In this week’s lectures, I found the portion about Rwanda most interesting. I had never known very much about this genocide or the true extent of it. It is truly sad and terrible that I did not know more about this horrific event prior to Joe’s lecture, as well as the lack of U.S. involvement. In 3 months, more than 800,000 people were killed. This number is horrific. For that many people—and estimates of a number even larger than that—to be murdered and have no global response is sickening. One thing that Joe mentioned was that there were 760 people per square mile and some areas upwards of 2000 per square mile. This crowding, factored in with historical tensions and climate change, was a possible cause of the genocide. I had never thought of the environment could effect people in such a way. This overcrowding and lack of food could easily create high tensions, leading to this awful event. Thankfully, people are more aware of the conflict and genocide in Darfur. While I believe that we can be doing more, I am thankful that it is at least on our radar. Hopefully, we can help that situation and the people of Darfur.
I always enjoy when Joe shows us land artists. Last year, we had seen videos of Christo and Jean-Claude. While I don’t necessarily think some of their work is aesthetically pleasing, I love the scale and the meaning behind their work. As well, they are a very charming couple and I was truly very sad to hear that Jean-Claude had passed away. It amazes me the amount of time and effort they spend on each project. On project I especially like of theirs is The Gate, where they set up thousands of orange gates through Central Park. Visually, this piece is astounding. The way the fabric moves in the wind and the contrast of the orange against the various seasons is breathtaking. I thought it was great to have this interactive piece in the very active Central Park. I also liked that they gave away small pieces of the fabric for viewers to take home with them. They are very inspirational artists and I am so sad that Jean-Claude is no longer creating. Thankfully, Christo will still be creating and carrying on her memory.
Nuclear power versus nuclear weapons. If not for The Simpsons, I doubt I would have ever seen a difference. But since the main character works at a nuclear power plant it is easier for me to understand that nuclear power is not a bad thing. Still even with this somewhat positive image of nuclear power (I mean Springfield has never had a nuclear meltdown) it is hard to truly believe in the wonders of nuclear power. The media is probably to blame for nuclear power’s bad name. Although the media isn’t entirely at fault for doing so, since when a nuclear power plant does have an accident it tends to cause news worthy damages. However, what the news doesn’t mention is that nuclear meltdowns tend to be pretty rare; especially in comparison to the amount of accidents that occur with the gathering of fossil fuels. The website, The Benefits of Nuclear Power, had a good analogy for this media dilemma that has given nuclear power such a bad name. Nuclear power plants are like airplanes, while other fossil fuel groups are like cars. Cars get in accidents all the time and hardly ever make the news, however, airplanes, which very rarely get in accidents, make headlines whenever anything goes wrong. So one-day nuclear power will be used as often as airplanes? If only it were as simple a media hype that caused people to shy away from nuclear power. Besides the media hype there is also the threat of nuclear weapons to which nuclear power has been closely linked. It is very easy to convert nuclear power into nuclear weapons, so if a nuclear plant got in the hands of someone wishing to do harm, then the danger of nuclear power can become very real. Another major issue with nuclear power is that it is long lasting. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the used fuel rods to no longer be radioactive. Which means if not properly disposed, and then even the waste products can prove a threat. Bibliography Benefits Of Nuclear Power. Disadvantages Of Nuclear Power. 2010. 14 November 2010 .
