Kai Lossgott. 2008. Laser engraving on foxglove leaf. Spruce and glass light boxes. 30 x 30 cm. SASOL Art Collection.Check out Kai Lossgott's project, Nothing with Skin is Blind (see above).
Post your weekly statement below in response to lecture material from 10/17 or 11/1.
Manufactured Landscapes was closer to a horror movie then a documentary. The panning over Chinese workers that goes on forever, seemingly stretching into the horizon, was like something out of a science fiction movie. Everything about that movie was at once horrifying and somehow impressive, that we have made things on such a massive scale that it’s almost impossible to take it in.
ReplyDeleteFrom documenting all the things I own I know that the bulk of them are made in China, but I don’t think I ever really understood how they were made. The sheer number of workers sitting at little tables making my shirts and tablecloths and plastic junk was insane, and that was just a single factory. Also, I knew that China has five times the people we do, but seeing them all lined up in bright yellow like worker bees in some massive hive was terrible.
I don’t think I will ever get the images of e-recycling out of my head, or the children swimming through oil to get the dregs. I know the overall message was important, but that movie was hard to watch in places. I had to cover my eyes more then once because it was just too much to take in. I think if more people saw this movie they would realize the scale of what we, humans, are doing to the earth. Rarely do we get the opportunity to see the effect in such an encompassing way.
I would not be able to watch it again, but I think it was important to watch it the first time. I will recommend that movie to everyone I know.
In between lectures that teach us how we are destroying the Earth, eating meat grown from steroids, playing with toys made from helpless Chinese children, and dumping our waste on people who spend their lives sifting though it to extract the metals, while polluting their bodies, the air, and the water, Trumpey includes artists that used the world as their canvas. The premise of the class is very interesting and it is the most informational ADP classes yet. I have learned so much about pollution, the meat industry and recycling, I find myself questioning the meat my friends eat, and where I throw away my water bottles. However, week after week the lectures fill our brains with the most depressing outlooks of the world, how we are dooming ourselves into a messy situation that we cannot fix. When Trumpey includes land artist and environmental artist in lecture, he not only shows us how his class is related to art design perspectives, but also shows us how other artists are using art and Earth to send messages to people who would otherwise be less observant about the world in which they live. Whether the artist is using materials that make a statement on pollution and abundant waste, such as Chris Jordan’s Running with Number series, or using natural materials on Earth’s canvas to create lasting works of art in a natural world, such as Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, the environmental artists always present intriguing solutions to depressing problems. Personally, I feel as though Trumpey has a habit of speaking very fast and flipping quickly through slides in order to cover as much material as possible, however in doing so, I often miss some of the beauty in what he is talking about. Often times I find myself researching these artists at home (if I can even catch their name), and I wish their work was discussed a bit more in depth in class. I took an art history class a couple summers ago, and the entire class was about the Spiral Jetty. I have come to love and appreciate the art piece and am dying to see it in person. However, from today’s lecture, if I had not known previously about the Spiral Jetty, I would have thought it was kind of a boring piece and probably dismissed it without further investigation. It makes me worried that there are so many cool artists and pieces like Smithson’s Jetty that I am missing because Trumpey flies by them. I am not here to criticize how he has chosen to teach the class, but only express my desire to spend more time on the artist that apply to the real world what we are learning in class.
ReplyDeleteEliana Gershon
ReplyDeleteWeekly Statement
In today's lecture I was particularly amused by the nature of environmentalist artists. Their use of natural materials is an obvious component of their work, but the need to work big is what is especially amusing. Maybe they feel more connected to the earth if they cover more of it. Maybe they think they can reach a larger global audience by doing so. However, why is it such a trend to make such a (literally) huge statement through artwork? Perhaps it was trailblazers like Smithson with his Spiral Jetty that set the trend for these environmentally inclined artists. Maybe the scale is a component of this genre of art just as hard edges are to cubism.
I personally think that the majority of environmental issues stem back to over or under-compensating for something. We eat too much, we waste too much. Or we don't grow enough, we don't notice enough, we don't know enough. I also think that the purpose of these works is more often than not to create knowledge and inspire change, and to do so the work has to be large. It has to command attention so viewers know that the issue being presented requires attention.
Overall, the lecture presented me with the idea that scale could largely (no pun intended) strengthen the urgency conveyed through my work.
