One of the big themes I noticed in this reading was the idea of imitating nature, rather than trying to conquer it. This idea seems to make so much sense that I almost wonder why "conquering" nature is so inherent to humanity's own nature...like it is a way of proving our power. I mean, we have so much in the way of technology and we have gained so much scientific knowledge in the past decade alone, I feel that we should be evolving past the point of trying to "tame" Mother Nature. Cradle to Cradle is a perfect example of our capability to work WITH nature instead of against it...and if we have the capability, why aren't we utilizing it? Actually, it reminds me of a disturbing-but-hilarious movie I saw recently, called Idiocracy. It takes place 500 years in the future, where all Americans (coined "Uhhhmericans") have evolved to be ever cruder and stupider instead of more civilized and intelligent, to the point where they have forgotten basic knowledge. Knowledge such as water makes plants grow, so they feed all their crops the futuristic equivalent of Gatorade. Naturally, all their crops die, people are starving, a giant dustbowl is created where farmland used to be, and the country is in shambles. Now, I don't know that the human race could actually be that stupid, but there were some very cynical truths in the film regardless--like if we refuse to advance as a nation torwards more intelligent ways of living, we could very well be left behind.
Anyway, I got a little off-track, but also, worth mentioning: apparently the Sundance Channel is featuring a block of interesting programming focused on green living. I caught the show "Big Ideas for a Small Planet" this past weekend, and coincidentally it was all about green housing and the transition to more sustainable living/working environments. I was thinking about Chapter 3 especially as I watched it--particularly with the "cherry tree" analogy that kept popping up. Mostly, it's because one of the featured groups of architects in the show had designed a LIVING tree house; what they called "The Fab Tree Hab". I could be a totally nerding out here, but I think this concept is freaking amazing. Here's a couple links which provides a little more information:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/06/12/grow-your-own-treehouse/#more-929
http://www.inhabitat.com/2005/09/18/fab-tree-hab/#more-646
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Betsy Damon
While reading about Betsy Damon I could not help but think how you can compare what she does with what so many people would love to do. She was able to quit her "stable" life/career. She was able to actually do what she wanted to do and try to make a difference. There are so many people living life and working at jobs that they do not like or do not do to the fullest because they are unhappy. Betsy Damon was able to break the mold and do something good for herself and do something for the environment. Luckily, she was positively percepted and therefore could continue with a career that she enjoyed.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Blog
I found it really interesting to compare an Inconvenient Truth with Cradle to Cradle. It just seems like in chapter one of the book, they explain why Al Gore had to make the documentary. To me, these two things go hand in hand.
It is hard to coexist with big business because there is a triangle that has economically sound on the bottom as the biggest part, then legal, followed by ethical and finally philanthropic. Many business' just do not care as much about the smallest part of the triangle. They care about the profit that they are going to make.
It is hard to coexist with big business because there is a triangle that has economically sound on the bottom as the biggest part, then legal, followed by ethical and finally philanthropic. Many business' just do not care as much about the smallest part of the triangle. They care about the profit that they are going to make.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
C2C/Yukinori Yanagi
I was familiar with Cradle to Cradle before enrolling in this class, but I had never read it, let alone held it in my hands. The synthetic ‘paper’ developed by Charles Melcher, which can be broken down and circulated infinitely in industrial cycles (pg 5) was fun to hold while reading. It was almost cool to the touch, soothing in a way.
My book didn’t come in time, so I had to go to the library; I began to think of how many books are damaged on a daily basis. Wouldn’t it be awesome if libraries didn’t have to worry about the durability and replacement of damaged books?
Some things the stood out to me in the Intro(we weren’t required to read, but hey I paid for the book didn’t I?):
Michael Braungart mentioned that after becoming the director of the EPEA, he discovered the so-called nutrient flows of distant cultures such as the Yanomamo in Brazil, who cremated their dead, put the ashes in a banana soup, and fed to the tribe at a celebratory feast. The Yanomamo believed in karma and reincarnation, or the ‘upcycling’ of the soul(pg 13). The reason I loved reading about this was because 1) it seems as if tribal communities, even throughout history, have always had a veneration for nature 2) this discovery really fits the waste= food mentality; like the ‘upcycling’ of the soul, we as consumers should try to ‘upcycle’ our habits for generations to come, if that makes sense. To further sum up this point, the third quote in the beginning of the book by the faith keeper of the Onondaga really touched me: “What you call your natural resources, our people call their relatives.”