Two things that stuck with me from lecture were the idea of ‘deceiving consumers via labeling’ and the question of authority in important global decisions. Labels/design of labels are without a doubt is one of the most important factors that effect consumerism. Labels are a tool through which information is rapidly exchanged between the product and buyer. Because this exchange is so quick, the consumer doesn’t have enough time to think about and evaluate the validity of the labels. Although claims made on labels are supposed to be examined by the FDA, the issue that arises it that the actual government determined meanings of label claims and consumer understanding of them do not match. For example, labeling eggs as ‘free range’ gives consumers the idea that the hens live in a pre-industrialized farm where they live without boundaries and in small numbers when reality is that more often than not, ‘free range’ chickens live in very similar conditions to ‘normal’ mass raised poultry. This is an even bigger problem w/ labels not evaluated by the FDA. I think this should be a call/challenge for designers that produce the labels—to understand that their designs and work can be a tool for change; making ethical decisions and choices. Speaking of decisions, when Professor Trumpey was talking about the Amish-luddites he mentioned that they make decisions regarding technology by asking themselves “does it build community?” What are the questions we are asking and who is asking the questions in our local/global settings? Are there any questions at all? The people who make the ‘big decisions’ in our world are for the most part politicians and policy makers. Again, it is on the shoulders of these people to make ethical, ‘community building’ choices. However, just because the responsibility of big decisions and choices fall on these people, it doesn’t exempt us average joe and janes. It is our duty as global citizens make just as ethically upright and change promoting decisions and choices.
The mundane materials used everyday without consideration contain tons of embodied energy and pollutants. One can of coke contains the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, not to mention the energy from the vending machine from which the coke was purchased. People don’t think about where the materials of their daily objects are coming from, or how far they have traveled to end up where they are. Take a bottle of apple juice. Where is the plastic coming from? How much energy did it take to melt it into a bottle shape? What exactly are the ingredients of the apple juice? Is one drinking apples or corn syrup? Where did the apples come from? Trumpey read off where the ingredients of an Ocean Spray apple juice came from and when purchasing such a product, one is purchasing “apples” that came from all over Europe, South America, and North America, when Michigan is one of the top 5 apple producing states in the U.S. according to the 2009/2010 crop data (allaboutapples.com). Although materials are being gathered from around the world, parts made in one region, while products assembled in yet another hemisphere of the world, all before being shipped to America to become part of a mass consumerism, the motive behind such energy waste is cost efficiency. It is cheap to produce things where labor is assembly lines of thousands of workers trained to do one task, and afraid to quit in need of the small pay they receive. However, it is not energy efficient, but is this the consumers’ fault, or the industries’? One way consumers can do their part in buying products that are energy efficient, local, green, and natural are to pay attention to the labels on the product. Eco-certified products, such as fair trade, promote better trading conditions and sustainability in developing countries. But, however much the activists can push the eco friendly labels on consumers, the industries are also one step ahead. Companies sometimes label their product as “all natural,” or “green,” when in reality, their products may be made from naturally hazardous materials, or the company is greenwashing a product. A Time research article stated that 95% of green-labeled products are false claims. This is an issue with the market, not with the consumer. In order to promote more energy efficient, greener products, both consumers and corporations have to play a part. Consumers have to be willing to purchase the green product, regardless of the extra cost in price, and the industries have to make an effort to engage in greener practices. The world will get no where if it is a continuous battle of consumerism, and industries taking advantage of the publics’ ignorance to push a falsely advertised product.
Energy is such a hard thing to understand, not the concept, but how it is used and in what quantities. The coke can was especially revealing. It seems to simple, and yet the amount of energy that goes into making the aluminum is so astounding. Gasoline is more obvious, and I was not surprised the amount of energy it takes to pump it out of the ground, refine it, and then ship it to different countries.
By and large we seem to think that being ‘green’ is easy. Just buy the right products use the right bags, recycle. But there are so many layers to it. Yes, buying an aluminum refillable container for water instead of plastic, is good, but how much energy did it take to make that bottle? It might have been more then the plastic one, if it was made from recycled plastic, and the aluminum was newly made. I liked the example of the different wines, from France or California. Depending on the way it travels it may use more or less energy.
I am curious as to what else we don’t realize takes way more energy then we would first think. I would like to see more examples of how energy usage is different/not what I would expect, and the factors that attribute to it.
I was shocked to see that 95% of objects that made ‘green’ claims were falsely advertizing. There should be a law against misinformation, if there is not all ready. The U.S. already has a problem with uninformed consumers, but now it seems like even the ones who are trying to make good decisions are being lead astray. I will certainly look twice before buying a product that claims its green or all natural.
