Project 1, Exercise 2: Sustainable products

I live in a semi-rural area in Western Quebec. We are not connected to the municipal water or sewer systems, so our drinking water comes from a well on our property and our waste water is treated in a septic system buried in our yard. All of this means that we have tried to pay attention to the kinds of products that we use in our house and what we put in our waste water, to avoid polluting our immediate environment.

The dishwashing liquid that we currently use is called "Bio-Vert," whose name and packaging suggest that it is good for the environment.

View fullsize

View fullsize

The label on the front of the squeeze bottle make a number of explicit "green" claims:

• Gentle on Hands
• Biodegradable
• Carcinogen free
• Hypoallergenic
• Green Leader since 1984
• Ecologo from Underwriters Laboratories
• Produit certifié à impact environnemental réduit

And there are more claims on the back of the bottle:

• Biodegradable as per the OECD test series 301
• Safe for septic tanks
• No animal testing
• Environmental facts: contains 0% of Formaldehyde, EDTA, Dye, SLES, DEO, APEOs, or Petroleum Solvants
• Recyclable Container and Labels: 100%
• Product certified for reduced environmental impact. View specific attributes evaluated: UL.com/EL; UL 2759

That all sounds very impressive, although I don't know what most of it means. And there is still a warning in all caps: "PLEASE KEEP ALL CLEANING PRODUCTS OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. IN CASE OF EYE CONTACT, RINSE THOROUGHLY WITH WATER. IF SWALLOWED, DRINK PLENTY OF WATER AND CALL A POISON CENTRE OR A DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY."

As far as I can tell from the company's website, its FAQ page and the accreditation from UL's environmental group, it would seem that the claims made by Bio-Vert are legitimate. To test the claims, however, I would need to spend a considerable amount of time researching the impacts of the chemicals named (what is EDTA?), the standards and tests employed by the various research groups (UL) and quasi-governmental agencies (OECD), the company's practices, its use of the accreditation symbols, and its track record in the marketplace. Even if I had the time to do all of these things, I do not have the necessary technical knowledge and competencies to evaluate all the evidence myself. Like most people, I am obliged to trust the recommendations of specialists and to hope that the company is representing the findings of those specialists fairly and accurately.

Project 1, Exercise 1: Sustainability

How would you define ‘sustainability’? Look it up if you’re not sure.

• Sustainability is a state or practice of ensuring that processes can continue over long periods in a way that does not drain resources, environments (natural, physical, social/cultural, economic) or peoples.

In what contexts is sustainability an issue? Think more broadly here – not just textiles – and write a list.

• Sustainability is an issue in any context where there are finite resources in a closed system. It was possible for us to think of the earth's resources as endless when there were fewer of us, when we lived farther apart and were largely ignorant of the consequences of such thinking. It is now clear that much of what we depend for life and the enjoyment of it is not limitless:
   
  • land
  • air
  • fresh water
  • wildlife
  • plant life
  • arable land
  • raw materials
  • fossil fuels

How do you think sustainability might be addressed in relation to the production and consumption of textiles and other manufactured products? Use the stages of the life cycle to help you with this question.

• Perhaps the starting point for any thought about sustainability has to be an acknowledgement that it must be a collective effort. As individuals we can all make a commitment to living in more sustainable ways, but it will not accomplish much without some form of collective action in all sectors of society, the economy and governments. And even though larger actors—such as governments and larger corporations—wield considerable influence, the results they achieve will only be partial without some sort of groundswell of popular support.
• All stages of a production cycle—from resource extraction or recovery, to material choice, to refinement, to design, to production / manufacturing, to marketing and sale, to transportation, to consumption and eventual disposal—must be assessed for the way they promote sustainability of life or detract from it:

