool of water. The water circulates from the pool to the sprinkler set up on top to produce "rain", and therefore illustrates the control of the environment, and the control we want over our lawn.
Environmental art is definitely a way to raise awareness towards certain environmental issues, though in this case, I feel that it looks too "pretty" to truly be effective, though on the other hand, I don't believe that environmental art should look gruesome or violent to be more effective. Nonetheless, we should look more into environmental art and possibly making our own work related to environmental art, because I think that we as artists can learn a lot by doing it ourselves.
Today's lecture related to the lecture where we talked a bit about over consumption and looked at the pictures of people and their homes. Americans now have 3x more than what they need in terms of home. There are less people living in bigger homes. We also talked briefly about self storage. In these big houses people have they buy so many things that they actually have to buy a storage garage for themselves just to store the remaining stuff that doesn't fit in their house. Again this all goes back to over consumption and buying things that you do not need for your survival, silly trinkets and new technology that you think you may need but is rally just a want.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting when Joe talked about the correlations between happiness and social status. It was stated that people of wealthy status and poor status are equally as willing to say they are happy. Some of the other studies between different people in the world have proven that the amount and quality of the things you have doesn't determine your happiness. It is instead family and friends etc. the relationships one builds with others is what determines their happiness.
The different equations surrounding the idea of consumption angles were interesting between IPAT and IWAC, environmental impact is equal to a combination of population, affluence, technology, political creativity, consumption alternatives, and quality of work. I found these interesting because it is nearly impossible to measure these things so it would seem like discovering this "equation" was almost not useful. If any, IPAT would provide more useful and measurable information for us to study but IWAC i think is far too open.
It’s interesting that Americans are so focused on what the individual can accomplish. We seem to think that every problem can be solved if each person does his or her own part, larger cooperation is not needed.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the environment that sort of idea can no longer work. We need to get everyone involved, especially the government who can make regulations tighter and monitor big businesses. Perhaps, fifty years ago that single individualism could have helped in a real way, but we are down to the line and it won’t work anymore.
I think the two pictures, one of the amount of fresh water there is, the other of the amount of atmosphere we have, was really informative. I always thought of the atmosphere was being much bigger, but when put into a sphere on the surface of the earth it seems so small. Pictures like that help me to understand how small our planet and resources are, and how much we take them for granted.
Also, the cargo ships were fascinating. I never gave a thought to how we actually get things from other countries. Like shopping on Amazon, I don’t think past the objects materializing on my front porch. The amount of cargo containers and the immense chips that carry them was staggering. It really says something that it is less expensive to make things overseas and ship them thousands of miles, instead of manufacturing in the U.S. It’s rare to find anything in a store these days that is made in the U.S, seems like everything is produced on the other side of the world. Clearly there is a lot of space to change and start to make things again here. It would also give much needed jobs.
Today’s lecture about consumption was daunting and frankly, quite depressing. I know that this class is supposed to make us aware; not feel bad about ourselves, but that is what it does sometimes. By no means am I complaining – I think it’s okay to feel guilty about things. Feeling bad helps us to change things and act upon our feelings. It’s scary to think how much stuff we use. The cars, electronics, plastics, and even cigarette butts that pile up all over the place. The image of the cigarettes was shocking and informative – it really illustrates the problem we have and the first step to solving a problem is understanding it. I find it phenomenal that so many people need self storage units. My family does not have one – I honestly could not imagine what kind of things people would want to keep that are just going to be locked up in a metal box and never even seen. My family lives in a home larger than we need. Granted, there used to be two children but since we’ve moved away it is now just my mother and father left in a 5-bedroom home. Thinking about my own home, I realize that we have so much space we don’t need. Obviously that space is filled with furniture but still, not much else. I think we have a lot of things yet I cannot picture what on earth we would have so much of that we’d need to relocate it somewhere else; that we would need to pay someone to keep the stuff that we never look at. Some people try to get rid of something every time they buy something new – that seems like a good idea to me. Not only will it keep our stuff to a minimum, but if I were to get rid of something every time I bought something, I would certainly be more conscious of what I have and more hesitant to replace it. It’s so easy to just stick things in closets and drawers and not think about them. Not think about how much we already have that we don’t need and how much we waste everyday.
ReplyDeleteErica Neumann
ReplyDeleteOctober 11, 2010
ADP III- 004
Consumers
Statistics are one way of educating the public on overconsumption, misuse of resources, and the abundance of waste produced every year. However, statistics come across as only words and numbers. They are an abstract concept that often times seem daunting and incomprehensible. 40- 80 tons of material used per person per year in western industrial societies is a number almost too large to visualize. Artists have that ability to their advantage. They can use the power of visuals to make an impact on people where numbers fail.
