while looking at the online exhibition of the "after nature" i couldn't help but think that the design was either the worst i've ever seen, with uncoded characters, chaotic and multiple links, poorly placed text, unsized and unrefrained images... etc, etc.. but then i thought maybe this exhibition must be viewed in firefox or some other browser. but no, this is a conceptual representation of the show that makes little sense to me. again, shouldn't we be beyond this in a post-nature era? if the human race comes to an end at a loss for the nature that supports life, won't our technologies be our only pristine presence? isn't that what we are giving nature up to; our carefully designed cinderblock and cyber-presence? this online exhibition is disjointed and fails in that respect. there is nothing organic about its presentation, if that is what it is trying to convey. i was simply disconcerted looking at this website, and not at all in an insightful way. the exhibition statement is articulate and equally poetic. it reflects the language of the concerns and the thinkers/makers of this verbal and visual dialog we continue to address in this corse; but it breaks down and abandons hope beyond that. i am not discouraged in our ability to approach a post-nature era, or at least not because of this exhibition, but rather our ability to articulate it in any cohesive sense as a movement. in this case, fragmentation, which i do believe is a growing burden in our technological expansion, does not strengthen the argument of the show or its premise centered around herzog's manifesto. the problem here is that we will continue to organize and articulate the human objective with such certainty and vigor, that nature will wither away for such cause. the work may do this, but its cyber-presence fails miserably. it is ironic that the slide show of the artists' work that the new museum felt inclined to add to the webpage, shows a comprehension of this growing concern for our future that the online exhibition does not.
with that said, there are some works in the exhibition that reflect the curatorial premise, which in tern, articulates the works further. first, we should consider the term "after nature;" what it may insinuate beyond this context. "after" in this case, can be used to denote replication, to be made in the image of; linearly, to come or to be made after; consecutive or cyclical, indicating the death and birth of two things connected or interrelated. this actually leaves a wide verity of interpretations and how i may interpret this show. the first paragraph of the curatorial statement seems to exclude these addition interpretations, but as you read further and encounter phrases such as, "fascination for personal cosmologies and visionary languages,""a peculiar form of magic realism," and "a renewed belief in art as a tool for mythmaking," the reader must get a sense that this show exhibits ideas and realities beyond environmental disaster and catastrophe within wilderness, resulting in ruin. there is a strange sense of life and optimism in these words and corresponding works that show a humanity and the nature "in" humanity; a single hope, not just disorder and degeneration. this brings us to the issue of conflict: human "and" nature. one interpretation of "after nature" may be based on our relationship to nature; that we no longer, some of us, see humans separate from nature... no longer in conflict with nature as something to dominate, to control, and to tame; but rather to live harmoniously with and integrate culture and nature. nature has been seen as the "other" since the death of pan and the pagan gods. but there is life after death that is in a linear and circular continuum simultaneously. in this regard, after nature is the same as pre-culture, pre-industrial, and concurrent with modern technology; concurrent with its own death. Roger Ballen, "Children on bed" i heard an npr show last week, that discussed how the western proclamation: "the death of god" has allowed for a reinterpretation, reinvigoration, and a renewed sense of god. "god is now alive," he has been reborn. Maurizio Cattelan, Untitled, 2007 in maurizio cattelan's "untitled, 2007" piece, as ridiculous as it may seem, the re-presentation of a severed horse, elevated and protruding ass first from a wall, albeit real or not, has very similar connotations in this sense. if dead, as it is meant to be seen, there is a beautiful and inherent life in this piece that exists in contact with the viewer. through the reexamination of this familiar icon, in a way never, ever considered before, it takes on a whole new meaning that is poetic, comforting, and intriguing; at the same time cruel, frightening, and abject. this is the renewed vision of nature, of-the-human-hand, and natural that we must consider to move beyond that which we take for granted.
when reading singer's article on werner herzog it was difficult to follow and too complex to understand. i certainly understand some of his points and key words, but in the dark as to how it all came together. i'm not sure i am much clearer on his thesis, but after looking at some of herzog's movie trailers and interviews containing movie clips, i began to understand the impetus behind corrigan's writing. herzog's work seems very complex and grandiose in many ways, it only follows that singer would pack as much semiotic theory in his review of herzog's work; it is of course, the language of film making and criticism. this is one of many reasons that i feel inadequate reporting on such writing, but from what little i've seen of herzog's films reminds me of landscape paintings with the sublime as their subject matter. his landscapes are absolutely stunning, overpowering, and strangely mystic; on a human level, on a godly level, and everything in between. i can't tell you whether it is a herzog is coming from a kantian or a burkian point of view in this regard, but he certainly envisions the most dramatic and disparate sense of human conditions as they relate to human psychosis, or just psyche; nature; and the wild, or other, ie. indigenous cultures.
listening to herzog speak, you get a sense that he is both tranquil and hostile.. his tranquility is subduing his hostility to a point of invisibility. he is said to be german but he corrects this suggestion in uneasy defense. germany seems to have produce complex artists after world war ii that carry the baggage of the war in their attempt to bring themselves and society at large to terms with the absolute horrific acts committed by the nazis. joseph beuys and ansalm keefer are such examples that utilize historical, mythological and literary themes to animate the war, deal with post-war German culture, and the taboo of expressing sentiments over the war.
even though singer pegs herzog as a german realist, or at least working in the vain of german realism, i think there is a direct link between the german realists and the german neo-expressionists. both are dealing with myth and human hierarchal descent from mystical or spiritual order (be it christian or otherwise... humanitarian if nothing else). all of europe was confronted with these issues after bearing witness to unfathomable human nature occurring everywhere, on every level, within this particular war. hostility became the language of much european art, but the term is quite tame considering its source. the human psyche was much more aware of its own abyss following this war, that artists to this day, herzog included, explore the transformative nature of the human dimensions, in singer's words, of their lived reality... "an image of their own mortal needs" and the artifice of reality "remains an unpologetic formal element."
william fox's article made me realized, or remember is a more accurate term, that once you get past a visceral response to a place, be it to beautiful or foul in nature, there is a lot to discover. i am thinking how mediated imagery limits this exploration and that there is no substitute for experience. i think it is interesting that governments send artists to the antarctic to document and re-present it; but can hardly fathom it would prove valuable for these governments in relation to expansion and habitation??? can we transform this terrain into territory and what do artists have to do with this? i guess banarjee might prove otherwise, but it seems we are far off from inhabiting antarctica. i know global warming is taking its toll.. but this is not a hopeful scenario and to presume we can inhabit this climate at any stage of global change is premature on every level; we may not be able to inhabit this planet at all if the antarctic was actually inhabitable for humans on any realistic level.
according to the national geographic website, for antarctica "the question still remains as to whether the changes we're observing are permanent or are a more regular purging of the system. In the case of Greenland the amount of ice that the glaciers has lost is very small relative to the size of the ice sheet so the ice sheet could restabilize and even grow again with a small amount of cooling or increased precipitation. However the glaciers in Alaska or the Antarctic Peninsula aren't supplied by a vast ice sheet, so for them to regrow or even stabilize for the long term would take a much more drastic reversal in current climate trends." equally and according to the bbc, these "immense ice sheet has a big effect on the Earth's weather, reflecting great amounts of heat from the sun back into the atmosphere, tying up large amounts of Earth's freshwater, and acting as a freezer at the end of the Earth." balance is key to keeping our entire planet habitable... forget antarctica. we need to study it to death to help reduce further global climate change.
A panoramic view just as you get off the plane. Photo: CARA/Greg Griffin
the new topographers are positioned in a crucial time in both political and photographic history. photography’s role in conveying the contemporary condition of landscape must be identified through the socio-political concerns within the landscape genre. it seems that landscape photographs facilitate perceptual change through a dialog between the photographer, his or her subject, and audience. what the the new topographers did, and the tradition those that follow in their wake continue, was to reinvent, reinvigorate, and reconceptualize the once idyllic landscape invented by painters. they also negate celebratory, albeit isolated depictions of the landscape presented by the "old" topographers.
this is where GFR's insight hits its mark. the idea of systems would seem to be counterproductive to the old topographers work; isolating their subject matter allowed pristine nature to be exhibited without human intrusion and intervention, which could be seen as close as 5 feet behind the camera or within miles in any direction from the camera's view. the new topographers saw a great importance in identifying the broader cultural trend that threatened the landscape, specifically to human-alteration. GFR uses "system theory to conceptualize and illuminate this shift in thinking, and identifies the new topographers understanding of the relationship of parts in the landscape and their affect. the relationship between landscape politics and its photographic representation is inversely influential. as artists’ boundries in photographic representation continue to expand and contract, a simultaneous influx occurs in subject awareness. photographers’ aesthetic and geographic styles reflect these temporal shifts throughout the differing social, political, and ecological contexts.
as pointed out in ""systems Everywhere": New Topograpics and the Art of the 1970'," and previous discussions, rachel carson defined a new relationship to the land based on the destruction of the romantic views that fueled westward expansion. this foreshadowed the rejection of traditional landscape photography for its romantic aesthetic and paved the way for a realist’s version of the american west; that realist vision includes these human-based systems. robert adams once stated, “there seem to be moments of revelation when we see the transition of one part to another, the unification of the whole...." (then comes) "a sense of comprehension.” this comprehension was lacking in the old-topographers photographs and certainly in those that viewed them. building upon visual language and unifying symbols facilitates visual comprehension. an institutional recognition of style is the culmination of these relationships.
jo deal stated in an interview, “none of the photographers whom i have spoken to in new topographics would ever attempt to change anything with their photographs. they are just not that kind of photographer. they are making observations rather than being politically active in any way… talking about my own work i didn't think that being non-judgmental is avoiding anything as much as it is saying that it is just not important. i am more interested in a kind of vision that is a function of seeing things without making judgments, but to see them really for what they are. it is something that i am very fascinated with visually – trying to make a flat space that is rich in details with man made objects placed against a continuous, unbroken, “natural” environment. my intention is to see that clearly – just that alone – not to make judgments about it but photograph it in a way that is non-hierarchical, so that it is a flat of concave space where there is no predominance of one object over another – which is really the way the lens sees. i just have a fascination with that kind of vision, with the lens as the photographic tool.” when i first read this, i thought deal wasn't aware of what his photographs and those by other new topographers would come to describe. though in the light of our recent readings, i understand that when deal mentions his objective, read "scientific," view of the landscape, he is thinking of it as a system to be analyzed; there is no single, simple component to read or interpret, rather there are many factors that effect the subject, view, and necessary actions.