Here’s their website: http://onondaganation.org/
I forgot to mention the haunting paragraph on page 16 starting with “Consider this...” was so incredibly unsettling to me.
Being a woman’s study minor, what I found on in Chapter 1 (page 25) angered me the most. The authors make a crucial and intelligent point that in the 19th century, nature was perceived as ‘mother Earth’ (still is) who would absorb all things and continue to grow. Many people believed their would always be an expanse that would always remain untouched and innocent. To me this is ironic when considering the treatment of women during those times. Women are similarly thought of and desired to reamin untouched and innocent. These parallels between environmentalism and social inequality were most troubling. Additionally humans perceived natural forces as hostile, which had to be controlled. It bothers me that ‘mother’ nature is still looked upon as something cruel, something to blame, something we have nothing to do with-when in fact it’s just the opposite.
In the beginning of Chapter 2, the reference to Malthus was most fitting considering out topic of overpopulation for our project due Tuesday. "The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for men that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."
On that note I find sexual education (contraception) to be so important. There are still cultures around the world that don't believe or aren't familiar with contraception and continue to procreate based on myths and fables. Some tribes in Africa believe that having sex with a virgin will cure one of AIDS. This type of mentality encourages overpopulation which encourages habits that lead to the depletion of the Earth. It's sad that no one listened to Malthus, when he had the right idea to begin with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yanagi's deeper message that his people, like ants, lived inside a constructed social system full of illusions(pg 243), reminded me of our discussions of Inconvenient Truth last class.
Many of us were unable to look past our social constructs, our political views, specifically our views of Al Gore; rather than look at what we were suppose to look at--our responsibility for our planet. I don't remember talking about the issues as much as we talked about politics! If we can get past constructs maybe we can finally establish a healthier identity.
My book didn’t come in time, so I had to go to the library; I began to think of how many books are damaged on a daily basis. Wouldn’t it be awesome if libraries didn’t have to worry about the durability and replacement of damaged books?
Some things the stood out to me in the Intro(we weren’t required to read, but hey I paid for the book didn’t I?):
Michael Braungart mentioned that after becoming the director of the EPEA, he discovered the so-called nutrient flows of distant cultures such as the Yanomamo in Brazil, who cremated their dead, put the ashes in a banana soup, and fed to the tribe at a celebratory feast. The Yanomamo believed in karma and reincarnation, or the ‘upcycling’ of the soul(pg 13). The reason I loved reading about this was because 1) it seems as if tribal communities, even throughout history, have always had a veneration for nature 2) this discovery really fits the waste= food mentality; like the ‘upcycling’ of the soul, we as consumers should try to ‘upcycle’ our habits for generations to come, if that makes sense. To further sum up this point, the third quote in the beginning of the book by the faith keeper of the Onondaga really touched me: “What you call your natural resources, our people call their relatives.”
Here’s their website: http://onondaganation.org/
I forgot to mention the haunting paragraph on page 16 starting with “Consider this...” was so incredibly unsettling to me.
Being a woman’s study minor, what I found on in Chapter 1 (page 25) angered me the most. The authors make a crucial and intelligent point that in the 19th century, nature was perceived as ‘mother Earth’ (still is) who would absorb all things and continue to grow. Many people believed their would always be an expanse that would always remain untouched and innocent. To me this is ironic when considering the treatment of women during those times. Women are similarly thought of and desired to reamin untouched and innocent. These parallels between environmentalism and social inequality were most troubling. Additionally humans perceived natural forces as hostile, which had to be controlled. It bothers me that ‘mother’ nature is still looked upon as something cruel, something to blame, something we have nothing to do with-when in fact it’s just the opposite.
In the beginning of Chapter 2, the reference to Malthus was most fitting considering out topic of overpopulation for our project due Tuesday. "The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for men that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."
