So you're an artist and you want to make an 'environmental work'.
All you have to do is throw in some statements about how we are ruining the world and some pictures of trees, preferably ones about to be logged. Then your viewers are at your mercy. They must agree with the concept of environmental protection because it is right. People become guilt tripped into thinking the work is good because they believe in the ideals behind it.
This is problematic, as there are many 'environmental' works that are not great artworks.
Yes i believe we are fucking up the planet and we need to stop many of the ways we are living, or at least become conscious of the way we are effecting the earth, but i hate the way we aslmost have to appreciate an artwork simply because it claims to be environmental (the same goes with works about slavery, racism, etc.)
This sounds awfully cynical, but what i want to point out is how many of the works claim to be "green" but beyond the environmentalist message earning them immediate credit, the materials used or way its presented are in themselves damaging the environment.
This leads me to question my own practice. Can i condone using new materials, or non-recyclable materials in an artwork. The work doesn't have a function and it doesn't help anyone survive, so why can i off-ride my use of these materials? does the title ART make my conscious feel better?
great questions gemma.
ReplyDeleteit's REALLY important for artists to begin to interrogate their own materials, methods and processes. you are right - often the fact that it's "art" and has a "good message" is a get-out-of-jail-free card. today it's environmental art, previously it was "political" art - the same sort of thinking applies.
John McDonald, while rather blinkered in many ways, does tackle these sorts of issues in his review of the "environmental show" in the balance at the mca.
I've posted a link to his review here:
http://www.environmental-audit.net/organisational-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2409