I found this week’s lecture to be very interesting. Joe spent time talking about Lake Titicaca in Peru and how people use reeds to build their own islands. It is amazing that people can gather so many objects and natural materials to create a sustainable place to live, especially using something as seemingly simple as reeds. They gathered their own soil to create land that they can plant and grow their own food on somewhat creating their own little world. We also spent time talking about homes in Nepal. These individuals also made their won homes from scratch and made them strong and reliable enough to protect themselves from harmful weather and other natural occurrences like monsoons.
As for last weeks lecture I found myself torn towards my feelings about the artist that took the large tree from its natural land and moved it for an art piece. I didn’t know whether I felt angry because he took a perfectly healthy plant and put it out of its element or was interested in how he was bringing attention to the issues surrounding technology and the environment. The environment he created for the plant is amazing, doing everything nature does for the plant and yet it has more technology involved in it than could ever be imagined. I question whether or not his piece has really made an impact in the mindsets of individuals towards the environment and the technology that has come into being, whether all of this work was worth it or not.
It is so important to understand the labels on the food we buy and be aware of the products we are spending money on and consuming. This class has helped me to become so much more aware of the foods and specifically what brands I put in my body. I’ve never taken into consideration how misleading labels can be. How something can seem healthy simple because it says it’s “organic” and the style of the packaging seems to be more natural. It’s incredible, especially as an artist who pays attention to things like label design, how much we can be persuaded to buy something that’s really no different than any other product on the shelf in the supermarket. Horizon organic is a prime example. The packaging says “no antibiotics, no pesticides, and no hormones.” While there are no antibiotics or pesticides in Horizon milk, there are no antibiotics or pesticides in any FDA approved milk (whether it says so on the carton or not). And there are always hormones in milk because hormones are a natural part of lactation. So by labeling this brand different than other, and charging a little more, Horizon has led people to believe that investing in their product is good for their health when in reality it is no different than any other factory-produced milk. It’s truly scary how easily we all believe things and how companies know exactly how to market a product so that we think it is special. It truly makes me question how much free choice we have in our daily lives and how we do the things we do, and buy the products we buy, simply because we have been influenced by outside sources.
I found Joe’s talk about vernacular architecture very informative. I was interested a few weeks ago when he described the process of building his house, and I enjoyed seeing different applications to those concepts in lecture today. It fascinates me that we have turned away from materials like adobe when they can provide natural heating and cooling. This architecture makes ours seem very counterintuitive. I’m not saying that I don’t like my heater and air conditioning, but I just think it is odd that we have developed a dependency on so many things like that, which we obviously don’t need. I never even thought that the direction a house was facing would matter in terms of heating and cooling. The thought just never crossed my mind because I am so conditioned to not think about things like that. I realize now that I take electricity greatly for granted. It is just a given in my lifestyle, and it is really surprising to think that many people do live without electricity. Joe also spoke about the Amish on Wednesday. I find it even more surprising that they can exist so closely to us, but have such a separate culture from the rest of American society. it seemed like most of the vernacular housing we looked at was commonplace for the areas that were represented, but Amish people live without technology in close proximity to a world that hinges upon it.
As the semester progresses, I feel as if it has become more difficult for me to write weekly statements. In lecture, I obtain so much information, but after a certain point, I feel as though it becomes almost over kill to hear Joe talk about all the lives we've ruined and how terrible the environmental impact of humans has become.
Today's lecture felt like a breath of fresh air. I absolutely loved hearing about all the different kinds of living quarters that people have. Seeing houses in Indonesia compared to houses in France and Peru, gave me the opportunity to not only learn about different cultures, but to also keep an open mind about what is possible in the world of architecture. Before today's lecture, the thought of there being houses made with limestone and reeds seemed almost impossible.
Having the opportunity to learn about communities that build their houses on floating reeds was the most fascinating part of lecture. The resourcefulness that the people in Peru displayed impressed me. They virtually have no environmental impact. They fish, and use the water around them till they need to build a new island. Because they are living on an island built of floating reeds, it is assumed that they do not have any electrical power. They have a means of travel and they use and live off of the resources that are presented to them.
