Andy Goldsworthy is a famed artist who uses a unique yet very creative process to create his art pieces. He travels all over the world to far away places in order to make art, all out of natural materials from the earth. He uses anything from rocks to flowers, leaves, icicles, etc. Sometimes he is not able to finish the work in time and it is destroyed by water, heat, wind or other factors.
Andy uses a lot of personal experience to engage and inform the audience. He does a great job of drawing people into his world of art and processing abstract thoughts into concrete ideas. He speaks to audience members as if he knows them, or is comfortable with the recording of his art processes. But at one point he tells us that he is very much a sort of "loner" or an introvert. When I was in high school I too considered myself quite a loner and was very introverted. I found such comfort in expressing my feelings through different styles and mediums of art. But I never thought to use something as beautiful and absolutely natural as the wilderness to produce art. To me, this is one of the most interesting ways to work as an artist. The simplicity of finding tools in nature is almost ironic to me because all art supplies originate and are formed from products found in nature. I never thought to try it before, but look forward to future adventures in creating my own eco-art.
The documentary style of the film was extremely personal. Andy gives a lot of personal stories that apply to some of his pieces, such as the tree with a hole in it that is meant to represent the absence that has grown as a result of the loss of his close friend's wife. The personal aspect this artist uses to express himself is one that I both learned from, as well as related to. My art tends to reflect very intimate ideas or experiences of my own.
Documentary style in the film includes a few important facts about Andy's life before his 'discovery' as an artist. He shared with the audience some of his education as a student at Lancaster School in Art. And outside of school he began to find his comfort working with nature, stating that he discovered an energy outside of the classroom that he could not tap into when he was confined inside.
The cinematic style of the film's topic was visually represented by the directors use of cinematography including close ups of Andy's hands, which graphically illustrates to the audience his physical contribution to his art. The nicks on his hands powerfully demonstrates the effort used to create his art. There is nothing between the object of his imagination and his fingers. Remnants of his finger nails, blood, and sweat are often integrated into his pieces and become part of his work. This visual representation dictates the full extent of his contribution to his eco-art.
One of the most interesting things Andy said was "That which brings it together tears it apart". He is referring of course to the art mediums he uses. The rocks, leaves, ice, sticks and other things always end up being destroyed, whether he finishes it or not, and it's always mother nature who tears it apart. Another interesting analogy he made was the way he feels when he moves from place to place. Andy describes this process as being like a plant. When he moves it gives him a feeling of being uprooted and it takes time and effort and strength to start life again. One quote that relates to this and stuck with me was when Andy said that he, "Builds with nature in nature...until the tide comes to erase the canvas.
Andy tells the audience that the influence of his work is the sea and the river. In the film, his work takes place most of the time very near different bodies of water. As far as strategies used to persuade audiences about the film's topic, it showed very vividly the mortality of nature's ability of destruction of life, and in this case, of art. To engage the audience, the film depicts Goldsworthy's work in nature. Andy says at one point when reminiscing about his long career in eco-art, "You are a part of it by looking at it."
Finally, one of the strategies used to inform the audience about the film's topic was through expressing step by step what Andy's work means to him and to his fans, and audiences of the film, as well as what his work represents.
Here is a synopsis of the film found on the website sent in the e-mail about the film series:
FRACTURED ENVIRONMENTS: MENDING WHAT'S BROKEN...
Hosted by Linda Lilienfeld from "Let's Talk About Water".
RIVERS AND TIDES depicts the magical relationship between art and nature while painting a visually intoxicating portrait of famed artist Andy Goldsworthy. Gorgeously shot and masterfully edited, the film follows the bohemian free spirit Goldsworthy all over the world as he demonstrates and opens up about his unique creative process. From his long-winding rock walls and icicle sculptures to his interlocking leaf chains and multicolored pools of flowers, Goldsworthy’s painstakingly intricate masterpieces are made entirely of materials found in Mother Nature — who threatens and often succeeds in destroying his art, sometimes before it is even finished.
For more information, visit fracturedenvironments.com
Friday, March 4, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Relating The Realism
Louis Owens and Aldo Leopold have very different styles of writing in the two essays I’ve examined; however they also make strikingly similar and equally dissimilar assertions. I chose these two essays because they both offer the reader a guilt-inducing epiphany that challenges our very idea of “nature.” While both papers deal with humans and their relationship with nature and wilderness, Owens and Leopold make different assertions that question how humans interact with the world around them, but both of their assertions suggest the same thing. In the essays written by Louis Owens and Aldo Leopold, they both assert that humans need a better grasp on understanding of the world we live in.