i think adams took a slightly different view/stance and was most intelligent in his approach to the suburban landscape, both literarily and photographically: confronted by contradictory photographs, human beings do what they often do to resolve awkward and sometimes ambiguous moral evidence; they resort to irony, where one thing’s obvious or intended meaning becomes its opposite. this approach makes the very medium of photography itself visible by exposing the contradictions, in turn becoming the actual subject matter. This in part defines postmodernism and has, in many ways, expanded the visual language and allowed for the newer topographic work such as the photographs by richard misrach, peter goin, and david maisel; the nuclear, infestuous and disparate landscape. these photographers may have returned to more isolated subject, but through our understanding of carson and the new topographers message, we see them in connection and proximity to us.
r. adams
r. misrach j. deal
r. misrach
d. maisel
sze tsung leong is a more recently acclaimed photographer and a guggenheim fellow. his "horizon" series depict expansive, but detailed views of a broad spectrum of environments. the places he photographs are geographically distant and his subject matter is diverse, yet a consistent horizon line, linked together and interchangeable for various exhibition arrangements, unifies tsung leong’s images. his photographs suggest an “unfurled view” of the earth’s surface when viewed in a continuous line. This view does not necessarily correlate with conventional perceptions of proximity and distance; as places, they are seemingly unrelated or unconnected and then adjoined. the relationships are meant to reflect the complex and perpetually transforming relationships between global regions, cultures, and nations that give them form to the contemporary world. the arrangements shape the experience of each viewer and challenge interpretation in similar ways to cadaver exqui, the surrealists’ exquisite corpse. tsung leong mirrors robert adams’ notion of geography or more accurately, creating a spatial continuum out of geographically distant locations by unexpected juxtapositions. each arrangement will offer a particular take on the world. the landscape is an event under these new terms and rooted in the new topgraphers’ approach. this allows for historic, psychological, and spatial interpretations of the landscapes. they suggest the politics of a particular place may be the same as or affect the politics of another across the globe. ecological devastation now has the ability to affect the entire globe. atomic blast tests and those dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki formed radioactive “dust” that has penetrated most of the world’s atmosphere; now a component of the air we breathe. isolated pockets of ozone depleting have affected global warming worldwide. sze tsung leong's photographic arrangements start to make these connections and push global issues: social, political and environmental to the forefront.
recent landscape photography is increasingly concerned with land-used and humans’ affect to the landscape over possible land-use. this is due to the efforts of the new topographers, earthwork artists, and scientific thinking. considering there are as many people now living than have died on our planet, the repercussions for our environmental choices involve every ecological system, and thus political on every level. landscape photographers are intelligently responding to environmental politics; their aesthetics both mirror and convey their political stance.
is any one else frustrated by this weeks readings? "reframing the last frontier", "the visual politics of the arctic..."??? my brain hurts thinking about all the reasons this seems wrong. it is a very flattering piece of writing for a body of photographs Subhanker Banerjee made, but it seems to fall very short in its criticism and its physical length is due more to its redundant components, statements, and information than the accomplishments of camera club photographers. maybe this is what from results in steeling a piece of the controversial pie, so to speak. i commend banerjee for his efforts and what has come from his photographs, but i fear he is being yanked around by a war deeper set than his photographs can begin to scratch the surface. everyone knows that photographs can be great evidence and used in political persuasion; everyone knows that controversy and sensored material sell... but does everyone know that our government makes a living off of controversy? regulations are made from them and the government is payed to make regulations. this is an ongoing issue and nothing new. the reason porter and adams are mentioned in this article is because they were of the same dilemma and recontextualized in the same fashion: there is something seriously wrong with glorifying wilderness and as we consume it. ANWR IS habitable, just in a different way than the west was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries; which, by the way, saying banerjee went west from seattle is just ridiculous. his photographs are beautiful and intended to be so. i wonder if he would have photographed the arctic if it wasn't controversial? most likely, he himself says that he wasn't sure what he was looking for, but his scientific background, so to speak, makes natural this series of events. with the current political climate, i think it is the topic that is controversial and not the photographs. i think the smithsonian should have censored global warming... oh wait, the government's been doing that! why are they worried about some pretty pictures? from them, i concur the the arctic looks just fine and global warming is bringing warmth and life to the arctic that will make it more suitable for human progress and solve future human density issues. we just need to lift this "refuge" border and buy up our plots of land. how dunaway frames these issues itself is controversial and, i feel, somewhat convoluted. the photographic chioces baneriee employs varies dramatically, yet dunaway discusses arial perspective verses human perspective; how one supersedes another as they relate to banerjee's work, praises them both, yet does not address how they work together or contrast in the larger body of work.
so which is it and which is more affective, making the viewers removed from the scene to understand the importance of ecological interrelatedness and the reduction of human influence, or "making the viewers feel part of the scene, as if the bird were right in front of their eyes..."? i say the later; let's fly to the arctic tomorrow for a guided trip of bird populations and migratory routs!!! I love wilderness tours... i'm going to book my ticket right now!!! and go dick durbin!!!
