Personsally I use green energy, eat vegetarian (not vegan, but noboy is perfect), own no car, live in cooperative housing, support green socialist parties and so on. There´s a lot you can do if you just want it.
There are colliding interests in the world and you must raise your voice when you want yours to be considered. Environmental destruction and alienation from nature are no misunderstanding or accident; they follow political and cultural trends. As an artist you can support them, or you can show an alternative.
I don't think that anyone should be forced to do anything he/she doesn't like to do. Of course, saving our environment should be everyone's responsibility but not necessarily through art. You could donate to some environmental organisation or vote or something else. The possibilities are endless
An artist has to draw what they know. Just like writers have to write about what they know. While it would be great to see more artists create images to help contribute to protecting the enviroment, we cannot expect everyone to do it.
Let's stop saving the environment, and let's save ourselves instead! This planet has been destroyed many times, and has no feelings. We humans on the other hand are really in for it if we don't start being more preservative.
The way I see it, it can work in either direction. Artists can both show the beauty and horror of the world. So as well as using it to save the environment you could also use it to promote using oil or the likes. I mean, we can paint lovely sunny trees on an autumn day (or write about etc. depending on the form of art) but we could just as easily paint a war scene. So I feel we have to both or it's a narrow perspective. And that art is a two-faced coin.
not necessarily... i mean if you want to create art like that then great! but it dosent mean that that is the only way the art should be viewed. you can create something completely beautiful with multiple meanings and if the mass of people only see it as for the environment they might be missing the other things that you want to show them.
No, it should not be necessarily. If they want to, yes of course. But if they don't no. Necessarily should only be if are getting paid for it, but that goes without saying. its still a hobby for most, to escape from reality and the world outside and being an artist should be enjoyed in the first place.
i dont know if anyone else has noticed this but it seems that more and more people are replacing real things from nature (plants, sometimes animals) for plastic sculptures of them, or paintings........art is good but i dont think that it will always help
well being an artist mostly requires paper, which comes from trees, so its not green per-say but if you used recycled paper or reused like scrap metal (for scalpers ) i guess it helps the environment. . .
Saving the environment is a noble task. Working for world peace is a noble task. Fighting poverty in this world is a noble task...
I answered "other" because I think art should not be limited to one thing. It's up to the artist to make his/her art political or "just" a way to reflect the beauty or the ugliness of the surrownding world, or maybe to reflect the everyday life - or maybe let the fantasy and dream flow and find its form in art...
There are too many things to express in art - and there are too many ways of expression, many things to believe in and many things to oppose...
what reallymovesare the afflictionscaused by natureand war,the greatest dangerthatthreatens the landnot fromextraterrestrial civilizationsorbeings fromthe depths of theocean,orthe interiorof the earth, we arethe dwellers inthe surface, each and everyone of ustolesser or greaterscalecontribute toits deterioration. expecta higher beingwecome tofix the problems. butit is not. greatestfearof human beings isthe future, wereminiscinglifeto avoid facingthe present, pleasefor oncein lifewe put ourfeet on the ground, we canlive betterinteracting, meetingfor coffeeto chatdiscuss amovie, a good book,listen to ourolder relatives,turn off yourcomputerand livesa few hours,withlivewith nature, respectthe lives ofother speciesby protecting their rightto exist,isthe human sidethatare missing.
Some of my best work has an environmental focus, and I like when that happens, but it doesn't work if it's forced. Artists need to express the beauty (or even ugliness) that speaks to them. Environmentalism is an important issue, but it isn't the only one. The most personal, individual issues can be important, even political.
I think it depends on your subject matter. I personally want the planet to be healthy, course I enjoy scenery photos as well. Those who do not, may not feel as enthralled about contributing to the planet. However if your subject matter is people then the artist may be more encouraged to contribute to more humanitarian issues such as equality & hunger. Animals for animal specific subjects, course that would be another branch of Nature as their habitats would be as important as the treatment. But if you are talking loosely how everything is based and dependent on Earth then possibly yes, all artists should contribute in one form or another.
How does one save the environment when the equipment made to make 'art' is just as harmful. All those plastic packaging, plastic paints, tossed metals, etc. At the end of the day and through the test of time, art will eventually become trash to that pollutes just as much as the everyday trash does. (And certainly every plastic packed item you buy, which is almost everything, or even metal packed art supply).
Some artists are working with re-used and found supplies in an effort to lessen their impact, but I admit I am not usually one of them. I believe clay is fairly environmentally friendly, but the materials used to color it after it is fired don't tend to be. Charcoal, chalk, and graphite might be relatively low-impact, but I don't know what goes into the process, especially when the chalk is colored. I disagree with you that art eventually becomes trash. Sometimes it does, sometimes it gets accidentally burned or destroyed, but often art stands the test of time. We still have sculptures and paintings from centuries ago, millennia ago, even. I almost never throw artwork away. I do everything that I can to preserve all art. We can look at everything on earth as potential trash, or we can look at everything on earth as something to potentially feed the earth of the future. I'm doing my best to create art that feeds the earth.
Here we go. Clay is an environmental pollutant at times based on where you get it from. Taking clay from an area where there has been a nuclear melt down, yay spreading cancer! Perhaps introducing a foreign material into different environments... you know there is a reason many governments won't let you take there soils and travel to other countries with it. Last thing we need is a pile up of iron rich chunks of useless matter introduced to a system where the soil is meant to be nitrogen rich. Now we have the by product of iron oxide slowly choking the life as ir rusts. Charcoal... how does one get charcoal? Come on now think about it... perhaps high packed pressure deep with in the earths surface, totally toxic up on the top. Highly combustible, as well as an after product of combustion itself (yay more pollutants from the combustion process!). Graphite, again, compressed carbon under high pressure areas. What is chalk but the skeletons of millions of micro organisms! Don't worry, I enjoy drawing with dead animals too; makes things a little more interesting I guess. Here's the kicker and the main point I was trying to get at though. What do all those things have in common, specifically when you go out an buy them? Oh yeah, plastic packaging. You know, those little tiny wrappers that will never degrade over time, but shred into tiny pieces and slowly choke life (whether in a landfill or the ocean, it really doesn't matter). Oh, know something else they have in common? Transportation. THink of the mining, the gas burned, the diesel eaten up and by product released into the atmosphere just so you can buy these things at a store. Who ever thinks about how you get the damn things and just how it impacts the environment to shop (hooray capitalism! turn your back and blind yourself to everything that isn't a product you hold in your hands!) And yes, art lasts awhile, but nothing, NOTHING, is permanent. The sun is not permanent, our universe is not permanent. Even as I pointlessly rant our universe is part of a galaxy slowly orbiting a black hole moving closer and closer until one day we get all swallowed up (though... i don't think our sun will live long enough to see that day coming... billions of years from now...). Environmental chemistry is a bizarre study, and if you should ever actually decide to look into you'll find that there are many many process that lead to pollution, or harm the environment (some even natural processes). So at the end of the day, almost anything can be harmful to the environment depending on what perspective you choose to look at it through. Oh, and if you should choose to throw a 'synthetic product' argument at me. Again, how were these synthetic products made (probably a lot of fuel burning there) and how are they packaged and transported? Art is one wasteful, environmentally harmful, and destructive process. There's no denying that, but then again, humanities greed is what fuels it so until that stops; lets destroy the earth together shall we?
Oh right, re-use... forgot about that one. Same argument as earlier. Introducing foreign compounds to unfamiliar areas. Metal sculptures, as they rust, would choke the wild life around them. Believe it or not iron oxide is a bad thing to soil. Very few organism do well in those red soils (granted there are a few, oklahoma shows us some lovely organisms) but in areas not used to that level of iron exposure, you just killed a lot of life. Way to go re-use. The disposing of metals in the ocean and re-using them as coral reefs... yup... iron oxide is bad for life, whooo! Science... You're reused plastic will degrade. Plastic is plenty permanent but not as a whole. It shreds over time. Go check it out, plastic is absolutely horrible and there are very few things that can destroy it completely... incidentally, the things that can destroy plastic, also pretty horrifying to our environment. Okay, I'm done ranting. Go enjoy life, don't try to think about the future after you've died, and keep on sleeping soundly.
Two, no three points that immediately spring to mind: 1) Charcoal is not the coal you are thinking about. It is made by burning wood, which has its own problems, but it is a relatively renewable resource. 2) I agree with you that nothing is permanent. I disagree with you that everything is garbage. I believe most, if not all things, can be used to feed the earth and fuel new life. So I guess that leads to... 2.1) Everything, including art, can have hidden consequences, but that doesn't mean those consequences are all bad. Certainly I believe in encouraging good consequences and discouraging bad ones, but there will be unexpected consequences nonetheless. As I said before, they are not all bad. In your example of the sunken, polluting hulks that are providing spaces for coral to grow, the iron oxide is bad, but the coral are still growing where they weren't before. From what I've read of the situation, it was not a case of "lets put metal in the ocean for coral to grow on," it was, "oops, we've sunk a lot of metal in the ocean. I guess something good came of it after all." In other words, it was a bad action with an unexpectedly good consequence, instead of a "good" action with an unexpectedly bad consequence. In any event, it's not all good, but it's not all bad, either. That actually somewhat relates to... 3) Art may have some bad, destructive consequences. I can accept that. However, I firmly believe that art, as a whole, is a creative rather than destructive force. Art shows people beauty. Art shows people meaning. Art makes people think. People need stories and inspiration to keep on going, to keep on trying to make the world a better place. Yes, we all die in the end, everything ends, but while we are alive, we can try to make the best of it. That's what art does, in my opinion.
Some other thoughts that came up, re-reading your last paragraph: I don't sleep soundly. Most nights, I lie awake thinking, in part, about the damage we are doing to the earth. I majored in Environmental Studies in college. My greatest fear at the moment is global warming. I am well aware of the destructive nature of plastic. What I do to cope with plastic is to make the most use of plastic before it degrades, buy as little of it as feasible, and go for less plastic packaging when I have a choice. I hope that mushrooms will be as useful in breaking down plastic as they apparently are in breaking down crude oil, but that remains to be seen. What I do to cope in general is to do what I can, whether writing a letter, recycling, picking up litter, talking to people, or creating relevant art. I care about my impact. I know that my environmental impact as an artist is worse than I'd like it to be, but whenever a feasible alternative comes up, I'd like to use it. I also hope that the nature of my art can, at least somewhat, make up for the medium.
We are going to have to disagree on one major factor. Art really doesn't encourage vast intelligence or profound logic. Math does that, science does that, I'll even make way for philosophy and put some credit there. But art? People see exactly what they want to see, there is no outside thinking to that. It only affirms ones own ego... and that is not profound... that's shallow. The idea is to view things in a different perspective and light, totally new concepts that are mind shattering (integrals are pretty mind shattering, interesting way to approach math; radiation is a mind shattering topic, black holes, I could go on with discoveries new an old that really force a person to see outside of the box [not just what people want to believe, aka earth is 6000 years old and the sun revolves around us]). And there in lies the problem with art, I look at it, I take away what I want from it. Generally I rarely find inspiration, and there is no meaning to someone else's attempts at an opinion. What I see, what you see, what anyone else sees is simply just the opinion of another man, and when it comes down to it... that's really dull. There is nothing profound about the imagination, opinion, or logic of man. It's quiet insignificant in retrospect to all things out there, that nature already provides and sets forth [though I'll make exception for math depending on whether you're wanting to take the argument of Math is a man-made creation, and not a natural process... 2 years of calculus, thermodynamics, physical chemistry, environmental chemistry, and quantum chemistry have shown me math is pretty amazing].
And yes, I covered two forms of coal. The one compressed with in the earth, and charcoal, the after product of combustion. Art is a hobby for man, something nice to look at and use at a status symbol. A show off-ey sort of deal signifying ones wealth or talent over all the humans. Really boring human ideas, human thoughts, human stories, human attempts at doing something profound and somehow wrapping the profound literally into a box. A painting is but a box, a sculpture confined to be only a sculpture. I can't see anything to appreciate...
The only positive thing i see as an outcome out of all of this is that we are so completely insignificant. That we will (universe willing) never have the chance to pollute anything else in this universe with our self centered ideas and total bullshit spewing promenade of art. That nothing else should be subject to having to listen to vast stupidities one can come up with about an repeat image of fruit. At the end of the day, it's just more human crap to litter the world. Art has only human significance, and that's not very significant.
While I can see that not everyone is open to seeing the messages of art, of being changed by art, some are. Sometimes art, at a certain point in one's life, can make one think differently about something, or even change one's life. I can see you believe in the insignificance of individuals, but I believe that everyone has the capacity to metaphorically be the butterfly that changes the storms of the world. Awhile back, I questioned whether visual art was truly as life-changing as music, or prose. I can remember life-changing songs and books, but I couldn't remember a life-changing piece of visual art. But then I saw art that did make me think, and remembered other thought-provoking works. There is a local artist who uses anthropomorphic animals to make a point about how human oppression would look from the other side. There are artists who depict oppressed and/or shunned people to give them their humanity back in the eyes of the beholders. Just the other day I saw artwork that used Google auto-complete to illustrate how badly the world still views women. Art can give us access to so many different ways of looking at things. It is, in my opinion, the opposite of shallow. If art successfully allows us to look at ourselves and what we are doing to the planet and each other, it may help us to create rather than destroy. If we are able to create rather than destroy, we make the lives of humans and all the other inhabitants of this planet better, and in the extreme, possible. I think that's pretty significant. There is a reason that revolutionaries are often found with artists. There is a reason that the powerful collect art. Art is powerful. Good art tells a story, and stories have power.
Your definition of art confuses me. Though I stand by what I stated previously (people see what they need to see to make themselves satisfied... really not so amazing there) I recognize we also have definitions. I was under the impression art is anything and everything. Books, writing, food, paintings, blah blah blah, all considered art. It would appear you do not consider literature art.... or even music.... which... is strange... I may call it egotistical, but it's certainly not a narrow spectrum...
Ah. The problem is, I have two different definitions. The first is similar to yours, anything and everything creative. The second is narrower, referring just to visual art. It's because I took a lot of "Art class" in school, and that referred only to visual art. I wasn't sure which definition you were using, so I attempted to reply to both at once. It seems I did not succeed. Thinking back, I believe I put the brunt of my argument on visual art because I had recently had a "crisis of faith," as it were, in the impact of visual art. I could identify with that better. I suppose I could theoretically expand that doubt to art as a whole, but it would be quite a stretch for me, as I have so much experience, personally and observationally, of the impact of art in the world.
There are dozens of books that I know have changed the way I think. Ishmael made me question the very nature of how western society interacts with the world. The Dispossessed gave me many basic concepts of egalitarianism. Many books over the years taught me that girls can be heroes, too. The Revolutionary War would not have been possible, I think, without the countless writings of the revolutionaries. The book Silent Spring, among others, turned the tide of the environmental movement. Joe Hill was an activist who challenged the oppression of the working people in the 19th century with his powerful songs. Strikes and marches are filled with songs because they lend power to the proceedings.
Re-reading your comment, I realize that your argument may not be so much that art does not have the capacity to change, but that people do not. There is so much information out there, and people are so overwhelmed these days anyway. People must be open to inspiration in order to be inspired. Yes, many times people see only what they want to see. However, at any given time, I suspect that there are people in the world who are open to inspiration and change, who may even be thirsty for it. I suspect, as well, that everyone may be open to inspiration and change at some point in there lives, some more often than others. I know I've often been open to change, although there are definitely many times that I have remained stubbornly ignorant. I've begun to see life as like a river, with fish and water passing by. Art and information are like fish, to catch when one is hungry. Just because so many people let fish pass by, even to the ocean, it does not mean that the fish are not useful. Some may gorge themselves into a harmful stupor on fish, but that just means that they need to learn restraint. In this metaphor, artists are those who nurture the fish. If they didn't, people would starve in spirit.
I realize that I am unlikely to change your mind. If your own personal experience and observations lead you to believe that art is powerless and people are willfully ignorant, what I believe is not going to make much difference. I put it out there because I consider even debates to be a form of art. What I share with you here will add, in its own small way, to your personal experience. I know what you've shared has added to mine, if only to give me something to rail against. I hope I have managed to listen as well.
Honestly, it would be nice if people who where into recycling and saving the environment would do that, but if it became a thing where if you drew nature people automatically thought you where making a statement about saving the environment, then it would be a problem.
I chose Other because it could be good for saving the environment. If people recycled the stuff they didn't want, yeah. And if you give it to a friend/ family member (maybe not so much depending on if they recycle or not). But still! And no offense, really, but why would you post or vote if the question is about saving the environment? No offense, but I don't get that. It's asking if art would save the environment. O.o
Last year and this year have had many wild fires tear through where I live. One of them hit very close to home (in more ways than one). My city is having a gallery called "Ashes to Artwork." This gallery features pieces made by using the ashes and other debris from the two major fires - one from last year, and the one that was close to home this year. The artwork is made by local artists.
I don't know what impact this will have, but it may just bring something about that is similar to saving the environment.
The problem I have noticed, is that even though many artists show the beauty of the world through their artwork, it is the public which ignores it. In today's world, too many people are caught up in the luxury that we know - especially in first-world countries. Unfortunately, that has caused the downfall of many wonders of nature.
I mean no offense to anyone through this post. This is just how I see things.