Thinking Like a Mountain follows the thoughts of a modern hunter. As the story goes, Leopold is out with his hunter friends, when all of a sudden they come across a pack of wolves in the distance. His instinct at that moment seems all too clear. Aim to kill. Everyone knows that “fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunter’s paradise” (Leopold, 89). After the kill, he realizes the repercussions in a domino effect. The almost personified mountain sits there in its grandeur and emits an overwhelming sense of permanence and wisdom. Those wolves were not intended to be removed from the mountain; they are all there to protect the mountain through hunting the deer. For when the deer population has no fear of predators, they roam free, dominating the vegetation and landscape of the mountain.
The American Indian Wilderness is about when Owens was a seasonal ranger for the United States Forest Service on a task to burn a log shelter in a place called White Pass. The shelter had existed for more than 80 years tucked away in a region of the North Cascades on a mountain called Dakobed, or the Great Mother, the place of emergence by the indigenous people. The burning was part of a Forest Service plan that would remove all human-made things from wilderness areas. The ranger spent five days in early fall taking apart and burning the logs of the shelter during a persistent snow storm until it was gone. On his hike back the ranger crossed paths with two old women who happened to be on their way to White Pass. Through a bit of conversation he learned the women were sisters on their way to the little house their father built long ago when he was part of the Forest Service. They explained their Indian heritage and how their land was shared and cared for by everyone long ago. The ranger reluctantly revealed to the women his reason for being there, and much to his surprise the sisters continued to smile before parting ways. On his hike back, the ranger re-evaluated his thoughts of what wilderness was. “Before the European invasion, there was no wilderness in North America; there was only the fertile continent where people lived in a hard-learned balance with the natural world” (Owens, 70).
Both authors used one of their experiences in the wild to get their point across. One point they both make is how their experience changed their views on nature. The point they are making is that humanity and wilderness are entwined in so many ways. Owens’ mission brought him great satisfaction at first. He was so willing to return the White Pass to its original state. Leopold, on the other hand, wanted to change the wilderness in a different way. He took control of the wild by hunting the hunter. It was almost as if he was playing God. There is a turning point for both authors when they think maybe they should not play around with the wilderness, maybe they are not meant to change things.
The epiphany that Leopold experienced questions how seemingly insignificant alterations to our environment can have dire and unforeseeable repercussions. It took years for the deer to devastate the mountain; but now unchecked, the deer have entirely changed Leopold’s landscape. He has “seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, (and) every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn” (Leopold, 89). This all too real consequence could have been avoided had all the wolves been left to fulfill their duty. Leopold leaves his readers thinking about how nature is already in harmony and how humans only seem to interfere with its intricate balance. As we have not lived as long as the mountain, we have no idea how our changes to our environment will affect the future of our wilderness.
Owens’ epiphany came to him over an 11-mile hike out of the mountains. He says: “I began to understand that what I called “wilderness” was an absurdity, nothing more than a figment of the European imagination. Before the European invasion, there was no wilderness in North America” (Owens, 70). This realization questioned his very idea of the word “wilderness.” Before this day he believed land unadulterated by the hand of man was the true meaning of wilderness; however, he discovered that North America has always been occupied by native peoples and that there is no wilderness. We have been chasing a false dream of untouched perfect land. The reality is that Native Americans used the land so well, they barely left a mark other than the occasional cabin. The white man has no concept of how to integrate themselves with nature; so our assumptions that wild unclaimed land existed here was just as false as our claim to it.
The closing of each piece was as important and impactful as the epiphany. Leopold ends with: “In wilderness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men” (Leopold, 89). The closing of this piece illustrates the complexity of nature, and how little humanity really notices of it. We are nor as old or wise as the mountain. This emphasizes the importance that each and every person can make a difference, whether it be good or bad.
Owens’ ending is more of an attack on urbanization. He ends with: “Unless Americans, and all human beings, can learn to imagine themselves as intimately and inextricably related to every aspect of the world they inhabit, with the extraordinary responsibilities such relationship entails—unless they can lean what the indigenous peoples of the Americas knew and often still know—the earth simply will not survive. A few square miles of something called wilderness will become the sign of failure everywhere” (Owens, 71). This really is a wake up call that everyone is at fault for our devastated planet. We all need to be more like the Native Americans and become one with nature, or end up in a world completely devoid of nature, where we maintain a few parks to remind ourselves how badly we have messed up.