reading over this catalogue has left me a bit suspended in disappointment ... aside from both catalogue authors covering very similar historical information concerning manifest destiny throughout much of their essays (where was the catalogue editor???), the writers and curators, hardly define our contemporary environmental issues through the selected works. their assessment of current ecological issues are general and briefly touch on a few artists from over a half century ago; the most current example dating from 1966 and the best may be sanford gifford in 1866... and you can still see clear-cutting in the west. This catalogue covers manifest destiny very well and the work is very representative of this cultural trend; but for manifest responsibility, it offers nothing new and no solutions to altering the trajectory of the former. this catalogue and exhibition should be titled nothing more than “manifest destiny, an american tradition in landscape art;” it wouldn’t be a new idea, but a good collection of work nonetheless….
these works are either representing nature, which has a long-standing history in the arts or they are painting mere abstractions from nature. the authors and curators of this collection fail to convince me that any of these latter artists were in direct contact with their contemporary environmental advocates, authors or their ideas. some pieces may show an empathy for the environment, but hardly have the scope nor vision to speculate and represent the extent of the contemporaneous issues.
angela miller, in her introduction to the catalog, does raised important issues and standards for the work to follow. miller marks the necessity to expand our visual perception to rival our environmental awareness and include ourselves in nature; thus taking more responsibility within a global ecosystem. she claims by looking each work of landscape painting, we can "chart the complexity of american environmental attitudes." i agree with her, but most likely in a different way. miller supposes these artists exhibit varying political opinions (complexity) of land use and humans' relationship to the land; i think they exhibit varying degrees of interest in environmental, ecological, and nature representation. i don't see the other side of the argument represented by any of these artists. there are none that sustain a voice toward approximating the extent of human's negative impact on the land in their own time, let alone ours. if our national character and pride of nature are truly interrelated, and it can be displayed through a selection of paintings throughout the past few centuries, then i would argue these selected works, viewed chronologically would prove that artists cared less about our relationship to the environment and human impact as we moved into modernism. this catalogued show did not even begin to assess late modernist or post-modern work that may begin to touch upon the issues rachel carson addresses in “silent spring.”
michael s. hogues "the cultural reputations of nature in american history, towards a geography of hope" argues that understanding our history and national charecter compels us to "interpret the connections between the altered states of the natural environment and its changing cultural reputations;" i see little evidence to say our current cultural reputation is defined by understanding these relationships, in fact, i think we understand them less and less. we no longer see our land as a source of promise not a powerful adversary to be subdued. our religious affiliations are eroding as a nation let alone their moral tendencies toward the land and natural systems. i appreciate hogue's stance on early settler's political conquest over native americans to highlight it as a (re)settlement or (re)occupation of the land. it is unfortunate that the manifest destiny, manifest responsibility exhibition lacked representation from the native american artists. hogue defines 3 types of wilderness "operating" simultaneously during the early american colonial period: -the physical wilderness of the land -the perceived spiritual wilderness of the native people -the psychic wilderness of potential spiritual degradation within the colonial puritan mind.
as the settlers expanded, consumed and tamed the wild, the idea of wilderness as adversary succumbed to the dominance and control of agriculture and industrialism. the three types of wilderness were thus compromised, threatened and the wild remained predominantly as metaphor for the nations status, civic virtue, and "enlightened democracy." there were few artists that met these entrepreneurs head on; gifford's paintings and thoreau's writing displayed some sense of moral responsibility to the natural world, and shortly thereafter, some governmental protection laws were placed in effect, including yosemite, yellowstone, and gifford pinchot national forests; due more in part to throreau’s writings than gifford’s painting. these protected lands were evaluated and preserved not only for their natural condition, but also for human recreation and future resources; mutually exclusive agendas that would divide invested parties further into conservationist and preservationist camps.
hogues introduces aldo leapold, first and foremost as a wisconsin farmer-forester, and secondly as many consider to be the father of modern american environmentalism. leapold advocated for a "holistic land ethic" in an attempt to redefine the human-land relationship based on ecological consciousness. despite his efforts, this relationship hit a critical point and in the 1960s, rachel carson released "silent spring." carson defined new concerns for the natural world, questioned moral boundaries, and compelled many citizens to re-evaluate many agricultural and industrial practices, especially regarding pesticides and human health.
john brownlee's “manifest destiny/manifest responsibility. environmentalism and the art of the american landscape,” again reiterates some of the ideas put forth by hogues and argues american landscape paintings shifted from an anthropocentric to biocentric view; the cultural views and conception of nature is central to these works. brownlee further describes in more detail specific artists within these shifts, starting with the hudson river school: thomas cole, asher b. durand, frederic edwin church, john frederick kensett and alfred thompson bricher finishing with rachel carson, john marin and the southwest artists: george inness, and marsdon hartly.
brownlee suggests these works have potential in reframing our views of environment and environmentalism and suggests we asks when "in our visual history does bounty run over into destiny, and when does our destiny become our responsibility?" he divides our visual history into the three supposed time periods starting with colonization; transitioning into a european-style agrarianism and industrialism via westward expansion, taming the wild, and eradicating the native stronghold; and into manifest responsibility through tourism, an influx of accompanying art and writing, and scientific observation.
brownlee also makes the point that the viewers perception of these works change over historic and geologic time; what we, or he in this case, perceive these works to signify may be different that what they did upon their creation; and without a clear indication by the artist, it may be guided by sentiments, and susceptible to misinterpretations and revisionist history. i don't actually think brownlee meant for the latter, yet i can't help but feel many of the works selected for this catalogue is victim to revisionism. looking through more of marin’s work affirms that he held little interest in the responsibility factor in this so-called equation. His work shows a fascination with contemporary life, modern society and architecture. marin and other american impressionists' work were not abstracted to denote a distressed environment or ecological system, they were responses to the pace of modernity, the vision of a moving locomotive, and a distaste for neo-classicism borrowed from the french avant garde. The speed and lack of detail in impressionist work elevates its form and process over function, in which the act itself is the radical component and the work is a record. few impressionist works are for political advocacy, granted they may implement the viewer in the landscape differently and restrict a dominant relationship to the land, say via the viewer’s gaze, yet in a way, the process is seemingly more anthropocentric and less biocentric. the human impression of the land is elevated over a meticulous detailed account of mother nature’s design.
especially after reading brownlee, i am hoping that the still life drawings begin to engage more current issues and address our relationship with ecological structures as they stand in the 21st century. we seem to no longer encounter the sublime landscape; it has been conquered, documented and experienced through mediated forms and hardly experience the landscape through a personal connection, but rather associate with the land through images guiding that relationship and denote our experience. i am left questioning, how do any of these paintings imply a greater relationship between humans, animals, land, and the greater ecological structure over time?
cavemen seemed to have a greater appreciation and relationship to animals in their visual representations than the artists put forth by this collection; certainly the native americans did... where are the american indians in this retrospective??? from the examples offered, one artist, emil bisttram made work with reference to native american culture, and he just happened to be eastern european.
this exhibition catalogue seemed like a great opportunity to elevate a historically unpopular view, directly correlated to artists over the last century and a half, and give precedence and momentum to their ideas in our time. It seemed even more promising to research and champion artists calling for greater responsibility toward our current relationships to nature and fragile ecological systems.
i need to stop ordering books by these authors.. my bank account is almost dried up, not to mention the printing process must be an environmental catastrophe!!! oh well, books are cool and can show me all the nature i need.
solnit's article "everything is alive" drives the point of interrelatedness to a whole new level... you have to sift through more history on the Sierra Club than i ever wanted to know. i had no idea how many books they published through their associates. i am impressed. i actually found their reader demographics quite interesting, especially in conjuction with reading "the death of environmentalism" because it shows how quickly environmental issues gained support, i am going to say, following WWII, but specifically leading up into the 60s with the explosion of environmental awareness. just as important, and more peculiar, is the rate of declined interest or outright apathy following this boom and into the 80/90s; it is phenomenal. this is the test of interrelatedness that both solnit and eliot porter attempt to convey through their respected trades.
porter
i also found the relationships between images of nature (as well as their authors), viewers, and tourists, OVER TIME, to be quite paradoxical and in some strange way satisfying. solnit shows us that, as we all know well, there was an adverse affect to one side of nature conservation photography; that is they inspired tourist and the consumption of the wilderness. ironically ansel adams was vigorously supporting wilderness preservation while turning out commissioned images for Kodak AND the Kennecott Mining Co. to praise open-pit mining in the west. we often complain, as did many of the photographers post facto, that we did as much to destroy natural habitat and specie populations through unavailing these edenic places as we did to raise support for maintaining their pristine qualities. yet over time, we complain that these images are all of what many people know about the wilderness, national parks, and sensitive ecological structures all together. GREAT! i am glad that people are wholly satisfied in their townhouses and condos, or trailers for that matter, looking at such places and not getting out to further the damage. unfortunately, one has to suppose that one reason this is now the case, is there is so little left.... only pictures remain of once wonders. i try to insert rachael carsen in wherever i can because her pivotal book, Silent Spring, signified a break with the traditional understanding of the environment and identified industries’mechanisms and products effect on ecosystems... noble... she defined a new relationship to the land based on the destruction of the romantic views that fueled westward expansion.
carson focuses her arguement on ddt and how bioaccumulates up the food-chain into larger animals in an ecosystem.
a quote from the beginning of her book: A Fable For Tomorrow: "There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings. The town lay in the midst of a checkerboard of prosperous farms, with fields of grain and hillsides of orchards where, in spring, white clouds of bloom drifted above the green fields. In autumn, oak and maple and birch set up a blaze of color that flamed and flickered across a backdrop of pines. Then the foxes barked in the hills and deer silently crossed the fields, half hidden in the mists of the fall mornings. All along the roads, laurel viburnum and alder, great ferns and wildflowers delighted the traveler's eye through much of the year. Even in winter the roadsides were places of beauty... So it had been from the days many years ago when the first settlers raised their houses, sank their wells, and built their barns... Then a strange blight crept of the area and everything began to change. "
two dead guys playing with ddt
two dead ladies in a silly ddt advertisement; a safe one for sure.
i find carson's introductory piece very important to our discussion because it foreshadowed the rejection of traditional landscape photography for its romantic aesthetic and paved the way for a realist’s version of the American West, what it was becoming. this is where you get the new-topographers. it is when this genre's lineage realigns itself with the romantic aesthetic that you get the contemporary landscape aesthetic, beautiful and disturbed.
Burtynsky!!!!! Man that guy!! i have not seen one (recent) article take burtynsky to task. he is a photographer that everyone loves personally, but mumbles absenaties under their breadth criticizing the hypocritical nature of his images; or more so with toward his general unwillingness to become the political/environmentalist photographer and take responsibility for the message we all see in his work. this, of course would reinforce the latter. a loose/loose situation perhaps. but why is it that every article brushes the side of this issue to justify burtynsky? there has to be someone quick to rip the spine out of his body and examine it thoroughly. i want to see passionate critic do the deed. or maybe there isn't one, which is why burtynsky's images are the way they are, passive. we are passive... this "yes, but no" attitude; driving around in hybrid cars slurping down 2-3 coffees a day in disposable cups. we are too comfortable with the luxuries we all enjoy, despite the atrocities glazed over in burtynsy's work. what critic doesn't drive, buy consumer products, or heat his/her home with gas or electricity that ultimately comes from oil and other highly questionable, polluting, and/or disastrous processes. or what photographer doesn't compound the issue by fueling the toxic photo-material process or purchase and use equally harmful computers? is it at the risk of being hypocritical, or self-critical, or do we just not care and need aesthetics to acknowledge burtynsky's subjects... for 10 seconds, maybe a few more. maybe it isn't burtynsky that needs hard criticism, maybe it is our system; its components and mostly its people, every last one of them... every last one of us. here i'm typing on a computer that uses materials from who knows where, dug up by who knows who, and payed who knows what. i have my external hard drive and ipod plugged into usb ports sucking up energy, and my damn blackberry sitting in front of me. i certainly don't want to think of the environmental impact each of these products have on the environment. and this is certainly why, amongst many other reasons, environmentalism is dead.
RISE ECO:LOGIC, RISE!! EcoLogic: development industries solutions designs technologies permaculture and landscaping investor consulting (????) homes tableware, dinnerware AND plates etc. etc. etc. (google)
it seems that shellinburger and nordhous was right! environmentalism must and can be marketed to the masses under a new paradigm. and this time it might work. unless it falls flat like environmentalism did after a few decades. i think our cultural memory is a little on the week side. it all sounds good for a while until it doesn't correlate to an higher status-level, then it is just the hard-core renegade extremists that can't let it down. maybe when the EcoLogic condos in bucktown even-out to the normal recession-based prices for non-EcoLogic condos, we will see that word disappear. No, in actuality we have improved and working in the right direction. these terms become a part of our common vocabulary, and unfortunately it looses momentum in the process... but it is a common part of our vocabulary. i do find it amazing, the statistic that shellinburger and nordhous addressed regarding public opinion of environmentalists. mid 20% - high 40% of people view environmentalist as irrational extremists. the people at the north and wells starbucks do think i am crazy because i freaked out on this guy for making my tea in a plastic cub before pouring it into my personal cup... AND THEY JUST DON"T GET IT. i ended up calling the guy a jackass a little too loudly and slightly intentionally; but he deserved it. he knows it drives me crazy, and anywhere barista on the west coast (at least cities in WA and OR) would glair heavily at a customer that asked for a to go cup and sat in house!! oh man!!! in-house is standard and to-go is just that (.) ok, so maybe we are a little crazy; extremists.... but if i was a hard-core, crazy, extremest envoronmentalist, why the hell would i be at starbucks in the first place??? people need to get it right. senseless waste is just that, then there is addiction. i don't think anyone is addicted to to-go cups. is there? anyways, eco-cups need to be marketed because environmental cups don't/won't sell... what would that mean anyways; environmental cup? this is what shellinburger and nordhous address... environmental, the term, is so narrow that it can't be marketed... everything sounds dangerous somehow, possibly because of how it has been targeted on both sides: think, environmental gas.. or eco-gas? i'll by the eco gas anytime. green-gas??? not sure about that one, but greenware works a bit better... environmental ware.. see it just doesn't work. green cars, green house, green technology, eco-technology; perfect. "environmental" is very specific and completely out of the reach of the common person. it seems to cary a scientific application to it. we don't get that we are a part of our environment and as shellinburger and nordhous point out, the environment seems like a thing, or an object somewhere that needs fixing and you need environmental technology to fix it, not green technology or eco-technology; that would certainly be something we would use on a common basis that is safer on the environment... thing out there, wherever it is.
oh, and it seems there are eco-extremists after all... you have to hand it to john berlau; make sure you buy his book, "Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health." it good to see that we neither change nor grow up, just old... we're doomed.
not to revert, but i wanted to post some images from nick brandt. he was mentioned in solnit's "everything is alive," contrasting his work to porters. i think they are gorgeous and certainly good examples of why people gravitated to these images over those more critical and didactic toward the environmental cause. images like this aid the efforts to save larger animals, primarily mammals. this obviously is problematic.