The fact that there are communities of people still living in these kinds of houses is so encouraging. I look at the houses that we have in America-- they're almost always cookie cutter examples of one another. There is no diversity. The art of Architecture for houses in America has almost died out with the introduction of the typical American suburb.
This week's lecture on vernacular structures was particularly interesting to me. Rather than focusing on the earth's impending ecological doom and the collapse of modern society through the media, I think it is interesting to see how everyday people respond to the resources around them, and create dwellings which function as both shelter and beautiful works of art. We tend to think of the home in terms of the stereotypical single family suburban American dwelling; wood or brick, pier and beam construction, sitting on a nice quarter to half acre of green grass with a white picket fence. The aesthetic of our design has not been checked by the means of construction by which we have to produce this aesthetic. Since these materials are cheap and easy to produce, they are the standard for the American home, although they may not necessarily be reflective of the materials directly found in the environment. For example, a home in the southwest should be made out of adobe or stone, because they are the most prevalent and abundant natural resources in the region, not wood like the northeast. It would be very interesting to see the types of homes Joe described implemented in American society, however I don't think I could ever live on a reed island floating in Lake Michigan. Although dwellings made of materials from the surrounding environment can be ecofriendly, they can also be dangerous. For example, the majority of the structures in Hati prior to this years earthquake were made of stucco or some kind of adobe, which is cheap, ecofriendly, and energy efficient in terms of heating and cooling,however not very stable during seismic activity in contrast to the pier and beam construction evident in other areas of seismic activity. The earthquake was only a magnitude 7,but caused a catastrophe because of the collapse of this type of abundant architecture in the urban areas. So in this respect,although vernacular dwelling is efficient, we can also employ more "modern" technologies in materials and engineering to improve the already immense benefits of vernacular buildings.
During this past week's lectures, the topic that really stuck out to me was labeling. It is really a funny concept-the label, unless doubling as something to be used with the product (really more for packaging) has absolutely no relevance to what you are actually buying. Now, I realize some labels can be informative, but then again, as was discussed, a lot of the time they give you the wrong information.
Products use terms like "green" and "eco-friendly" with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Sometimes companies will even put out their products with "environmentally looking" packaging so people will just assume it's the better option. You know, that tan, "natural" paper packaging with some little leaf print, and a cheesy tagline like "99% recycled" or "What the Earth Deserves." When will we stop falling for these ploys? My hypothesis: never. It's engrained in our minds. Design bribery has been going on for decades. It's simple, people are drawn to a sleeker label. They crave the status or the satisfaction that comes from purchasing something with Coke slapped across the front or eight perfectly placed lines that give the product that oh-so-streamlined look.
After lecture and discussion about this topic, I've become more cautious of what I'm drawn to simply because I trust or have heard of the label attached to it. The scary part? I'm not sure if I even care.
The artist Mark Dion, who moved the ecosystem that had grown up around a dead tree into a closed space, did something that I’m not sure I think is art. The entire piece strikes me at first as a museum exhibit or a scientific preservation of some sort, which in a sense it is. Although I have had a very difficult time defining art for myself, I know that this does not fit into the idea that I have of art. I don’t think that simply moving objects out of their natural environment and nothing else is an acceptable form of art. Where I to dare to mention the infamous urinal installation piece by Marcel Duchamp, I would argue that even the urinal changed more than the tree. The title “Fountain” gives viewers a whole new way to think about it, and the functionality and orientation are not maintained. The tree on the other hand is presented as nothing more than what it is, and every effort is made to preserve its functionality exactly as it was in nature. The hand of Mark Dion did nothing but direct the movement of a tree, nothing was created or revealed as it usually is in art.
I talked about this in the last section but it perhaps belongs here: 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 the artist pictured above 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.