While both essays enlightened the reader to think more closely about their relationship with nature, Owens applied his focus into explaining our idea of wilderness as non-existent and our actions should be modified to reduce our future damages, while Leopold dedicated his time to say that we should tread lightly because we don’t know the consequences of our actions until it’s too late. Both essays possessed a clear expression that we don’t know as much about nature as nature knows about itself. Both essays exhibited unmistakable epiphanies that lead the reader to see the authors’ realization and remorse. Both essays evoked self-reflection in its readers. But most importantly the underlying message in the essays written by Louis Owens and Aldo Leopold, is the assertion that humans need a better grasp on understanding of the world we live in.
Works Cited
Leopold, Aldo. "Thinking Like a Mountain." A Sand County Almanac. Saving Place: An Ecocomposition Reader. Comp. Sidney I. Dobrin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. 87-90. Print.
Owens, Louis. "The American Indian Wilderness." Saving Place: An Ecocomposition Reader. Comp. Sidney I. Dobrin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. 68-71. Print.
Thinking Like a Mountain follows the thoughts of a modern hunter. As the story goes, Leopold is out with his hunter friends, when all of a sudden they come across a pack of wolves in the distance. His instinct at that moment seems all too clear. Aim to kill. Everyone knows that “fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunter’s paradise” (Leopold, 89). After the kill, he realizes the repercussions in a domino effect. The almost personified mountain sits there in its grandeur and emits an overwhelming sense of permanence and wisdom. Those wolves were not intended to be removed from the mountain; they are all there to protect the mountain through hunting the deer. For when the deer population has no fear of predators, they roam free, dominating the vegetation and landscape of the mountain.
The American Indian Wilderness is about when Owens was a seasonal ranger for the United States Forest Service on a task to burn a log shelter in a place called White Pass. The shelter had existed for more than 80 years tucked away in a region of the North Cascades on a mountain called Dakobed, or the Great Mother, the place of emergence by the indigenous people. The burning was part of a Forest Service plan that would remove all human-made things from wilderness areas. The ranger spent five days in early fall taking apart and burning the logs of the shelter during a persistent snow storm until it was gone. On his hike back the ranger crossed paths with two old women who happened to be on their way to White Pass. Through a bit of conversation he learned the women were sisters on their way to the little house their father built long ago when he was part of the Forest Service. They explained their Indian heritage and how their land was shared and cared for by everyone long ago. The ranger reluctantly revealed to the women his reason for being there, and much to his surprise the sisters continued to smile before parting ways. On his hike back, the ranger re-evaluated his thoughts of what wilderness was. “Before the European invasion, there was no wilderness in North America; there was only the fertile continent where people lived in a hard-learned balance with the natural world” (Owens, 70).
Both authors used one of their experiences in the wild to get their point across. One point they both make is how their experience changed their views on nature. The point they are making is that humanity and wilderness are entwined in so many ways. Owens’ mission brought him great satisfaction at first. He was so willing to return the White Pass to its original state. Leopold, on the other hand, wanted to change the wilderness in a different way. He took control of the wild by hunting the hunter. It was almost as if he was playing God. There is a turning point for both authors when they think maybe they should not play around with the wilderness, maybe they are not meant to change things.
The epiphany that Leopold experienced questions how seemingly insignificant alterations to our environment can have dire and unforeseeable repercussions. It took years for the deer to devastate the mountain; but now unchecked, the deer have entirely changed Leopold’s landscape. He has “seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, (and) every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn” (Leopold, 89). This all too real consequence could have been avoided had all the wolves been left to fulfill their duty. Leopold leaves his readers thinking about how nature is already in harmony and how humans only seem to interfere with its intricate balance. As we have not lived as long as the mountain, we have no idea how our changes to our environment will affect the future of our wilderness.
Owens’ epiphany came to him over an 11-mile hike out of the mountains. He says: “I began to understand that what I called “wilderness” was an absurdity, nothing more than a figment of the European imagination. Before the European invasion, there was no wilderness in North America” (Owens, 70). This realization questioned his very idea of the word “wilderness.” Before this day he believed land unadulterated by the hand of man was the true meaning of wilderness; however, he discovered that North America has always been occupied by native peoples and that there is no wilderness. We have been chasing a false dream of untouched perfect land. The reality is that Native Americans used the land so well, they barely left a mark other than the occasional cabin. The white man has no concept of how to integrate themselves with nature; so our assumptions that wild unclaimed land existed here was just as false as our claim to it.
