" Where the non-human environment ‘acts'—for instance, in the case of a ‘natural disaster'—it is interpreted with the human at the centre of concern: what does the occurrence mean for humans? How it can be read or interpreted in order to understand ourselves better? This tradition does not preclude human and non-human entanglements, but it interprets these as reflecting human power and indicative of human culture." This quote from the reading stood out to me. brings up themes of nature's rights vs. human actions. The environment would not be so closely studied and researched if it did not directly effect the quality of our lives. And ironically, the effects of nature the media is most concerned with are the ones caused by our ecological footprint. Because we our so self centered, there seems to be a sort of ranking system of nature based on the amount of effect made on human life, almost as if some parts of the environment are deemed more important than others. Many species of animals and plants are not given enough attention or agency because their impact on human life is small. Some types of bugs are in danger of being taken out of ecosystems because they are viewed as more of an annoyance to humans than a benefit. For my final project I will be exploring the overlooked parts of nature such as rocks and bugs and representing them in a way to give them agency. However, according to the ideas in this reading, it's hard to change the fact that the main takeaway from my project, or any artwork about the environment, will be more a reflection on our society and culture than on the actual nature itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment