I'm so excited, because after attending Erik Edson's artist's talk I actually have something to say in this blog that relates art to my other minor (philosophy), rather than my major (literature). First, I just want to say though that I was really impressed with his use of space in the installations that he showed us. From what I understand it's vary challenging to work in 3D (I've barely tried it, and when I have it hasn't been simple), but Erik Edson made really interesting use of space for all his installations; if I had the money, I would buy a house to live in and ask if I could pay him to "decorate" it's interior. Also, I thought it was so so cool how he used sound in his installations, especially in the piece, Burrow; it was so neat how he had the urban sounds of the parking garage coming out through the burrow, live as they were being made, and without anyone knowing they were being recorded. I feel like I use words like "neat" and "cool" way too much in these blogs, especially for an English major, but I digress, I thought his use of sound recording in Burrow was truly innovative (how's that for an adjective?).
What I mainly want to discuss here though, is Erik Edson's examination of our representations of nature. It really reminded me of an article we read in Feminist Philosophy about meat-eating and anti-vegetarianism and how it relates to sexism and racism; to be honest, it reminds me of a lot of feminist theory, actually. Edson used images of animals and nature that came from textbooks, and pre-made models of animals, and he said at the end of the talk that these are "learned representations" and that they are our "interpretations" of nature, which is totally true. A lot of feminist theory, especially as it intersects with anti-racist thought, points out the importance of recognizing that often the pervading ideas about non-dominant groups (such as animals, women, and people of colour) are just that--the interpretation of those groups by the dominant group. Society has often (and is still does) take this interpretation to be fact, or objective observation, simply because it comes from the dominant group, hence the entry of these ideas into places like textbooks, such as the ones that Edson uses in his art. Those are our--the dominant group's--interpretations of the natural world, and though we might like to think of them as objective fact, they are only our subject representations.
What I mainly want to discuss here though, is Erik Edson's examination of our representations of nature. It really reminded me of an article we read in Feminist Philosophy about meat-eating and anti-vegetarianism and how it relates to sexism and racism; to be honest, it reminds me of a lot of feminist theory, actually. Edson used images of animals and nature that came from textbooks, and pre-made models of animals, and he said at the end of the talk that these are "learned representations" and that they are our "interpretations" of nature, which is totally true. A lot of feminist theory, especially as it intersects with anti-racist thought, points out the importance of recognizing that often the pervading ideas about non-dominant groups (such as animals, women, and people of colour) are just that--the interpretation of those groups by the dominant group. Society has often (and is still does) take this interpretation to be fact, or objective observation, simply because it comes from the dominant group, hence the entry of these ideas into places like textbooks, such as the ones that Edson uses in his art. Those are our--the dominant group's--interpretations of the natural world, and though we might like to think of them as objective fact, they are only our subject representations.
Work Cited
Bailey,
Cathryn. "We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegitarianism and the
Reproduction of Racial Identity." Hypatia 22.2
(2007): 39-59. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment