It took me a good five minutes to figure out what was going on in this picture. When I figured it out it took me another two minutes to figure out how it applied to this course. It has been a long day. This picture is the embodiment of how animals approach and deal with the non-biodegradable substances we have discharged onto the world. Much like this naturally curious but skeptical bird, some animals creep up onto some plastic article and think to themselves, “Hrm, what might this be? Is it…food?” The populations of those who come from that or similar genetic lines are more than likely weeded out by means of plastic selection. This process is unnaturally abrupt and the magnificent web of life is threatened. What does this mean for humans? I am not entirely sure. There is the possibility of one creature dying off that feeds another, that feeds another, that fertilizes another that services us in someway. But then again, some would argue that preserving natives of nature should be an obligation of morality and not an obligation towards our personal well-being. I personally believe that the situation would be the same if there was another species, say dolphins for the argument’s sake, that managed to blow passed every other species and become the dominant species like we are now. Being intelligent beings, presumably, there was a progression we went through and if we were the “lesser” creatures, chances are the dolphins would exploit us in some way or another, possibly by “accidentally” canning us in their chimpanzee seaweed spread. This wastefully phase we are in, hopefully it is a phase because if not we could condemn ourselves, is a rocky step towards progression. It has to be, or we fail as a species and take everything down with us simply.
I also had trouble figuring out the subject of this photograph when I first saw it. After staring at it for a while and looking at Amy Stein’s website, I now understand that it is a photograph of what appears to be a bear with a plastic shopping bag on its head. I’m not sure if I’m such a big fan of Stein’s “Domesticated” series, where she photographs wild animals in close contact with humans or in strange situations. I understand the point that she is trying to get across (that humans are intruding on animals’ natural habitats), but I don’t find the photographs to be particularly inspiring or engaging. This is probably because they appear very contrived; she even says herself in the project statement that they are recreations of newspaper stories and oral histories. I think she is trying to set up unexpected scenes to get some sort of surprised reaction from the viewer, but I was personally not very affected.
However, if I had to give my thoughts on the issue that Stein is trying to tackle, it would be this: yes, we are encroaching on the habitats of wild animals, and we should probably stop, but at this point a lot of the damage has already been done. It’s impossible to reverse the extinction of species that has been caused by humans. We can try to prevent it from continuing, though. If we stop cutting down trees and wrecking natural habitats to pave the way for urban sprawl, we can eliminate much of these problems. It’s a complicated process to deal with, though, and that’s probably why not much is currently being done about it; people have too much else going on in their lives to consider the repercussions of their actions.
If the question is if it is effective or not, I would say that it is not effective in environmental issue. The photo doesn’t appeal close emergence of extinction of animals or environmental problems. The photo has very clean background with very few houses that look like where people are living. The sky looks very dark, but cool in a way. The landscape lacks in messaging and leading viewers to feel guilty of the global environmental issues. If there were more trash here and there where the bear is standing, I would think of the image more effective. However, the image is very effective in a way that the whole photo gazed the bear as if it is its portrait. Amy Stein did a good job in portraying the bear suffering from the plastic bag. The bear looks very isolated from other surroundings in the image, with the plastic bag covered its whole face. The image grabs me tight to watch the bear in kind of funny way. I can even smuggle, looking at the bear that looks a bit cute with the plastic bag on. However, it is far from appealing me the very immediate problems of the environment through the photo.
Amy Stein's photographs have this mystical or haunting aspect to them which contributes to the narrative of the photos. The people or characters are often staring right at you establishing a partial separation from their environment, causing the viewer to acknowledge their presence. Her series "Domesticated" is different in that the animals aren't always facing the viewer, but are similar in that their presence is what makes the photograph. This can correlate to what we are discussing in class with carbon footprints, but also in recognizing these odd encounters. Technology's impact on nature, including animals and humans, has developed a interruption in the original harmony between man and his relationship with nature.
The images that Amy Stein has taken has appeal to me very much in that I have realized how much things that we throw away have affect on wild animals. The first image I saw on the first page did not come to me directly in that it took me a long time to figure out what the image was about. After seeing other images that Amy Stein has taken, than I realized what the image is about. I believe that shehas really captured the moments well in that, in the image, the look on both the animal and the person looks very awkward. They should not be in contact if they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. If humans are not going out to hunt wild animals, than it is kind of wrong to be seeing wild animals at a place where there are human villages out in the nature. Many images contain wild animals coming down to human village to look for foods that are left over. However, there are many wild animals that are dead and when people open up these animals, there stomachs are full of plastics that people have thrown away. These wild animals have lost there home and source of food because of humans' wants. Humans' wants are infinite and as these needs are never fulfilled and all the wastes that humans create from things that they produce, wild animals are being affected by the wastes that people produce.
This is an interesting picture...! I had no idea what this picture was before I checked Amy Stein's website and asked everyone around me! When I first realized that it was a bear with a plastic bag, I was disappointed. Maybe I expected something more from this photograph at first. But as I looking at this photograph and other works of Amy's, I started to think more deeply. It wouldn't be interesting photograph if there were bunch of evidence (such as human trashes) with "unhealthy" looking animals. It would be too obvious that people won't even looking at the photo for a long time. Because this theme that Amy chose is very banal, but in fact, really important, she used different approach from others. Because people have seen so many works that deals with human polluting the wild nature, they don't think seriously even though it is a serious problem. In that way, I think Amy was very smart to chose a unique way to represent this theme. I also thought that she intentionally put everything very normal and simple because she wanted to convey the idea of human reaction to this wild life. How human doesn't even care any more or how human does not take it seriously. So to me, this piece is very ironic but also interesting.
I like the image by amy stein but i'd actually like to talk about something from the reading. I was excited to see that our ENORMOUS portion of reading from Collapse included the collapse of the society of the Mayans.
I watched a special on the history channel recently that was based solely on the idea of aliens having been on earth through pictures maps and other artifacts of the ancient world. One of the ideas was that the mayans were in fact aliens themselves that came to the earth and achieved many great things in a short period of time and then vanished abruptly (but actually flying away in a spacecraft that they made).
So, i wanted to see if collapse had anything to say on how such a HUGE society could actually fall apart so quickly and leave their ruins devoid of any small future society's to carry on traditions or even to at least continue utilization of buildings that were so cleverly designed.
Even though collapse had a lot of great theories as to why the society could fail in minor ways there was no real conclusion to why a whole GREAT smart civilization would crash so fast and so unexpectedly. It makes you wonder . . . I mean if it weren't the aliens then there is a plausible earthly unexpected cause for the complete collapse of an unbelievably advanced civilization for it's time and what's to say it won't happen again to different more distructive civilization such as our own?
I was not feeling well for the past week, I had swine flu, so I was not at last Wednesday’s lecture or this Mondays. I have received notes from a friend and I glad we are talking about Rwanda and Darfur. Maybe not glad, but these topics interest me. Not that the others were not current, but this is more relatable to my generation. Action needs to be more immediate as well. I mean war or genocide is not a topic to discuss or analyze but should be discussed to take action. I just don’t get why we talk about taking action, but then never do anything as a class and I fear the course is following that trend.
About this artist. Hmm. I prefer the images where the animals are interacting with humans. It makes me wonder who inhabits whose space. Are we in the animal’s space or are they in ours? I think her work is ironic. It doesn’t offend me as much as it amuses me. The one where the man is shooting the wild turkey makes humans seem so pathetic. I wish the turkey were shooting the man. The work could easily be interpreted as comical. Like the house with the Christmas lights and the little girl looking at the reindeer. Maybe it is just the exhaustion talking and getting over a very high fever, but we are on their property. Those animals have more of a right to be there than we ever did. Fact.