Kellyn Carpenter
ReplyDeleteADP III
Weekly Statement
In this week’s lectures, I found the portion about Rwanda most interesting. I had never known very much about this genocide or the true extent of it. It is truly sad and terrible that I did not know more about this horrific event prior to Joe’s lecture, as well as the lack of U.S. involvement. In 3 months, more than 800,000 people were killed. This number is horrific. For that many people—and estimates of a number even larger than that—to be murdered and have no global response is sickening. One thing that Joe mentioned was that there were 760 people per square mile and some areas upwards of 2000 per square mile. This crowding, factored in with historical tensions and climate change, was a possible cause of the genocide. I had never thought of the environment could effect people in such a way. This overcrowding and lack of food could easily create high tensions, leading to this awful event. Thankfully, people are more aware of the conflict and genocide in Darfur. While I believe that we can be doing more, I am thankful that it is at least on our radar. Hopefully, we can help that situation and the people of Darfur.
I always enjoy when Joe shows us land artists. Last year, we had seen videos of Christo and Jean-Claude. While I don’t necessarily think some of their work is aesthetically pleasing, I love the scale and the meaning behind their work. As well, they are a very charming couple and I was truly very sad to hear that Jean-Claude had passed away. It amazes me the amount of time and effort they spend on each project. On project I especially like of theirs is The Gate, where they set up thousands of orange gates through Central Park. Visually, this piece is astounding. The way the fabric moves in the wind and the contrast of the orange against the various seasons is breathtaking. I thought it was great to have this interactive piece in the very active Central Park. I also liked that they gave away small pieces of the fabric for viewers to take home with them. They are very inspirational artists and I am so sad that Jean-Claude is no longer creating. Thankfully, Christo will still be creating and carrying on her memory.
Elaine Czech
ReplyDeleteNuclear power versus nuclear weapons. If not for The Simpsons, I doubt I would have ever seen a difference. But since the main character works at a nuclear power plant it is easier for me to understand that nuclear power is not a bad thing. Still even with this somewhat positive image of nuclear power (I mean Springfield has never had a nuclear meltdown) it is hard to truly believe in the wonders of nuclear power. The media is probably to blame for nuclear power’s bad name. Although the media isn’t entirely at fault for doing so, since when a nuclear power plant does have an accident it tends to cause news worthy damages. However, what the news doesn’t mention is that nuclear meltdowns tend to be pretty rare; especially in comparison to the amount of accidents that occur with the gathering of fossil fuels. The website, The Benefits of Nuclear Power, had a good analogy for this media dilemma that has given nuclear power such a bad name. Nuclear power plants are like airplanes, while other fossil fuel groups are like cars. Cars get in accidents all the time and hardly ever make the news, however, airplanes, which very rarely get in accidents, make headlines whenever anything goes wrong. So one-day nuclear power will be used as often as airplanes? If only it were as simple a media hype that caused people to shy away from nuclear power. Besides the media hype there is also the threat of nuclear weapons to which nuclear power has been closely linked. It is very easy to convert nuclear power into nuclear weapons, so if a nuclear plant got in the hands of someone wishing to do harm, then the danger of nuclear power can become very real. Another major issue with nuclear power is that it is long lasting. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the used fuel rods to no longer be radioactive. Which means if not properly disposed, and then even the waste products can prove a threat.
Bibliography
Benefits Of Nuclear Power. Disadvantages Of Nuclear Power. 2010. 14 November 2010 .
Hannah Ryou
ReplyDeleteTwo things that stuck with me from lecture were the idea of ‘deceiving consumers via labeling’ and the question of authority in important global decisions. Labels/design of labels are without a doubt is one of the most important factors that effect consumerism. Labels are a tool through which information is rapidly exchanged between the product and buyer. Because this exchange is so quick, the consumer doesn’t have enough time to think about and evaluate the validity of the labels. Although claims made on labels are supposed to be examined by the FDA, the issue that arises it that the actual government determined meanings of label claims and consumer understanding of them do not match. For example, labeling eggs as ‘free range’ gives consumers the idea that the hens live in a pre-industrialized farm where they live without boundaries and in small numbers when reality is that more often than not, ‘free range’ chickens live in very similar conditions to ‘normal’ mass raised poultry. This is an even bigger problem w/ labels not evaluated by the FDA. I think this should be a call/challenge for designers that produce the labels—to understand that their designs and work can be a tool for change; making ethical decisions and choices.