The closing of each piece was as important and impactful as the epiphany. Leopold ends with: “In wilderness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men” (Leopold, 89). The closing of this piece illustrates the complexity of nature, and how little humanity really notices of it. We are nor as old or wise as the mountain. This emphasizes the importance that each and every person can make a difference, whether it be good or bad.
Owens’ ending is more of an attack on urbanization. He ends with: “Unless Americans, and all human beings, can learn to imagine themselves as intimately and inextricably related to every aspect of the world they inhabit, with the extraordinary responsibilities such relationship entails—unless they can lean what the indigenous peoples of the Americas knew and often still know—the earth simply will not survive. A few square miles of something called wilderness will become the sign of failure everywhere” (Owens, 71). This really is a wake up call that everyone is at fault for our devastated planet. We all need to be more like the Native Americans and become one with nature, or end up in a world completely devoid of nature, where we maintain a few parks to remind ourselves how badly we have messed up.
While both essays enlightened the reader to think more closely about their relationship with nature, Owens applied his focus into explaining our idea of wilderness as non-existent and our actions should be modified to reduce our future damages, while Leopold dedicated his time to say that we should tread lightly because we don’t know the consequences of our actions until it’s too late. Both essays possessed a clear expression that we don’t know as much about nature as nature knows about itself. Both essays exhibited unmistakable epiphanies that lead the reader to see the authors’ realization and remorse. Both essays evoked self-reflection in its readers. But most importantly the underlying message in the essays written by Louis Owens and Aldo Leopold, is the assertion that humans need a better grasp on understanding of the world we live in.
Works Cited
Leopold, Aldo. "Thinking Like a Mountain." A Sand County Almanac. Saving Place: An Ecocomposition Reader. Comp. Sidney I. Dobrin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. 87-90. Print.
Owens, Louis. "The American Indian Wilderness." Saving Place: An Ecocomposition Reader. Comp. Sidney I. Dobrin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. 68-71. Print.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
ethics of consumption
I have a consumption pattern I would consider mostly that of an average middle class American. I eat about 3 meals each day, but I do make my first meal only a bowl of cereal with a bit of milk. One thing I do regularly is buy local food, and pay close attention to the date of expiration so I can stretch the product to its capacity. I don't necessarily do this for the environment or for the local sustainability principles. I am a cautious food consumer because I am a "poor college student" and need to be aware of these things. It just so happens that the way I consume is quite sustainable.
I feel that many people don't consume in healthy patterns for the purpose of being sustainable. I believe they do it out of ease or so they can say they are sustainable consumers. Everyone has their own reason for everything they do.
Being a college student, at least in Athens, means there are not many chances to be seriously over-consuming. I borrow money from the government for school and pay for my books, bills and groceries with my small income. I want to own many things, but I won't buy unnecessary stuff until I know I can afford it comfortably, and will never regret the purchase. Even though my food consumptions is not conscious, I do often think hard about the processes that products go through before I purchase them. I find it very helpful to do so. Half of the time I find myself returning the product to the shelf or leaving the entire cart full of items behind. Many times I stop myself because of the disgust I feel when I see row after row of obese customers with their obese offspring with carts full of soda, frozen dinners and cigarettes, only to get to the checkout and pay out of their welfare envelopes.
I guess what I'm saying here is that my consciousness of the serious over-consumption around me leads me to make choices that are more healthy, for myself and the environment. Ethically, my choices reflect my embarrassment of our common society. I like to think my choices don't go unnoticed, and maybe even make up for those hogs "living high on the hog" that I just mentioned.
I feel that many people don't consume in healthy patterns for the purpose of being sustainable. I believe they do it out of ease or so they can say they are sustainable consumers. Everyone has their own reason for everything they do.
Being a college student, at least in Athens, means there are not many chances to be seriously over-consuming. I borrow money from the government for school and pay for my books, bills and groceries with my small income. I want to own many things, but I won't buy unnecessary stuff until I know I can afford it comfortably, and will never regret the purchase. Even though my food consumptions is not conscious, I do often think hard about the processes that products go through before I purchase them. I find it very helpful to do so. Half of the time I find myself returning the product to the shelf or leaving the entire cart full of items behind. Many times I stop myself because of the disgust I feel when I see row after row of obese customers with their obese offspring with carts full of soda, frozen dinners and cigarettes, only to get to the checkout and pay out of their welfare envelopes.
I guess what I'm saying here is that my consciousness of the serious over-consumption around me leads me to make choices that are more healthy, for myself and the environment. Ethically, my choices reflect my embarrassment of our common society. I like to think my choices don't go unnoticed, and maybe even make up for those hogs "living high on the hog" that I just mentioned.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wilderness Blog
How has reading about the history of our concept of ‘wilderness’ altered (or not) your sense of what it is and how we should think about it?