1. Agriculture/raw fibre production — Is land use supportive of the local economy? Are agricultural practices based on sound ecological / green principles? Does crop choice exhaust the soil or displace food crops for local farmers?
2. Ginning — How much energy is consumed during the process? Are there any waste products? If so, how are they treated?
3. Spinning — Energy consumption? Does automation displace human workers?
4. Weaving — Energy consumption? Are there jobs for human workers? If so, do they allow for a living wage?
5. Processing — Energy consumption? How close are processing sites to spinning and weaving locations? Are dyes and other chemical products natural? Are they disposed of appropriately? Could they be toxic or allergenic?
6. Stitching — Do stitching techniques support a long life for final products or are fabrics designed to fail early to promote repeat consumption?
7. Distribution/retail — How much energy is consumed and pollution created by transportation? If products are created in volume, will they be used or end up as landfill? Are price markups calculated to benefit all participants in the production chain, or just those at the top?
8. Use/consumption and end of life — Do consumers care for products? Are they disposed to mending products themselves, or do they discard them quickly? Can products have secondary or tertiary uses or lives? Can materials be recycled easily?

• The assessment needs to be done at each stage of the process, but must also view the entire chain as a whole. (There is not much point in working only with natural, renewable fibres if transporting and processing them means fouling the environment.) The chain must also be examined at each stage for its impacts on related, but perhaps distinct chains. (Does increased use of a particular textile mean that there is less arable land available for growing a local food crop? Does a more efficient manufacturing process in terms of volume and speed of production have the side-effect of ruining a local labour market?) Where necessary, governments should be ready to use a combination of regulation and incentives to help direct producers and consumers to healthy outcomes. Business must take corporate responsibility seriously. Individuals must inform themselves and place long-term value ahead of short-term savings.
• All told, there must be commitment across sectors of the economy to operate in a way that promotes human and environmental flourishing, both locally and farther afield. This will not appear overnight, but will require the development of common vision that is sensitive to both place (local and global) and time (the long game).

Research Point: Dealing with the flood

For me, photography has been a hobby and not something I have used in the context of my work life. I have had pictures published in magazines and sold a few prints, but I use social media daily and regularly post images on several different platforms: Flickr (I've had an account for 12 years), Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and this website. I post pictures to share with friends and family (some publicly, some privately), to document my travels, to illustrate some of the things I write, to learn with other photographers, to keep a record of my own progress and, frankly, because I feel the need to share the things I see.

Some of my pictures are 'social' in nature (friends, family, events), but most have been for my own interest. In that sense, I suppose many of them could be viewed as leaning toward the artistic side, although I have never used that term myself. (A friend did once tell me, however, that she didn't 'get' my pictures but understood that they were 'meant to be artsy-fartsy.' I wasn't sure what she meant at first but gradually realized that, for her, a good photograph usually has family members in it.)

Social media have contributed to the democratization of photography, along with other technologies, particularly the availability of digital cameras and the vastly-improved quality of sensors in mobile phones. I have heard photographers and critics complain about the sheer volume of trivial and poor pictures and am sometimes sympathetic to their concerns (I get tired of seeing pictures of cats, selfies, garish sunsets and cups of coffee), but I don't think that they devalue photography. The cream rises to the top and a remarkable image still stands apart from the pack without the help of photo snobbery.

I suppose this means that I am contributing to the flood and it occasionally occurs to me that the world doesn't really need another mediocre picture. Nevertheless, I get pleasure out of taking, editing and sharing pictures and enjoy seeing the work of others, too. None of us will improve our photographic and artistic skills without practice, so I will continue to make photographs—they may not be the best, but I can see my progress.

Project 1, Exercise 2

• When I review the pictures I have taken over the last year or so, I realize that many—but not all—of them were taken on trips.
• Those that don't fall into that category are often pictures of family taken at events like birthdays and other gatherings. The family pictures rarely betray any interest in being 'artistic'. Instead they are meant to document the event and the people present for the sake of memories or creating a record. Sometimes they are also meant for sharing with people who were there or those who couldn't attend.
• The travel pictures too, are sometimes meant to document a time, place or mood ('this is where we stayed,' 'this is the view we saw that day,' 'this is the place we visited').
• In quite a few of the travel pictures, though, I can see that I have tried to do something different—I've looked for an interesting angle, a form/shape/abstract, an unexpected juxtaposition, or some beautiful light.
• I can also see that the quality of my picture-taking changes depending on whether I am alone or with other people. When I am with others I am usually very aware that photography is my interest, not theirs, and that I can't take all the time that I would like to work a scene. When I travel alone I have much more latitude in the time that I can spend on creating an image and can stay with it, trying different things until I am satisfied.
• My 'alone' pictures tend to be more self-consciously 'artistic' because I can devote the time to them that I would like. I can develop an idea or an approach both practically or technically, as well as thinking my way through it. I usually find these images much more satisfying than the other kinds mentioned above.

Research point: Context and meaning

Notes on John A. Walker, "Context as a Determinant of Photographic Meaning"

• Walker distinguishes between 'immanent structure' (immediate, local context) and the broader context outside the frame of an artwork. The frame itself is a form of self-containment or bracketing of meaning and can lead us to ignore the wider context within which a work appears and is understood.
• A given work can have multiple contexts. These have different impacts on the connotations of a work but are less likely to affect denotation.
• When context changes there is potential for a 'third-effect' meaning created by relationships with items in the surrounding context.
• Change of context became particularly important as artworks were less often attached to a specific place. (John Berger makes the same point in "Ways of Seeing," noting that it used to be common for works to be created for, and installed in, specific settings. Often, these were places of worship.) Now, media context is more important than 'architectural setting.'
• Walker uses the terms 'circulation' and 'currency' to describe the ebbs and flows in the life of a work as it changes contexts.
• The different locations in which Jo Spence's project—Beyond the Family Album, Private Images, Public Conventions—has been seen demonstrate the impact that context has for setting an interpretive frame.
• Walker states that if we are going to talk about the "efficacy" of the exhibit we would need to know about the viewers. But which viewers? Spence's 'ideal viewer' or someone else? I don't know how useful this would be as a line of inquiry. If we can't always be sure about the intent of the artist (as though there were just one and the artist herself could articulate it perfectly), and context has an important role in the creation of meaning, why do we think that knowing about the 'viewer' (as though there were just one) is helpful?
• Just as context can shape interpretation of a work, so the work can shape interpretation of its context. This is a good point and Walker's example is worth copying here:

If display context can influence the meaning of a photograph, the photograph
can influence the meaning of the context. This reasoning lay behind John X.
Bcrger's comment at a Hayward Gallery evening discussion that the socialist and
feminist photography 'had radicalised the gallery space'. But the influence is twoway:
it could also be argued that the gallery—a High Art cultural institution
serving the interests of the bourgeoisie—had de-radicalised radical photography!

• Walker then describes the 'mental context' of the viewer. Much of this seems like basic communications or rhetorical theory: how is the viewer/listener disposed to the work/message? He then spends a few paragraphs pointing out that we are not all just individuals but share common opinions, values and viewpoints. In other words, there must be sufficient commonality between communicator and audience to allow communication to happen. 
• This seems like a fairly obvious point to me, but it may still need to be made explicit. People regularly claim that advertising has no effect, but it must: commercial enterprises and governments wouldn't pay what they do if advertising had no impact. Perhaps this is a more insidious side of imagery if we are not even aware of its effects.
• Walker closes his article with a brief discussion of the frustration that some artists have of losing control of the meaning of their work, given that they cannot always choose the context within which it will be viewed. (Sounds to me to be a bit like having children. We bring them into the world and do our best to raise them well, but we don't own them and we cannot control them. You must accept it.)

Project 1, Exercise 1

What, in your view, makes photographs unique as an art form?

I think the primary thing that makes photography unique as an art form is that the camera is a powerful tool for abstracting time. At its most basic, the camera is a box with light-sensitive material that can exposed to light for a wide range of times. Only because of photography are we able to see a single scene in a way that our eye could never capture in a single glance—either for an abnormally long period (minutes, hours or days) or for an abnormally short period (thousands of a second). The camera changes our ability to perceive, capture and represent time in a way that other artistic tools cannot.

Because we can now perceive change differently, our understanding of our world has changed and, with it, our perception of motion and change in the physical world. While working of some of the assignments in Part 3: Visual Communications, it occurred to me that some of the visual conventions we now take for granted very likely owe their existence to photography, whether still or moving images. Where did "speed lines" or distortion of a moving object come from in illustration without having seen motion captured on film? And were cartoon cells influenced by the individual frames of a motion picture?

To me, this suggests that every photographic image—by its very nature—is an abstraction of our perception and that it has fundamentally changed the way we see our world, permanently.

It occurs to me that abstraction is also present in the moment of creating a photograph. Unlike most (all?) other arts, the photographer is a step or two removed from his or her creation—we cannot normally see the film as it is being exposed and we can only see a mediated representation of the a digital image as it is being captured. There is little or no immediate possibility of a direct, manual or sensory creation with the thing being produced.

Think of the production of artworks in relation to time: photographs are always in the present – they are captured not synthesised. Think also about what we mean by ‘photographic image’. Does it have to be something permanently fixed? Does a photograph have to exist in hard copy? Is there a difference between a printed photograph and a digital image that sits virtually on someone’s device, for instance?

I'm not sure I completely understand the distinction being made: photographs "are captured not synthesised." Since the early days of photography it has been possible to synthesise photographs by combining or otherwise altering images whether in-camera or in post-production. It is so common now that it is not always clear if the image we are looking at is a 'photograph' that was 'always in the present,' a purely digital creation or some combination of techniques.

I'm also not sure about a photograph having to be permanently fixed or to exist in hard copy. My work on re-appropriating images for Assignment Three showed me that photographs can persist powerfully in people's memories and imaginations, whether they have access to the 'original' (assuming there is just one) or not. Once frozen in a photograph—or perhaps in a striking sequence from a movie or video—I think that the memories they leave can become 'fixed' in the imagination. Not only that, but it seems to me that those images in the imagination have the power to shape and reinterpret memory itself. More than once I have seen family members 'remember' an event because they had seen a photograph of it, only to be informed that they had not been present or perhaps even alive when the photograph is taken.

I don't think the great distinction in photography lies between prints and digital images. There is indeed a difference in experiencing a print versus viewing a digital image on-screen or as a projection, but I think that there is something qualitatively different between an image that started out as a piece of film—there is or was an original, physical artefact that had been exposed to light—rather than the output from a digital sensor which is a mathematical representation of captured and interpreted data.

Beyond these considerations, though, I think that the most important distinction to be made in photography is between images that are still and images that move. They are captured differently, show different things and are perceived and remembered differently by their viewers.

Project 1, Research Point

William Henry Fox Talbot, The Pencil of Nature, 1844-1846

Fox Talbot's cameras, collection of the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television 

Fox Talbot (1800-1877) was originally inspired in his experiments by his difficulties in assisted-drawing with a Camera Lucida. Not being able to master the technique involved, he began to consider how he might permanently fix the images on paper produced by a Camera Obscura. Fox Talbot sees both techniques as aids to drawing but hints at how fixed images derived from photographic techniques might have potential beyond 'naturally' recording images. Although he is interested as a scientist in achieving consistent results, he allows room for esthetic concerns:

“These tints, however, might undoubtedly be brought nearer to uniformity, if any great advantage appeared likely to result: but, several persons of taste having been consulted on the point, viz. which tint on the whole deserved a preference, it was found that their opinions offered nothing approaching to unanimity, and therefore, as the process presents us spontaneously with a variety of shades of colour, it was thought best to admit whichever appeared pleasing to the eye, without aiming at an uniformity which is hardly attainable.”

— William Henry Fox Talbot, The Pencil of Nature, Section ii.

It seems clear to me that photography is both mechanical and creative and I don't see any inherent contradiction in that. Any art—and perhaps any human product—involves the use of tools, materials and processes, some of which may be mechanical and some not. Photography is far from being the objective 'pencil of nature' and some of Fox Talbot's early work already shows an awareness of the role the human operator plays in creating the camera, preparing the paper, mixing the chemicals, timing the exposure and positioning the camera. The camera and its related processes may be more complex than those employed in some arts, but the roles of imagination and human action are no less important.

Project 1, Exercise 1: Identifying visual communications

Persuasion

Information

Identity design

Authorial content

Interactive design

Alternative messages

Project 1, Exercise 2

Write a list of everything you’ve read or written or seen or heard in the last 24 hours.

List compiled 25/06/2016

Read:

• Black and White magazine
• The Aylmer Bulletin (local newspaper)
• Websites and other social media: The Perth Kilt Run; FaceBook; Instagram; Twitter
• News items: Brexit reporting and analysis; the European Cup; the rise of Donald Trump in the US elections; death of Bill Cunningham

Written:

• not much at all

Seen and heard:

• Websites
• travel to Perth, Ontario and conversations in the car
• a stroll around Perth: Kilt Run; performers; runners; booths; wait staff; restaurant and pub patrons; families and couples in the park
• tail end of a documentary on Gabriel Garcia Marquez
• deck at the back of our house; trees; animals; wind

1. How many stories are contained within your list? This could be anything from notes in your diary to the afternoon play on Radio 4, from a friend recounting a funny tale to the latest news online.

There are multiple stories in every one of the examples from the news media and on social media; stories told in the car; the documentary. And although I couldn't overhear them, the people at the events and in the public spaces would be telling each other stories, too. In other words, a great many stories were being told to me or around me in a single day.

2. How much of what you’ve read (or written or seen or heard) would you consider to be ‘art’? What makes writing art? How do you, personally, define a creative and artistic piece of writing? Make some notes in your writing diary. You might find it useful to refer back to the discussion at the start of Part One. That was about the visual arts, but many of the same points apply to word-related arts too.

There are many possible applications of the term "art" to the stories being told around me, because it is indeed an art to tell a story well, whether in person or via some other medium. If we return to my understanding of art at the end of Part 1, though, few or none of the examples listed above could be considered "art."

In Part 1 I wrote, borrowing from Grayson Perry's eight-part test, that the decision that a particular piece was "art" involved "a cluster of judgements that take in the creator, the created object/event, the venue and the audience(s)". The examples above might contain one or two elements from that list, but none can be said to compile all the elements necessary for a judgement of "art." At the same time, there is nothing to say that one or more of the activities above could not be judged later as art, given a change of context. For example, the documentary on Gabriel Garcia Marquez or some of the images or videos on social media might one day be considered art, given the right change of time, place and viewing audience.

Exercise 5: Finding out more

We are asked to find two examples of still life work that include pictures of fish, so I chose two pieces from the Bridgeman site and sketched them in my notebook (there is a reason why I am interested in writing and photography, rather than in painting or drawing!).

View fullsize

Sketches of two still lifes with fish, 05/03/2016

The two images and notes are as follows:

1. Sandra Lawrence, Starfruit and Fish, 1999 (acrylic of canvas)
   I liked the symmetry of the fish in this image and the way their curves contrast with the angles of the starfruit. There is also a hint of realism about the painting.
    
2. Reuven Rubin, Still Life with Anemones, (oil on canvas)
   This image appealed to me for quite different reasons—I liked the stylized flowers and fish lying on a copy of the Haaretz newspaper. The painting is evocative rather than realistic and I think a boat and a tree are to be seen through the curtains. To be honest, I didn't even notice the boat-like shape until I started to make this rough sketch of the painting. Perhaps one value of sketching is that it forces us to slow down and be more attentive to what is in front of us.