Speaking of decisions, when Professor Trumpey was talking about the Amish-luddites he mentioned that they make decisions regarding technology by asking themselves “does it build community?” What are the questions we are asking and who is asking the questions in our local/global settings? Are there any questions at all? The people who make the ‘big decisions’ in our world are for the most part politicians and policy makers. Again, it is on the shoulders of these people to make ethical, ‘community building’ choices.
However, just because the responsibility of big decisions and choices fall on these people, it doesn’t exempt us average joe and janes. It is our duty as global citizens make just as ethically upright and change promoting decisions and choices.
Erica Neumann
ReplyDeleteThe mundane materials used everyday without consideration contain tons of embodied energy and pollutants. One can of coke contains the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, not to mention the energy from the vending machine from which the coke was purchased. People don’t think about where the materials of their daily objects are coming from, or how far they have traveled to end up where they are. Take a bottle of apple juice. Where is the plastic coming from? How much energy did it take to melt it into a bottle shape? What exactly are the ingredients of the apple juice? Is one drinking apples or corn syrup? Where did the apples come from? Trumpey read off where the ingredients of an Ocean Spray apple juice came from and when purchasing such a product, one is purchasing “apples” that came from all over Europe, South America, and North America, when Michigan is one of the top 5 apple producing states in the U.S. according to the 2009/2010 crop data (allaboutapples.com). Although materials are being gathered from around the world, parts made in one region, while products assembled in yet another hemisphere of the world, all before being shipped to America to become part of a mass consumerism, the motive behind such energy waste is cost efficiency. It is cheap to produce things where labor is assembly lines of thousands of workers trained to do one task, and afraid to quit in need of the small pay they receive. However, it is not energy efficient, but is this the consumers’ fault, or the industries’?
One way consumers can do their part in buying products that are energy efficient, local, green, and natural are to pay attention to the labels on the product. Eco-certified products, such as fair trade, promote better trading conditions and sustainability in developing countries. But, however much the activists can push the eco friendly labels on consumers, the industries are also one step ahead. Companies sometimes label their product as “all natural,” or “green,” when in reality, their products may be made from naturally hazardous materials, or the company is greenwashing a product. A Time research article stated that 95% of green-labeled products are false claims. This is an issue with the market, not with the consumer. In order to promote more energy efficient, greener products, both consumers and corporations have to play a part. Consumers have to be willing to purchase the green product, regardless of the extra cost in price, and the industries have to make an effort to engage in greener practices. The world will get no where if it is a continuous battle of consumerism, and industries taking advantage of the publics’ ignorance to push a falsely advertised product.
Energy is such a hard thing to understand, not the concept, but how it is used and in what quantities. The coke can was especially revealing. It seems to simple, and yet the amount of energy that goes into making the aluminum is so astounding. Gasoline is more obvious, and I was not surprised the amount of energy it takes to pump it out of the ground, refine it, and then ship it to different countries.
ReplyDeleteBy and large we seem to think that being ‘green’ is easy. Just buy the right products use the right bags, recycle. But there are so many layers to it. Yes, buying an aluminum refillable container for water instead of plastic, is good, but how much energy did it take to make that bottle? It might have been more then the plastic one, if it was made from recycled plastic, and the aluminum was newly made. I liked the example of the different wines, from France or California. Depending on the way it travels it may use more or less energy.
I am curious as to what else we don’t realize takes way more energy then we would first think. I would like to see more examples of how energy usage is different/not what I would expect, and the factors that attribute to it.
I was shocked to see that 95% of objects that made ‘green’ claims were falsely advertizing. There should be a law against misinformation, if there is not all ready. The U.S. already has a problem with uninformed consumers, but now it seems like even the ones who are trying to make good decisions are being lead astray. I will certainly look twice before buying a product that claims its green or all natural.