but again, more importantly....
websites of interest: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/story.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/&usg=__oLVcrQrfO98ioRZNR07n6pec3ys=&h=325&w=300&sz=43&hl=en&start=60&sig2=7dzyzzIeTehq3oxx1296XA&um=1&tbnid=z9-sCquLR5aOyM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=109&ei=CeasSZqSAYTBnQfy3PmLBg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsilent%2Bspring%26start%3D40%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
david s. rubin's article "a bird tapestry" is a laundry list of artists using birds as visual metaphors in their work. he covers a massive range of history, artists, media, styles, approaches, theories, stories, intents etc., etc, while, at the same time, saying very little about them. at first, i thought rubin was the classic name dropper and after googling his name and article, found that it is a catalogue essay from the show he curated, “Birdspace: A Post-Audubon Artists Aviary.” in response to the reading, i thought it would be appropriate to approach this essay in the same fashion, listing artists, titles and key words, further reducing this information, simply to rectify my frustrations and make better use of the information; an artists list for reference. I realized how pointless and futile this approach would be (considering i have the list right in front of me) and deleted some 20 artists and associations to their work... this article was hardly critical and rather senseless without the accompanying images from the catalogue; even then, less critical with them. this catalogue essay is not a justification for the artists, those using animals in their work, but rather a sales pitch for rubin's curatorial decisions/practice. the artists need no justification and they simply get lost in this exercise. for the sake of critical discourse and justifacation for the artists work, i think rubin's could have approached his essay less historically and done just as well, if not more so, to promote his choice of artists through a cohesive essay that highlights a few artists but really gets down to the inner animal in the human psyche. there is hardly a lack of historical bird or animal references throughout art history, as rubins redundantly lists, and i would argue that there are few audiences remotely ignorant to this fact. ... i would much rather look at the show. i do have to give rubin credit for compiling all the different notions of what birds symbolize, from the artists or elsewhere... it must have been difficult for him. i have been wondering what birds may symbolize in my own work and actually struggle with right to be there. i fear for them, yet they seem to make the industrial landscape seem harmless. I welcome your personal interpretations.
and here are a few artist i've ran across using birds in their work that i find interesting...
mary mattingly
mattingly's work is rooted in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world where humans assume more animal-like behaviors and characteristics, such as carrying their homes on their backs like a snail and following migratory patterns of birds. there is a new relationship established between humans and animals based on humans reintegration into nature; a relearning of survival in the wild; and a communication that occurs between humans and their contemporaries. it is likened to mad max without all the hating and violence and there is a serenity that fuels nature, technology and discovery.
shai kremer
kremer doesn't typically focus on birds, nor are they a common element in his work... but, say, in this image they become an interesting element. in many ways we are forced to coexist with animals, or maybe it is that they are forced to coexist with us, and when artificial elements or very human-based characteristics start to mimic or reinterpret the animal form and vice versa, the relationship becomes obvious and i would argue that we must reconsider how different humans and animals are; we should reconsider how we treat our animal kin.
mimi youn
on a rare occasion, youn references animals in her work that seems to speak to everyday aspects of culture within her larger bodies of work. almost as if they are just there, they carry little weight which in turn is seemingly profound. the image above fills the frame with a oragami crane, yet the crane is not a crane and certainly a stand-in for a deep-rooted history concerning the importance of animal references, the arts, and finesse of korean culture. the vagueness, ambiguity, and intimacy of life is in perfect harmony and expressed throughout much of her work. the subjects of her photographs speak as much about themselves as an object as they do about the culture in/of/and about life.
the few images i could actually find from the exhibit, "Birdspace: A Post-Audubon Artists Aviary" have some of the same qualities i find sensible in the artists above. see rubin for important details.
Ernesto Pujol
Enrique Martinez Celaya
Carlee Fernandez
Nina Katchadourian
and this thomas woodruff is just beyond measure... it is amazing and has nothing to do with birds at all... except for their ostrich necks of course.
emanuel's blog reminded me of an artist and colleague i went to undergraduate school with. his work is insightful into the possible spiritual connections we have with nature, this world, and beyond through simple interpretations of and interactions with the natural elements surrounding us. i believe his website is worth exploring to the fullest extent. www.johnpena.net i will post some of his work here.