On that note I find sexual education (contraception) to be so important. There are still cultures around the world that don't believe or aren't familiar with contraception and continue to procreate based on myths and fables. Some tribes in Africa believe that having sex with a virgin will cure one of AIDS. This type of mentality encourages overpopulation which encourages habits that lead to the depletion of the Earth. It's sad that no one listened to Malthus, when he had the right idea to begin with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yanagi's deeper message that his people, like ants, lived inside a constructed social system full of illusions(pg 243), reminded me of our discussions of Inconvenient Truth last class.
Many of us were unable to look past our social constructs, our political views, specifically our views of Al Gore; rather than look at what we were suppose to look at--our responsibility for our planet. I don't remember talking about the issues as much as we talked about politics! If we can get past constructs maybe we can finally establish a healthier identity.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Climate Report/Green Museum
It's unbelievable that the annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last ten years, the same with methane and nitrous oxide. I was watching Bill Maher last week night and he had the president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, come on and talk about how methane was such a huge issue. She said it was literally the gas emitted from cows and pigs. Normally I'd say that this is a funny cop-out, but in a society where McDonald's hamburgers are sold for what $1? I can understand why she would be a guest on Maher's show. This report was a bit lengthy and down-right depressing; but perhaps it will come in handy for our "Inconvienent" project.
As far as greenmuseum.org goes, I looked at Michele Brody's work and really loved the delicacy of the illuminated skirt structures. To me it represented human mortality the most. This inspires me to do something emphemeral if not with the group projects, with my own art.
As far as greenmuseum.org goes, I looked at Michele Brody's work and really loved the delicacy of the illuminated skirt structures. To me it represented human mortality the most. This inspires me to do something emphemeral if not with the group projects, with my own art.
blog-o-rama~
Hey everyone:
I started off posting this in the comments section of Michele's post, but I realized it was way too long and that I just have way too much to say! Okay, starting off with In the Making:
For some reason, I found Kim Jones' "Mudman" to be fascinating. I totally agree with Michele, Catie and Stacy in the fact that Jones is taking art to a newer, deeper level. However, I do have to mention that Jones himself said that the mudman was not "an alter-ego" (page 212, paragraph 2). He says, "I am Kim Jones when I am Mudman and after I take a shower." I only mention that because, to me, that makes his creation even more interesting--because he is acknowledging that his creation is something that is a part of him, and that a part of him goes into his creation. They both are allowed to co-exist.
This concept is also important depth of the message Jones attempts to deliver. He isn't just walking around heaving a giant scrap metal backpack--all his life experiences have culminated up until this point, and become the Mudman. To compare, I find the opposite is true with Gwen Stefani's Harajuku girls (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harajuku_Girls ). The Harajuku girls are essentially four Japanese girls that Stefani hired to be her back-up dancers--but also part of her 'posse'. They are always each dolled up in exaggerated Japanese street fashion, and she often brings them with her to events. They are even present with her in some interviews (although they are forbidden to speak). In one sense, we can see how both the Mudman and Stefani's Harajuku Girls might be seen as artistic statements; they are both brilliant examples of living sculpture. However, a chief difference is the coexistance of creation and creator in what is essentially the same body. Unlike the Mudman, who is both the artist and the artwork, the HG are Stefani's brainchild come to life through the four girls who play them. While the Mudman will speak to whomever approached him, the HG are not allowed to speak due to Stefani's creative direction (if an interviewer asks one of them a question, Stefani will state that they cannot answer questions because they are "figments of her imagination" and therefore cannot be seen by anyone but her).
Basically, the HG are not allowed to coexist with their own real and actual lives, and their experiences are not permitted to contribute the creation they portray. I think this offers an important distinction in when art becomes relevant, or simply contrived theatrics. The idea lends itself to a topic we talked about in our last class discussion, in questioning what exactly art is, and what role artists themselves play. Is the fact that the Mudman is "relevant" whereas the HG are "contrived", mean that one is art while the other is not? For me, I find the Harajuku Girls to be a gimmicky crock, but I don't necessarily believe that negates its value as art. In my eyes, as long as at least one person sees something as art (whether it's the creator or not), it IS art. So when we listened to that P!nk song in class, and the consensus revealed that it was more than likely a ploy perpetrated by her record company--it might be, but it's still art.
I think questioning what role artists play in all this is even trickier. Is P!nk, as at least a partial creator of the song we listened to, held to any higher responsibilities? Is she expected to act on the message she delivers? Or is she simply allowed to be a messenger? Right now, this is question on which I am truly stuck...and hopefully I'll be able to find an answer (or at least clarify) as the class continues.
Okay, this was way longer than I had originally intended, so I'll stop now. Thanks for reading! :]
I started off posting this in the comments section of Michele's post, but I realized it was way too long and that I just have way too much to say! Okay, starting off with In the Making:
For some reason, I found Kim Jones' "Mudman" to be fascinating. I totally agree with Michele, Catie and Stacy in the fact that Jones is taking art to a newer, deeper level. However, I do have to mention that Jones himself said that the mudman was not "an alter-ego" (page 212, paragraph 2). He says, "I am Kim Jones when I am Mudman and after I take a shower." I only mention that because, to me, that makes his creation even more interesting--because he is acknowledging that his creation is something that is a part of him, and that a part of him goes into his creation. They both are allowed to co-exist.
This concept is also important depth of the message Jones attempts to deliver. He isn't just walking around heaving a giant scrap metal backpack--all his life experiences have culminated up until this point, and become the Mudman. To compare, I find the opposite is true with Gwen Stefani's Harajuku girls (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harajuku_Girls ). The Harajuku girls are essentially four Japanese girls that Stefani hired to be her back-up dancers--but also part of her 'posse'. They are always each dolled up in exaggerated Japanese street fashion, and she often brings them with her to events. They are even present with her in some interviews (although they are forbidden to speak). In one sense, we can see how both the Mudman and Stefani's Harajuku Girls might be seen as artistic statements; they are both brilliant examples of living sculpture. However, a chief difference is the coexistance of creation and creator in what is essentially the same body. Unlike the Mudman, who is both the artist and the artwork, the HG are Stefani's brainchild come to life through the four girls who play them. While the Mudman will speak to whomever approached him, the HG are not allowed to speak due to Stefani's creative direction (if an interviewer asks one of them a question, Stefani will state that they cannot answer questions because they are "figments of her imagination" and therefore cannot be seen by anyone but her).
Basically, the HG are not allowed to coexist with their own real and actual lives, and their experiences are not permitted to contribute the creation they portray. I think this offers an important distinction in when art becomes relevant, or simply contrived theatrics. The idea lends itself to a topic we talked about in our last class discussion, in questioning what exactly art is, and what role artists themselves play. Is the fact that the Mudman is "relevant" whereas the HG are "contrived", mean that one is art while the other is not? For me, I find the Harajuku Girls to be a gimmicky crock, but I don't necessarily believe that negates its value as art. In my eyes, as long as at least one person sees something as art (whether it's the creator or not), it IS art. So when we listened to that P!nk song in class, and the consensus revealed that it was more than likely a ploy perpetrated by her record company--it might be, but it's still art.
I think questioning what role artists play in all this is even trickier. Is P!nk, as at least a partial creator of the song we listened to, held to any higher responsibilities? Is she expected to act on the message she delivers? Or is she simply allowed to be a messenger? Right now, this is question on which I am truly stuck...and hopefully I'll be able to find an answer (or at least clarify) as the class continues.
Okay, this was way longer than I had originally intended, so I'll stop now. Thanks for reading! :]
Sunday, September 9, 2007
In the Making Reading
Kim Jones has a very interesting outlook on sculpture. The fact that he can transform into an alter ego is not something that you see/hear everyday. I thought that it was interesting that he uses mud from wherever he is. Mudman takes sculpture to the next level. It makes himself the art work which is a very intense thing to do. I thought it was crazy that he walked around from sunrise to sunset in this costume. It was probably very hot at times and very uncomfortable to carry around 150 pounds all day long. Jones says "...this is the way the world usually works: first it is my turn to eat something and kill something, then it is someone else's turn to eat me and kill m. I have my individual experiences. They seep out of my art." While this statement is very interesting it is also very creepy. I think that it is a very morbid way of looking at the food chain. In turn, its probably just a blunt and bold statement.
Michele
Michele
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)