The other part of this exercise involved watching a Khan Academy video on Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. The speakers on the video discussed possible interpretations of Hirst's piece as well as meaning in contemporary art. Like me, one of the participants wondered if the title of the work was a piece of wordplay and mentioned that he could interpret, but felt "like I would be making stuff up."

One of the participants gave a useful quotation from Marcel Duchamp to the effect that "a work of art is completed by the viewer." I think that is a helpful insight: the artist makes some choices for the audience (one participant says Hirst "has framed the shark for us") but it lies with the audience to bring something to the exchange. Once we get away from the older still life that we saw in the previous exercise, where there is a familiar frame of reference, the artist can suggest possibilities to an audience that may reply with a range of interpretations, expected or unexpected. I think this can be both exciting and unsettling all at once.

The other line of discussion had to do with the fact that we all face death and don't like it. Hirst's shark is a physical demonstration that in spite of extreme measures—up to and including formaldehyde tanks—we cannot escape the effects of time and, ultimately, death. One speaker mentions how mummified Egyptian kings are an example of how constant the fight against impermanence has been in human history. This brought the discussion back to the issue of meaning and how much of contemporary art turns around issues of philosophy, aesthetics and the limits of interpretation: "is this a grand joke if nothing is off-limits?" Well, if the viewer is responsible for helping to bring meaning to art, then there is likely no final and satisfying answer to that question.

The additional contextual information about The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living was helpful in reassuring me that there is probably no final "meaning" for a given work of art and that we are instead drawn into a discussion. Some points of view may be more informed, richer and more suggestive than others, but none is likely to be "correct."

Exercise 3: Reading about art

This was a relatively straightforward exercise. The passage to be read from Art History: The Basics was quite short, but the discussion on the definition of "art" was engaging and the examples were helpful. Although I'm sure the writers won't leave the issue unresolved, they ask a question that probably goes through the minds of many people: has the definition of "art" been stretched to the point where it is meaningless? And their brief comments about the roles of culture, history and language point out that the understanding of art has evolved and will continue to do so.

I had never heard of the material "jesmonite" before, so I had to look it up. I now know that it is "a composite material used in fine arts, crafts, and construction. It consists of a gypsum-based material in an acrylic resin" (Wikipedia).

The short excerpt was enough to convince me that the book is probably one I should order for reading and reference. 

Exercise 2: What is art?

What is art?

This is obviously a tough one, but I think that almost anything that is a human creation or the result of a creative effort could be called art. But perhaps it takes more than that: perhaps there has to be some kind of intent on the part of the creator. I'm not sure about this, though—if enough people judge the result to be "art," does the one who performed or created it have to have intended it to be seen that way? How self-conscious do you have to be?

How do we know it is art?

I'm not sure about this, either. As I mentioned above, perhaps all creative work has the potential to be art. Grayson Perry's lecture ("Democracy has bad taste") suggests that quality in art is arrived at by a tribe. Could the same hold true for judging whether or not something is art at all?

Who decides what is art?

I'm not sure there can be an ultimate answer to this, but the judgement of the tribe or guild might be one place to start. The challenge with any guild, though, is that can become a closed shop—once it decides who is worthy it can then close the door to new people, ideas or approaches.

Does intent matter when judging what is art? Is reception the key? Is it enough if I decide that my work is art, regardless of what everyone else thinks?

If the simple fact that an item appears in a gallery makes it art, all we have done is hand over judgement to the gallery owner. Perhaps that is a good place to begin, but he or she is just one possible source of validation. Would others then be swayed by the gallery, rather than thinking about the value of the work itself?

Duchamp's statement about wanting "to put art back in the service of the mind" makes me wonder what he is opposing. Does he think that art has been in the service of the emotions? of sentiment? of fashion? of settled opinion? Perhaps he viewed his art as an opportunity to provoke thought. If that's the case, he must have seen Fountain as a success: it is not immediately clear why the artist views this piece as art, how he can offer it as his own work, and what the viewer is supposed to take away from it. The viewer can either reject the piece outright or be forced to think about questions of meaning.