I found this week’s lecture to be very interesting. Joe spent time talking about Lake Titicaca in Peru and how people use reeds to build their own islands. It is amazing that people can gather so many objects and natural materials to create a sustainable place to live, especially using something as seemingly simple as reeds. They gathered their own soil to create land that they can plant and grow their own food on somewhat creating their own little world. We also spent time talking about homes in Nepal. These individuals also made their won homes from scratch and made them strong and reliable enough to protect themselves from harmful weather and other natural occurrences like monsoons.
ReplyDeleteAs for last weeks lecture I found myself torn towards my feelings about the artist that took the large tree from its natural land and moved it for an art piece. I didn’t know whether I felt angry because he took a perfectly healthy plant and put it out of its element or was interested in how he was bringing attention to the issues surrounding technology and the environment. The environment he created for the plant is amazing, doing everything nature does for the plant and yet it has more technology involved in it than could ever be imagined. I question whether or not his piece has really made an impact in the mindsets of individuals towards the environment and the technology that has come into being, whether all of this work was worth it or not.
It is so important to understand the labels on the food we buy and be aware of the products we are spending money on and consuming. This class has helped me to become so much more aware of the foods and specifically what brands I put in my body. I’ve never taken into consideration how misleading labels can be. How something can seem healthy simple because it says it’s “organic” and the style of the packaging seems to be more natural. It’s incredible, especially as an artist who pays attention to things like label design, how much we can be persuaded to buy something that’s really no different than any other product on the shelf in the supermarket. Horizon organic is a prime example. The packaging says “no antibiotics, no pesticides, and no hormones.” While there are no antibiotics or pesticides in Horizon milk, there are no antibiotics or pesticides in any FDA approved milk (whether it says so on the carton or not). And there are always hormones in milk because hormones are a natural part of lactation. So by labeling this brand different than other, and charging a little more, Horizon has led people to believe that investing in their product is good for their health when in reality it is no different than any other factory-produced milk. It’s truly scary how easily we all believe things and how companies know exactly how to market a product so that we think it is special. It truly makes me question how much free choice we have in our daily lives and how we do the things we do, and buy the products we buy, simply because we have been influenced by outside sources.
ReplyDeleteKaiti Marek
ReplyDelete15, November 2010
ARTDES 250: SEC4
I found Joe’s talk about vernacular architecture very informative. I was interested a few weeks ago when he described the process of building his house, and I enjoyed seeing different applications to those concepts in lecture today. It fascinates me that we have turned away from materials like adobe when they can provide natural heating and cooling. This architecture makes ours seem very counterintuitive. I’m not saying that I don’t like my heater and air conditioning, but I just think it is odd that we have developed a dependency on so many things like that, which we obviously don’t need.
I never even thought that the direction a house was facing would matter in terms of heating and cooling. The thought just never crossed my mind because I am so conditioned to not think about things like that. I realize now that I take electricity greatly for granted. It is just a given in my lifestyle, and it is really surprising to think that many people do live without electricity. Joe also spoke about the Amish on Wednesday. I find it even more surprising that they can exist so closely to us, but have such a separate culture from the rest of American society. it seemed like most of the vernacular housing we looked at was commonplace for the areas that were represented, but Amish people live without technology in close proximity to a world that hinges upon it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMelis Agabigum
ReplyDeleteADPIII-004
16 November 2010
As the semester progresses, I feel as if it has become more difficult for me to write weekly statements. In lecture, I obtain so much information, but after a certain point, I feel as though it becomes almost over kill to hear Joe talk about all the lives we've ruined and how terrible the environmental impact of humans has become.
Today's lecture felt like a breath of fresh air. I absolutely loved hearing about all the different kinds of living quarters that people have. Seeing houses in Indonesia compared to houses in France and Peru, gave me the opportunity to not only learn about different cultures, but to also keep an open mind about what is possible in the world of architecture.
Before today's lecture, the thought of there being houses made with limestone and reeds seemed almost impossible.
Having the opportunity to learn about communities that build their houses on floating reeds was the most fascinating part of lecture. The resourcefulness that the people in Peru displayed impressed me. They virtually have no environmental impact. They fish, and use the water around them till they need to build a new island. Because they are living on an island built of floating reeds, it is assumed that they do not have any electrical power. They have a means of travel and they use and live off of the resources that are presented to them.