Environmental artists is a new genre of art in which artists either integrate their art with the environment, or use the waste and overconsumption that is killing the environment to make art that creates awareness. These artists are using what is around them as the subject of their art, as well as taking modern concepts that everyone can relate to and are affected by, whether they know it or not. Chris Drury is an artist that uses the earth to connect nature and culture, blur the lines between microcosms and macrocosms, and relate inner feelings with the outer world. He is inspired by nature and uses it as a foundation for his work, altering it and adjusting to as to bring out a beauty that may not have seen without his art. He does not create a beauty that was not there before, but only helps the untrained eye see something it would have ordinarily been missed. He often works with mirroring and reflecting images so viewers can see things juxtaposed that normally would be impossible. Through his mirroring technique he combines elements of nature with the technology of science.
Chris Jordan is an artist who’s work is concerned with American consumerism. He uses photography as a media to show consumerism in mass quantities. One of his projects, “Running With Numbers,” uses different amounts of material and waste to construct a larger image that correlates with the material from which it is constructed. For example, one piece, “Gyre,” uses 2.4 million pieces of plastic. These plastic shards are arranged to recreate Katsushita Hokusai’s “Great Wave Off Kanagawa”. The 2.4 million pieces represent the number of pounds of plastic that is dumped into the world’s oceans every hour. His work puts into perspective the amount of material waste produced by Americans and as large scale pieces, allows viewers to feel tiny compared to their consumption.
These artists are both taking advantage of the abundance of excess materials available to them, and relishing in the still untouched nature to spread awareness of modern issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHannah Ryou
ReplyDeleteWeekly Statement
Just yesterday I was proofreading a friend’s paper that talked about what ‘happiness’ can be defined as. In her paper, she stated that she believed happiness to be relative and unique to each individual. She also discussed that despite this belief, the reality is that societal/cultural changes have led people to think that materialism equates to being happy; that instant gratification has substituted our idea of happiness. I was surprised at the coincidence because this was one of the topics of our lecture: the notion of manufactured needs and how more stuff=more happiness.
From today’s lecture (Oct. 11) the thing that intrigued me the most was (in my own words):
Humans are biologically consumers, meaning that we find physiological satisfaction in seeking; we find pleasure in looking for that perfect outfit, the perfect car, or perfect house.
So, to a certain extent, it makes sense that we find instant satisfaction in buying new products and adding to our collection of possessions. It is unfortunate, however, that alarming speed of production is being matched by an exponential amount of spending. It is becoming evident that the notion of being technologically forward, having all the new products advertised on TV, is related to what people think of as being successful and in a lot of ways happy.
On a more positive note, I was happy to see that when asked, people still stated that family and community were very important factors to their happiness. Maybe, and hopefully, people will continue to hold to this principal and resist the urge to buy their way to happiness.
Paula Schubatis
ReplyDelete10/11/10
Section 4
I thought that this week’s lectures were informative, however a little repetitive. As consumers, it is important to be aware how what we consumes impacts environment, as well as culture. But, I think the point has been drilled into our heads enough. Maybe all Americans aren’t necessarily aware of the magnitude of our conspicuous consumption, but I think that we have been made well aware of it though ADP. Rather than focusing on the demise of the post industrial world though globalization, I think that it would be beneficial for us to focus more on how contemporary artists and designers are confronting consumerism and examining the solutions they create to these problems.
I enjoyed the portion of the lectures about the two nature artists. I thought that their work was an interesting way of combining nature, technology, and art, and was an interesting contrast/response to the conspicuous consumption of western culture. Both artists’ work were a direct contradiction to most other forms of contemporary design; the pieces are made of entirely natural and local materials, and they are meant to decompose or disintegrate and return the surrounding environment back to normal. Also, they are one of a kind pieces which aren’t designed to be mass produced. I think looking at more abstract approaches such as these, as well as more literal approaches to contemporary design problems surrounding consumerism and technology would be beneficial in adopting a sophisticated perspective of art and design.