It took me a good five minutes to figure out what was going on in this picture. When I figured it out it took me another two minutes to figure out how it applied to this course. It has been a long day. This picture is the embodiment of how animals approach and deal with the non-biodegradable substances we have discharged onto the world. Much like this naturally curious but skeptical bird, some animals creep up onto some plastic article and think to themselves, “Hrm, what might this be? Is it…food?” The populations of those who come from that or similar genetic lines are more than likely weeded out by means of plastic selection. This process is unnaturally abrupt and the magnificent web of life is threatened.
ReplyDeleteWhat does this mean for humans? I am not entirely sure. There is the possibility of one creature dying off that feeds another, that feeds another, that fertilizes another that services us in someway. But then again, some would argue that preserving natives of nature should be an obligation of morality and not an obligation towards our personal well-being. I personally believe that the situation would be the same if there was another species, say dolphins for the argument’s sake, that managed to blow passed every other species and become the dominant species like we are now. Being intelligent beings, presumably, there was a progression we went through and if we were the “lesser” creatures, chances are the dolphins would exploit us in some way or another, possibly by “accidentally” canning us in their chimpanzee seaweed spread. This wastefully phase we are in, hopefully it is a phase because if not we could condemn ourselves, is a rocky step towards progression. It has to be, or we fail as a species and take everything down with us simply.
I also had trouble figuring out the subject of this photograph when I first saw it. After staring at it for a while and looking at Amy Stein’s website, I now understand that it is a photograph of what appears to be a bear with a plastic shopping bag on its head. I’m not sure if I’m such a big fan of Stein’s “Domesticated” series, where she photographs wild animals in close contact with humans or in strange situations. I understand the point that she is trying to get across (that humans are intruding on animals’ natural habitats), but I don’t find the photographs to be particularly inspiring or engaging. This is probably because they appear very contrived; she even says herself in the project statement that they are recreations of newspaper stories and oral histories. I think she is trying to set up unexpected scenes to get some sort of surprised reaction from the viewer, but I was personally not very affected.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I had to give my thoughts on the issue that Stein is trying to tackle, it would be this: yes, we are encroaching on the habitats of wild animals, and we should probably stop, but at this point a lot of the damage has already been done. It’s impossible to reverse the extinction of species that has been caused by humans. We can try to prevent it from continuing, though. If we stop cutting down trees and wrecking natural habitats to pave the way for urban sprawl, we can eliminate much of these problems. It’s a complicated process to deal with, though, and that’s probably why not much is currently being done about it; people have too much else going on in their lives to consider the repercussions of their actions.
If the question is if it is effective or not, I would say that it is not effective in environmental issue. The photo doesn’t appeal close emergence of extinction of animals or environmental problems. The photo has very clean background with very few houses that look like where people are living. The sky looks very dark, but cool in a way. The landscape lacks in messaging and leading viewers to feel guilty of the global environmental issues. If there were more trash here and there where the bear is standing, I would think of the image more effective.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the image is very effective in a way that the whole photo gazed the bear as if it is its portrait. Amy Stein did a good job in portraying the bear suffering from the plastic bag. The bear looks very isolated from other surroundings in the image, with the plastic bag covered its whole face. The image grabs me tight to watch the bear in kind of funny way. I can even smuggle, looking at the bear that looks a bit cute with the plastic bag on. However, it is far from appealing me the very immediate problems of the environment through the photo.
Amy Stein's photographs have this mystical or haunting aspect to them which contributes to the narrative of the photos. The people or characters are often staring right at you establishing a partial separation from their environment, causing the viewer to acknowledge their presence. Her series "Domesticated" is different in that the animals aren't always facing the viewer, but are similar in that their presence is what makes the photograph. This can correlate to what we are discussing in class with carbon footprints, but also in recognizing these odd encounters. Technology's impact on nature, including animals and humans, has developed a interruption in the original harmony between man and his relationship with nature.