The fact that there are communities of people still living in these kinds of houses is so encouraging. I look at the houses that we have in America-- they're almost always cookie cutter examples of one another. There is no diversity. The art of Architecture for houses in America has almost died out with the introduction of the typical American suburb.
This week's lecture on vernacular structures was particularly interesting to me. Rather than focusing on the earth's impending ecological doom and the collapse of modern society through the media, I think it is interesting to see how everyday people respond to the resources around them, and create dwellings which function as both shelter and beautiful works of art. We tend to think of the home in terms of the stereotypical single family suburban American dwelling; wood or brick, pier and beam construction, sitting on a nice quarter to half acre of green grass with a white picket fence. The aesthetic of our design has not been checked by the means of construction by which we have to produce this aesthetic. Since these materials are cheap and easy to produce, they are the standard for the American home, although they may not necessarily be reflective of the materials directly found in the environment. For example, a home in the southwest should be made out of adobe or stone, because they are the most prevalent and abundant natural resources in the region, not wood like the northeast. It would be very interesting to see the types of homes Joe described implemented in American society, however I don't think I could ever live on a reed island floating in Lake Michigan.
ReplyDeleteAlthough dwellings made of materials from the surrounding environment can be ecofriendly, they can also be dangerous. For example, the majority of the structures in Hati prior to this years earthquake were made of stucco or some kind of adobe, which is cheap, ecofriendly, and energy efficient in terms of heating and cooling,however not very stable during seismic activity in contrast to the pier and beam construction evident in other areas of seismic activity. The earthquake was only a magnitude 7,but caused a catastrophe because of the collapse of this type of abundant architecture in the urban areas. So in this respect,although vernacular dwelling is efficient, we can also employ more "modern" technologies in materials and engineering to improve the already immense benefits of vernacular buildings.
Eliana Gershon
ReplyDeleteWeeky Statement
During this past week's lectures, the topic that really stuck out to me was labeling. It is really a funny concept-the label, unless doubling as something to be used with the product (really more for packaging) has absolutely no relevance to what you are actually buying. Now, I realize some labels can be informative, but then again, as was discussed, a lot of the time they give you the wrong information.
Products use terms like "green" and "eco-friendly" with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Sometimes companies will even put out their products with "environmentally looking" packaging so people will just assume it's the better option. You know, that tan, "natural" paper packaging with some little leaf print, and a cheesy tagline like "99% recycled" or "What the Earth Deserves." When will we stop falling for these ploys? My hypothesis: never. It's engrained in our minds. Design bribery has been going on for decades. It's simple, people are drawn to a sleeker label. They crave the status or the satisfaction that comes from purchasing something with Coke slapped across the front or eight perfectly placed lines that give the product that oh-so-streamlined look.
After lecture and discussion about this topic, I've become more cautious of what I'm drawn to simply because I trust or have heard of the label attached to it. The scary part? I'm not sure if I even care.
The artist Mark Dion, who moved the ecosystem that had grown up around a dead tree into a closed space, did something that I’m not sure I think is art. The entire piece strikes me at first as a museum exhibit or a scientific preservation of some sort, which in a sense it is. Although I have had a very difficult time defining art for myself, I know that this does not fit into the idea that I have of art. I don’t think that simply moving objects out of their natural environment and nothing else is an acceptable form of art. Where I to dare to mention the infamous urinal installation piece by Marcel Duchamp, I would argue that even the urinal changed more than the tree. The title “Fountain” gives viewers a whole new way to think about it, and the functionality and orientation are not maintained. The tree on the other hand is presented as nothing more than what it is, and every effort is made to preserve its functionality exactly as it was in nature. The hand of Mark Dion did nothing but direct the movement of a tree, nothing was created or revealed as it usually is in art.
ReplyDeleteLiz Ritenour
ReplyDeleteWeekly Statement
I talked about this in the last section but it perhaps belongs here:
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 the artist pictured above 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.