Liz Ritenour
ReplyDeleteADP III
Section 004
Weekly Statement
I visited the Green Museum website, and unfortunately I did not find much of it to be helpful in bridging the gap between ecology and art. I know that a great deal of art is made for the purpose of “raising awareness,” and while this is an admirable thing to do, I often find it too vague to really make a difference for me. The subject is often something that I am already aware of, but unless I am told exactly what is going on and what I can do to stop it, it will probably not stick with me. I was, therefore, happy to see an article on this site that seemed more proactive and helpful. It is called “Dear President Obama,” and it is a collection of letters to the president that are intended to be passed on in the hopes of reaching him. I like how the first letter directly addresses what the problem is, and discusses what artists are doing, in collaboration with scientists, to fix it. Most importantly, however, it had a list of what specifically can be done on the president’s part to help. Rather than a general plea for change, it suggests ways to change things. In this way, people can be more directly involved in what happens when authority figures decide to change things. Unfortunately, it is a long process, with an unknown end, but it is a proactive process, nonetheless.
I am continuing to have trouble understanding what exactly we can do as artists that is different from what we can do as people in general. I find that it is our job to apply environmental awareness to our artwork, not necessarily to base our artwork around environmental awareness, unless that is our specific passion. If we want to create things that truly help the environment, it seems that we have to team up with scientists or engineers because there is only so much we can do as artists without knowing the science behind it all. I am, however, finding myself thinking more and more about what exactly I am using to make my artwork and if I am creating more than I am destroying, and that is certainly a start.
Kaiti Marek
ReplyDelete4, October 2010
ARTDES 250: SEC4
The thing I remember most about lecture this week (probably because Joe stressed how important it is) is the Jevons Paradox. This idea is disconcerting to me because it makes the oil crisis seem even worse than I already know it is.
Jevons Paradox is when increasing the efficiency of how we use a resource, also increases the amount that it gets used. This happened with coal in Britain, and could possibly happen with oil if we don’t handle our situation wisely, which we probably won’t judging by how immersed we are in our dependency on oil. It is scary to think that the measures we take to improve things could possibly make things worse.
As for today’s lecture, I think it gave an interesting insight into our society’s consumerism. The idea that money won’t buy you happiness has become very cliché, and I find it interesting that although everyone hears that money doesn’t make you happier, most people still want a lot of money and a lot of stuff. It is really true that stuff doesn’t make you happier in the long term, but it certainly gives a feeling of happiness at first. It is hard to not pursue the good feeling you get when you buy something new.
Melis Agabigum
ReplyDeleteADP III-004
Weekly Statement 3
11 October 2010
The notion of consumerism is upsetting. As a society, we have conditioned ourselves to become consumers, rather than producers. In the instances where we do “produce”, the items created are not sustainable and environmentally friendly.
I was consumed with the idea that we are constantly searching for new things to consume. As humans, we focus on the new and improved versions of items that we own or have. The things that we throw out usually never get recycled, and ultimately end up in the dump. With this lack of being content with the materialistic items that we own, we doom the world and ourselves to a fate that cannot be changed.
During lecture, it was stated that we used about 240-480 pounds of garbage per human per day. This rate is embarrassingly inflated compared to the rate of consumerism in third world countries. The statistic includes all of our interactions with the items that we are not discarding as well. The rate at which we consume is an outstanding amount compared to the rate that we rebuild. As someone who prides themselves in creating things, I begin to wonder how much I am adding to the consumerist culture. If I choose to create something, eventually it will be discarded and will not save the environment, but rather tarnish it. This notion of creating and adding to the waste then becomes a question of how we can save ourselves from living in a constant state of using, discarding, creating and then discarding again. How can I create and be productive in the direction of ultimately eliminating waste?
Eliana Gershon
ReplyDeleteADP III, Section 4
Weekly Statement 10/12
Today's lecture talked about consumerism, and I was, as usual, pretty appalled. The most shocking statistic of the day, and possibly one of the most shocking this semester, was the amount of waste a person in the West makes. Over 200 pounds per day? It is sick. Of course, this statistic is based on a number of factors. It counts the resources used for the appliances we use, the things we buy, and the ground we walk on. Regardless, it was enough to make me rethink what I really need to survive in this world. I know it has been a recurring theme for me this semester, but I keep learning of new alternatives to lower my carbon footprint. Do I really need to drive an SUV? Could I carpool or take public transportation? I probably could. Since moving to Ann Arbor, I've wasted significantly less resources from transportation. Sure, a bus produces more pollution than my car, but spit between the fifty/sixty people crammed onto it, it's really not so drastic.