ReplyDeleteThe images that Amy Stein has taken has appeal to me very much in that I have realized how much things that we throw away have affect on wild animals. The first image I saw on the first page did not come to me directly in that it took me a long time to figure out what the image was about. After seeing other images that Amy Stein has taken, than I realized what the image is about. I believe that shehas really captured the moments well in that, in the image, the look on both the animal and the person looks very awkward. They should not be in contact if they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. If humans are not going out to hunt wild animals, than it is kind of wrong to be seeing wild animals at a place where there are human villages out in the nature. Many images contain wild animals coming down to human village to look for foods that are left over. However, there are many wild animals that are dead and when people open up these animals, there stomachs are full of plastics that people have thrown away. These wild animals have lost there home and source of food because of humans' wants. Humans' wants are infinite and as these needs are never fulfilled and all the wastes that humans create from things that they produce, wild animals are being affected by the wastes that people produce.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting picture...! I had no idea what this picture was before I checked Amy Stein's website and asked everyone around me! When I first realized that it was a bear with a plastic bag, I was disappointed. Maybe I expected something more from this photograph at first. But as I looking at this photograph and other works of Amy's, I started to think more deeply. It wouldn't be interesting photograph if there were bunch of evidence (such as human trashes) with "unhealthy" looking animals. It would be too obvious that people won't even looking at the photo for a long time. Because this theme that Amy chose is very banal, but in fact, really important, she used different approach from others. Because people have seen so many works that deals with human polluting the wild nature, they don't think seriously even though it is a serious problem. In that way, I think Amy was very smart to chose a unique way to represent this theme. I also thought that she intentionally put everything very normal and simple because she wanted to convey the idea of human reaction to this wild life. How human doesn't even care any more or how human does not take it seriously. So to me, this piece is very ironic but also interesting.
ReplyDeleteI like the image by amy stein but i'd actually like to talk about something from the reading. I was excited to see that our ENORMOUS portion of reading from Collapse included the collapse of the society of the Mayans.
ReplyDeleteI watched a special on the history channel recently that was based solely on the idea of aliens having been on earth through pictures maps and other artifacts of the ancient world. One of the ideas was that the mayans were in fact aliens themselves that came to the earth and achieved many great things in a short period of time and then vanished abruptly (but actually flying away in a spacecraft that they made).
So, i wanted to see if collapse had anything to say on how such a HUGE society could actually fall apart so quickly and leave their ruins devoid of any small future society's to carry on traditions or even to at least continue utilization of buildings that were so cleverly designed.
Even though collapse had a lot of great theories as to why the society could fail in minor ways there was no real conclusion to why a whole GREAT smart civilization would crash so fast and so unexpectedly. It makes you wonder . . . I mean if it weren't the aliens then there is a plausible earthly unexpected cause for the complete collapse of an unbelievably advanced civilization for it's time and what's to say it won't happen again to different more distructive civilization such as our own?
I was not feeling well for the past week, I had swine flu, so I was not at last Wednesday’s lecture or this Mondays. I have received notes from a friend and I glad we are talking about Rwanda and Darfur. Maybe not glad, but these topics interest me. Not that the others were not current, but this is more relatable to my generation. Action needs to be more immediate as well. I mean war or genocide is not a topic to discuss or analyze but should be discussed to take action. I just don’t get why we talk about taking action, but then never do anything as a class and I fear the course is following that trend.
ReplyDeleteAbout this artist. Hmm. I prefer the images where the animals are interacting with humans. It makes me wonder who inhabits whose space. Are we in the animal’s space or are they in ours? I think her work is ironic. It doesn’t offend me as much as it amuses me. The one where the man is shooting the wild turkey makes humans seem so pathetic. I wish the turkey were shooting the man. The work could easily be interpreted as comical. Like the house with the Christmas lights and the little girl looking at the reindeer. Maybe it is just the exhaustion talking and getting over a very high fever, but we are on their property. Those animals have more of a right to be there than we ever did. Fact.