The artists’ work that we looked at in class today was very interesting. Land art and architecture is amazing within itself-the ability of a human to turn nature and its vast size into a cohesive and fluid image and message is incredible. I also think that one of the great things about land art is its ability to stick around and last for decades like many of the art works we looked at today.
ReplyDeleteI also found it funny how some of the land art pieces people thought were something a lot more sinister than they actually were. I like the idea that people can make art and kind of remove themselves from it to get a totally unexpected reaction from a number of people.
As for last week I really enjoyed being given a window into Joe’s home life as well as his family and house. These personal factors really made me appreciate him a lot more. His house was really breathtaking in its ability to be totally off the grid and self-containing. If we had more people in the world like Joe and his family I cannot see the world being in the dire state that it is approaching. I really like the window he had in his house that exposed the inner working of the straw that his house was made from. Seeing the step-by-step process of the house building ad idea construction was very cool, I didn’t really think that people could do so many things especially to benefit the environment.
Throughout this course, we have learned a lot about artists that use nature as part of their art, in order to convey a message. It definitely makes a greater impact on viewers than just using scare tactics and statistics, because people tend to ignore that if they don't want to hear it.
ReplyDeleteWith environmental and land artists, they manage to find a way to use the landscape to grab the viewer's attention, but in a way that doesn't slam a negative message in their faces, but gives viewers time admire the beauty of nature and the artwork and think about what the artist is trying to say. I definitely think that it is effective, at least for me, to be able to come to conclusions myself instead of having it thrown at me.
Kaiti Marek
ReplyDelete2, November 2010
ARTDES 250: SEC4
I thought today’s lecture was very nice. It was encouraging to see some options, and possibilities that we as artists have to try to call attention to or solve our environmental problems. A lot of lectures so far have seemed really doom and gloom, so it was nice to see something that other artists have contributed to the environment.
Art on that scale is just incredible to me. I love the way the artists use the land and natural materials to make their work. A lot of the artists presented throughout this course have made me become interested in using natural materials to make art. It is hard to ignore the fact that in the process of creating art, it is also difficult not to create waste. I would love to look into using natural materials in my artwork instead of using store bought items with lots of packaging that will end up in the trash.
James R.
ReplyDeleteBringing environmental problems to peoples attention is definitely the first step, but they still have to be interested and understand in order to react. I don't think that artists who use the environment to do works of art are really solving anything, and I think that they know that. The use of nature itself to make a sort of distress call only makes people see the problems (of the artists choosing) in an aesthetic format. If these problems are to be solved, there needs to be a step that follows up. The artist who created flagpoles to direct trucks to dump their cement in a different location than where they were took the initiative. After photographing and creating awareness about the cement dump she went out and changed it. This is a good way to go about solving things from an artistic standpoint.
I am interested to see how Joe T. will tie the genocide in Rwanda into the subject matter of this course. It seemed like he spoke about it briefly and refreshed our memories as to what happened, but provided very little explanation as to how it relates the environment (other than suggesting that the Tutsi people were hungry and grumpy?).
Melis Agabigum
ReplyDeleteADPIII-004
02 November 2010
Weekly Statement 5
The lecture about the issues going on in the Dominican Republic and Haiti are very disgruntling. In a region where there is supposed to be the same topographic landscaping, the notion of one nation having policies that don’t prevent the destruction of nature, is surprising.
I feel that a lot of the areas where the United States, France and England have had imperialistic power, are ruined. The need to cut down trees to build takes away from the environment. Capitalistic societies are to blame. The land in Haiti is forever ruined because of the lack of environmental policy, and because of this, the people and the land suffer. There is no way to farm on land that is not sustainable, and much of this is because of past policies.
The portion of lecture that we dedicated to Rwanda and Darfur, should have been longer in my opinion. There is so much going on and that has gone on in those two places that a fifteen-minute portion of lecture does not suffice. The genocides that occurred in Rwanda are startling and upsetting. With all the resources that we have in the United States, it is unrealistic that we did not act sooner to prevent such a catastrophic amount of violence and death. I sometimes feel that we have the resources to do good, but we only choose to do so when we are in direct contact with what is going on. We have no interest to intervene unless the act of violence is upon us-killing Americans. If we want to set an example for the world, I think we should do it by promoting peace and acceptance.
I’ve certainly found myself more interested in this ADP than the previous two. I think the relevance of it all is holding my attention. The things I have been learning in lectures and reading is translating into my daily lives. I actually take the time to find out where my food is coming from. I try to make educated choices about what I put in my body. I consider the places and shop at and the type of labor they support. I don’t think my actions re saving the world, but at least they are helping save my sanity… a little.
ReplyDeleteThe big thing I’ve taken away from this class is a sense of hopelessness. I now have the feeling that everywhere I turn, everything I look at, everything in me bedroom is bad in one-way or another. Either it was produced unethically, or it’s polluting the Earth, or it will just end up in a big pile of crap where a bunch of kids are sifting through, looking for scrap metals. I can’t say that this class has completely ruined my life – it’s not like I sit at home self-loathing and critical of every aspect of humankind, but I can’t help but be a little disappointed with the use of all this new information.
In between rapid slide changes and tons of facts about our doomed world, Trumpey occasionally brings up some pretty cool artists whose work reflects exactly what this class is all about. I am in art school after all, so it’s not surprise that this is my favorite part of his lecture. I want to know more about these artists. I want to learn how and why they are inspired to work with they subjects they do. Yes, humans are ruining our planet. Yes, the problems are endless and we need to find solutions. But as an artist, I want to learn how other artists channel these feelings. Why people do they work they do and what they are trying to say about our world through it.
Brooke Adams
ReplyDeleteWeekly Statement # 5
I found Manufactured Landscape to be a terrifying reality check. I know this video wasn’t shown to make us feel bad- rather, Trumpey wanted us to see how humans have altered the earth, how we are dealing with our waste, and the conditions of human life- but I couldn’t help but feel horrible. I never had to think about my waste or my decisions concerning waste until this class, and it’s still something I am getting used to. To see the people who spend their days hunched over toxic computer material, or walking bare foot through oil sludge, or even welding without eye protection… I don’t know how to process that information. I am left feeling angry that manufacturing companies are all about producing revenue at the cheapest rate, rather than being preoccupied over the environmental effect that their product will have once it’s lifespan is up. It makes me mad to see the man-made metal mountains of ‘recycled’ computers parts through which children run. But I think most of all, it makes me upset that my generation is now expected to change the current condition of the earth, destroyed by the generations before us. And this change needs to happen immediately. It needs to be drastic, and it’s going to be drastic, if we really are going to save the state of our environment.
But with change would come a new standard of living. We wouldn’t be able to live like Americans anymore- we would have to learn how to live with less. Less energy, less food, less driving, less overall consumption. Trumpey showed the class a slide yesterday that said people in Haiti are living off of less than 1,600 calories, where the average American diet is 3,000+. Why are we consuming that much food? If the general American diet was downsized to a healthy range, food demand would be less. Producing a mass of corn and antibiotics for our livestock would be lessened, oil used to transport our food would be lessened, and maybe even the cutting down of trees to build manufacturing institutions could go unneeded. I don’t know how to change the world, but I know that we need to. Every week that fact is reiterated to me.
Hannah Ryou
ReplyDeleteI find the concept of land art fascinating, because artists are using the natural environment as a medium. It is the scale and grandiosity that makes it so amazing. While discussing design and aesthetics in my CFC course, my instructor said “if you can’t make it big, make it blue”. He was commenting on the general appeal that large-scale objects and blue things have. I think it is an instinctive fascination that humans have for objects/creations that are bigger than the ‘norm’. Which is not to say that the land art that we viewed in lecture is only worth their size.
What struck me as a little strange was that a majority of the land artists that were shown in lecture, were from the 60s-70s era. I am assuming that the eco-crisis was not as dooming or face-paced back then as it is today, because some of their artwork actually directly changed the environment and subsequent effect on the inhabitants. For example, one artist poured tar into a forest while another created a spiral structure in a water shore. In these cases, there were direct effects to the environment they were working in. While I had admiration for these artists being so ahead of their time, creating artwork that are in essence commentary on the environmental deterioration, I couldn’t help but cringe. It is necessary to pour hazardous material into a perfectly clean forest to make a statement, ironic one at that, about environmental doom? I guess overall I am not entirely sure how I feel about land art at this point.
Kellyn Carpenter
ReplyDeleteADP III: Section 4
Weekly Statement
I always enjoy when Joe shows us artists that relate to the environment. I think that it is absolutely necessary that we learn about these land artists and various other types of artists that have an environmental concern. By viewing them and their work, we as art students are able to relate more with how the issues that Joe presents in class can be related to our work. I think that these eco-artists are extremely important in bringing awareness to issues or providing their own commentary, and that we should attempt to follow suit. While I know that I will not become a full-fledged land artist after this class, I will perhaps attempt an environmentally orientated piece or at the very least be more sensitive to environmental works.