"Sand Birds" Sand, Water & Photography
"Leaf Shadow" Site-specific Installation
and check out these videos: http://www.johnpena.net/archives/Outrunning_clouds_2005/index.htm http://www.johnpena.net/archives/Untitled_2006/index.htm
...and what the hell, i'll include rubin's list anyways, for the sake of access:
1. Martha Alf (American, born 1930): Baby Boy Jr. Debuts, 2002. 2. Martha Alf : Baby Boy Jr. in Setting Sunlight, 2002. 3. Martha Alf ): Taffy Watches Baby Girl and Baby Boy at Baby Boy Jr.'s Debut, 2002. 4. D-L Alvarez (American, born 1962): Summer, 1998. 5. D-L Alvarez (American, born 1962): Eagerness, 1998. 6. D-L Alvarez (American, born 1962): Your Image, 1998. 7. Jacki Apple (American, born 1948): Aviary of the Lost: (3) The Culture of Disappearance #5, 1995/2004. 8. Lorna Bieber (American, born 1949): Bird/White Feathers, 2000 01. 9. Jacqueline Bishop (American, born 1955): Silueta, 2002 03. 10. Ross Bleckner (American, born 1949): Memorial I, 1994. 11. Kate Breakey (Australian, born 1957): Carpodacus Mexicanus, House Finch, 2000. 12. Colin Chase (American, born 1954): Ornithology Suite, 1999. 13. Les Christensen (American, born 1960): Flight from Servitude, 2001. 14. Willie Cole (American, born 1955): Malcolm's Chickens 1, 2002. 15. Jeffrey Cook: Song of Silence, 1996. 16. Petah Coyne (American, born 1953): Untitled #1053, 2001. 17. Ann Craven (American): I'm Not Sorry II, 2003. 18. Michael Crespo (American, born 1947): The Treasure in the Cave, 2001. 19. Michael Crespo (American, born 1947): Pharos, 2001. 20. Michael Crespo (American, born 1947): The Stranger's Apprentice, 2001. 21. Wim Delvoye (Belgian, born 1965): Birdhouse #5, 1998. 22. Wim Delvoye (Belgian, born 1965): Birdhouse #6, 1998. 23. Mark Dion (American, born 1961): Costume: Bird Watcher, 1995. 24. Peter Edlund (born 1959): Homage to James Byrd #2 (after J. J. Audubon), 2001. 25. Carlee Fernandez (American, born 1973): Blue Parakeets with Branches, 2002. 26. Walton Ford (American, born 1960): La Historia Me Absolvera, 1999. 27. Walton Ford (American, born 1960): Compromised, 2002. 28. Adam Fuss (British, born 1961): Untitled, from the series My Ghost, 1999. 29. Laurie Hogin (American, born 1963): Banana Republic, 1999. 30. Laurie Hogin (American, born 1963): Indonesian Bird of Paradise, 1999. 31. Roni Horn (American, born 1955): Untitled #2, 1999. 32. Nina Katchadourian (American, born 1968): TOO LATE, 2003. 33. David Kroll (American, born 1956): Thai Vase, Apples, and Nest, 1999. 34. Lance Letscher (American, born 1962): Do I Love You, 2003. 35. Lance Letscher (American, born 1962): Yellow Bird, 2002. 36. Pam Longobardi (American, born 1958): 1614 1914 (A Disappearance of Wings), 1993. 37. Enrique Martinez Celaya (Cuban, born 1964): Quiet Night (Recollection) I, 1999. \ 38. Alan Michelson (American, born 1953): Mespat, 2001. 39. Julia Montilla (Spanish, born 1970): Birds of Paradise, 2003. 40. Anthony Pessler (American, born 1962): Drift, 2001. 41. Anthony Pessler (American, born 1962): Drop, 2001. 42. Amy Jean Porter (American, born 1975): Birds of North America Misquote Hip-Hop and Sometimes Pause for Reflection, 2002. 43. Ernesto Pujol (Cuban, born 1957): The Gilded Cage #2, 2001 03. 44. Alexis Rockman (American, born 1962): Arms Race, 1999. 45. Michal Rovner (Israeli, born 1957): Mutual Interest II, 1998. 46. Liza Ryan (American, born 1965): Untitled (Falling Birds), 2001. 47. Liza Ryan (American, born 1965): Wind Study #6, 1997. 48. John Salvest (American, born 1955): FLY, 2002. 49. Karoline Schleh (American, born 1967): Motherbird, 2002. 50. Karoline Schleh (American, born 1967): Bang, bang. Burn, burn, 2003. 51. Elizabeth Shannon (American, born 1948): Homage to Jacopo de Barbari: Study of the Dead Bird, 1993 96.. 52. Elizabeth Shannon (American, born 1948): Before the Fire: Study of Cohabitation at the Almonaster Tire Dump, 1996 97. 53. Susan Silton (American, born 1956): Figure 22, from Aviate, 2000. 54. Hunt Slonem (American, born 1951): Toucans, 2000. 55. Kiki Smith (American, born Germany, 1954): Three Crows, 1995. 56. Ben Snead (American, born 1971): Bird Cells, 2000. 57. Daniela Steinfeld (German, born 1964): Birdy, 2001. 58. Fred Tomaselli (American, born 1956): Goldens #3, 1997. 59. Fred Tomaselli (American, born 1956): Grackles, Meadowlarks, and Bobolinks, 2003. C 60. Meyer Vaisman (Venezuelan, born 1960): Untitled Turkey XIV, 1992. I 61. Anne Walsh (American, born 1962): Parrot Suite, 2002. Video, continuous loop. Courtesy of the artist. 62. Thomas Woodruff (American, born 1957): Snowman Ostrich, 2002. 63. James Yamada (American, born 1967): Untitled, 2001. 64. Andrew Young (American, born 1962): Untitled, c-100, 1999. 65. Andrew Young (American, born 1962): Untitled, c-219, 2002. 66. Monica Zeringue (American, born 1964): Bird Shape I, 2002. 67. Monica Zeringue (American, born 1964): Remain, 2002.