I may not have had such an in depth view of wilderness prior to reading William Cronon's essay, but I certainly have similar feelings about what wilderness represents and how humanity perceives the subject. I have written a couple of essays recently on the global climate change, or as some like to say, the "global warming effect." These essays of mine have been in response to humankind's lack of concern and even the amount of ignorance many people have when it comes to the earth and it's health. Cronon brought this idea full circle when he published this essay, and even challenges the audience to rethink our take on the term.
I know my concept of wilderness has not changed, but I have certainly been enlightened to an extent. While I am slightly confused about what Cronon wants readers to take from his writing, I did consider it to be quite fascinating to hear his thoughts about the subject and exactly how much humanity has changed the very essence of the wild.
Humanity is the culprit in this reality of the desolation of our planet. Whether or not we ever think about repercussions of our everyday plans and how each action has a serious reaction, the fact is that it will eventually destroy the ground we walk on.
I did find it interesting as Cronon described wilderness as a place to fear. In history, humans only inhabited very small parts of the earth. They did not know what was outside of their comfort zone. I think this is the real "wilderness" Cronon is writing about. Going outside of that comfort zone meant leaving and maybe not returning. It was undiscovered land, animals, water, mountains and an overall wildness they were about to see. For all they knew, they could have been entering the place of God or of Satan.
With rapid population increase and the Industrial Revolution the wilderness became domesticated very suddenly. The sublime no longer exists, only the idea of it remains. And when people try to explain wilderness, it is almost impossible. You cannot define a concept. What I took away from this reading was that the wilderness society envisions is wrong. There really is no such thing anymore. It was culturally created for future and past generations, to paint a pleasant picture for us to remember and hold dear. The fact is, we can not go back in time to do it all over. What's done is done, unfortunately, and for those who know wilderness to be a growing landscape of reproduction and beauty, they are experiencing false reality. We have already passed the point of no return long, long ago.
I may not have had such an in depth view of wilderness prior to reading William Cronon's essay, but I certainly have similar feelings about what wilderness represents and how humanity perceives the subject. I have written a couple of essays recently on the global climate change, or as some like to say, the "global warming effect." These essays of mine have been in response to humankind's lack of concern and even the amount of ignorance many people have when it comes to the earth and it's health. Cronon brought this idea full circle when he published this essay, and even challenges the audience to rethink our take on the term.
I know my concept of wilderness has not changed, but I have certainly been enlightened to an extent. While I am slightly confused about what Cronon wants readers to take from his writing, I did consider it to be quite fascinating to hear his thoughts about the subject and exactly how much humanity has changed the very essence of the wild.
Humanity is the culprit in this reality of the desolation of our planet. Whether or not we ever think about repercussions of our everyday plans and how each action has a serious reaction, the fact is that it will eventually destroy the ground we walk on.
I did find it interesting as Cronon described wilderness as a place to fear. In history, humans only inhabited very small parts of the earth. They did not know what was outside of their comfort zone. I think this is the real "wilderness" Cronon is writing about. Going outside of that comfort zone meant leaving and maybe not returning. It was undiscovered land, animals, water, mountains and an overall wildness they were about to see. For all they knew, they could have been entering the place of God or of Satan.
With rapid population increase and the Industrial Revolution the wilderness became domesticated very suddenly. The sublime no longer exists, only the idea of it remains. And when people try to explain wilderness, it is almost impossible. You cannot define a concept. What I took away from this reading was that the wilderness society envisions is wrong. There really is no such thing anymore. It was culturally created for future and past generations, to paint a pleasant picture for us to remember and hold dear. The fact is, we can not go back in time to do it all over. What's done is done, unfortunately, and for those who know wilderness to be a growing landscape of reproduction and beauty, they are experiencing false reality. We have already passed the point of no return long, long ago.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
brief introduction
Hello,
My name is Robert Schreiber, and I am a Junior here at Ohio University. I am majoring in Psychology and Art. I attended OU about two years ago and transferred to Hocking College in Nelsonville to save money. I quickly realized what a big mistake that was and transferred back. The extra money is worth it for a better education!
Bob
My name is Robert Schreiber, and I am a Junior here at Ohio University. I am majoring in Psychology and Art. I attended OU about two years ago and transferred to Hocking College in Nelsonville to save money. I quickly realized what a big mistake that was and transferred back. The extra money is worth it for a better education!
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)