I think that I appreciate the presentations of the land artists so much because they are an example of an application of what Joe is teaching us. I feel like Joe does a lot of wrist slapping; telling us how we are bad and why we are bad, but not telling us clearly how we can fix it. I feel that these eco-artists are just that, a way that we can aid our environment with our skills. Being creative people, we can creatively bring about projects that bring awareness to issues or actually use our creativity to solve the problems. Seeing as the crisis of the environment is growing without a solution being found yet, it will take much creative thought to get the planet and the people back on track.
Elaine Czech
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't know what is wrong with me but I seemed to have forgotten to turn in my weekly things on time. Not good. Anyways, Here is my weekly statement:
I don’t understand. How, in a world, in an age, where information travels so easily can things like genocide go on without any interference. The excuse that the world was unaware is nonexistence. Everyone was clearly aware. It had been posted in the newspaper that the President Habyarimana was to be murdered, an even that would obviously lead to uprising. The UN and the US made these decision, they made the choice to do nothing. Actually they did worse then nothing, they had troops there, and then they removed them. It was not until a month later did any decent amount of troops come to the aid, still with much hesitation from the US.
It makes me ashamed to think how it seems that some people do not care. Politicians claim to be considering the US first, keeping us uninvolved so no Americans get killed. Yet, politicians start wars that tend to do more harm than good. I guess it is unfair for me to spout my opinion so when I do not know the US governments motives for sure, but from what I have read it seems they were greatly influenced by Belgium.
The Genocide of Rwanda is a clear example of what hate and discrimination can lead to. Most people say a lesson was learned from this genocide, but I do not believe that. Genocide still happens and no one really seems to stop it. Even before the Rwanda Genocide, peacekeepers failed in Bosnia and Somalia.
On another note, I read a touching article about the children of the women raped during the Genocide. Many mothers had difficulty accepting their children, since they brought up so many painful memories. Some considered, and I am sure some actually did, killing their infants. The article I read was about a mother who saw past that and loved her daughter unconditionally. What she said was so inspirational. "Memories of 1994 are not brought back by Diane [her daughter]. 1994 is no longer prevailing in me. Instead of remembering 1994, I think what my children would eat - their education. 1994 is no longer in me” (Whewell).
Works Cited
Whewell, Tim. Rwanda's children of rape. 30 June 2010. 6 November 2010 .
Paula Schubatis
ReplyDelete11/5/10
ADP 3
Section 4
Manufactured landscapes was a chilling documentary. It exposes you to this unknown post-apocalyptic world, which exists right in our backyard. When you look outside your window at the environment around you, the influence of humans is certainly evident. But, we see roads, cars, pavement, houses, trees and grass. Creeping normalcy has taught us that this is normal, and what our environment should typically look like. But, what we don’t see are the landfills, the toxic waste dumps, oil spills, and e waste dumps. The waste of what we consume is carefully obscured from our everyday vision, because if we know what the impact of our consumption is, we might actually do something about it and stop consuming so much.
Soon, the world will not be large enough to accommodate us and our waste. One will have to go. If we continue irresponsible consumption in the ravenous manor of the past century, we will be in big trouble. Not only will the world be overrun with more environmental problems, but we will start to see social, economical, and cultural problems as well. Capitalism is eternally hungry; and will do just about anything for sustenance. The middle class is beginning to shrink, and the working class will be in the hands of the ruling class. We will face workers rights issues, and a slew of other problems which come along with these sh
Liz Ritenour
ReplyDeleteWeekly Statement
While the idea of land art is interesting, I personally had a bit of a problem with it. A lot of it is very beautiful and certainly makes the viewer stop and think a bit more than, for example, being at a museum. It sends a message in a way that is utilizing the very medium about which it is speaking, but that is also the part that I have a problem with. In discussion, we watched a video about an artist (I can’t remember the name) who made a self-sustaining habitat for a tree in a city. In doing so, he had to move the tree out of its natural habitat and into the city. It made for an interesting work of art, but it seems as though making the piece of art destroys the natural environment in the process, and is that worth the message? That is my problem with land artists. They are disturbing the natural state of the environment in order to make a message about it. Maybe they are not destroying it, but they are causing human interaction with it, and that can be destructive. It is much like how living in a city is better for the environment than living “in nature”. Nature needs to be as free from human interaction as possible.