Since lectures are often crammed with statistics and facts, I was pleased to see a lengthy section about art, as this is an art-related class. It was interesting to see how someone might incorporate these themes into his or her work. For example, Chris Jordan’s photographs of recycled objects in obscenely large quantities were enough to make me sick for our entire nation—exactly his point. Other installation work involving the environment can be truly beautiful because it lasts forever, always changing with the atmosphere it lives in. Art involving actual landscape have the opportunity to make an impact in a thousand different ways, because as the art changes, it constantly takes on new meaning and invites new evaluation from onlookers.
James Reich
ReplyDeleteThe nature artists that were shown in class were very cool. I loved how Andy Goldsworthy could go out and create artwork without any tools or materials other than what he found around him in nature. His artwork is carefully crafted and beautiful even though it may only last seconds while he gets his photograph. It also must be frustrating if he spends great amounts of time building something and it collapses. Although working with nature must ease the pain of that a little, because if he had used expensive materials and built it in a studio it would be even more of a frustration and a loss, but he only invests his time.
The photographer that displayed large amounts of recyclables and garbage really effectively illustrated the large numbers that are so hard for us to imagine. Hearing a statistic doesn’t have as much impact as seeing it, and I think that his work is pretty powerful in making an impression on people.
The other artist was also impressive. I have seen a lot of people, via Facebook, start a “project 365” by photographing something every single day, or even taking a photograph of their face ever single day. The artist who collected an item on a walk every day for a year had a much more creative approach to project 365. His spore prints were also a very cool way to use nature as artwork.
In lecture it was emphasized that there is no perfect balance anywhere in nature, and that a constant, healthy push and pull relationship is as close as it ever gets to harmonious existence. I hope that we will discuss at what point it becomes a problem, when does the give and take go too far. Or is that too much of a gray area open for debate?
The levels of happiness poll could lead to some really interesting research and discussion. Although it was a simple survey that didn’t account for all possible factors the surface results are enough to beg more questions. What makes somebody happy? Are people less happy if they have experienced a different or better happiness at some point in their lives?
Brooke Adams
ReplyDeleteADP III Section 4
Weekly Response
10.12.2010
I thought it was interesting in lecture when Professor Trumpey began talking about how there never has been a perfect balance. I always assumed that Native Americans lived in perfect harmony with nature, as they were so resourceful with all the animals they killed and how they lived off the land. When Trumpey told us that there is no perfect balance I found that hard to believe. The ecosystem is always in flux, but I always saw that as a natural balancing act. Sometimes there is a drop in a particular prey, which leads to the drop in a particular predator, and so the prey population increase and so on and so forth. To me, this is balance. What humans do, be it depleting an area of land completely or just generally producing unrecyclable waste, that’s the definition of an unbalanced system; but, it is interesting to know that an animal- like the elephant- also destructs nature as it passes through; though, in that particular example, the trees will grow back. I feel that humans have been and are still hurting the earth in such a disastrous way that we should not be trying to sugarcoat the issue. We are hurting the earth, our ancestors for centuries have been hurting the earth, and we’re getting to the point where our footprints are permanent.
Another topic that I enjoyed during this week of lectures was on Chris Jordan, the mass scale photographer. I love his ideas and efforts to bring the mind numbing scale of modern day statistics down to a palatable size. His depictions of the number of plastic bags used per five seconds or disposable paper cups used per 15 minutes are astounding and frightening.
Jared Salinger
ReplyDeleteI thought today’s discussion in class about depleting our resources and moving on to new planets was interesting. I’m interested as to why it is important to keep our resources on one planet rather than moving to new ones. What’s the point of conservation? I suppose diversity is important, so if we deplete the diversity of elements and nature on Earth we’ll be losing key information and resources that could unknowingly help us out in the future. I took a conservation biology course and I learned that animals are like data, holding billions of pieces of information for us to decipher so that we can do things such as cure diseases or save resources. Killing off animals is like burning books we’ve never read. I wonder if the depletion of fossil fuels would be acceptable in people’s minds though. We have no information to gain from studying oil as far as I know, and if we do, we can always keep a small amount. Oil seems like such a precious resource though, because it’s made of dead plants and animals accumulating over millions of years, so it’s tremendously unlikely that we’ll ever find oil on another planet. Jevon’s paradox is disturbing, because it suggests that as technology improves for better fuel conservation, we’ll actually use more fuel instead of less because costs will go down. Some economists suggest that a green tax would keep prices high and therefore consumption would be lower, which sounds hopeful. I still can’t help but feel that every effort for curbing our consumption will eventually be futile, that this oil crisis is a ticking timebomb, because oil is such a non-renewable resource.