"As public art has developed over the last two decades, its emphasis has been on techniques of integration-not just to incorporate art physically into buildings and parks but also to foster social assimiliation."
-Hafthor Yngvason in "One Place After Another" by Miwon Kwon, Page 115
This quote helps to highlight and emphasize the main points given in the lecture by Mary Jane Jacob last night. Jacob shows how the world of participatory art started in the early 1900s when it was realized that museums tended to isolate art, because of how they "reflected a superior cultural status". The main idea of participatory art stems from cutting out the "middle man", which in this case is the museum, and bringing the work of art and the audience directly together. In public art, the artist introduces something new into a culture that may or may not be percieved as art. This requires the participation and communication of the members of the community in order to relate to the themselves, the piece of art, and the environment and helps to shape a meaning for the piece of art. This idea of creating a meaning for a piece of art focuses very little on the aesthetics of the artwork and focuses on uniting the members of the community. Throughout her lecture, Mary Jane Jacob focuses mainly on the recent works of public art being displayed in Charleston, South Carolina. These various works of art are focusing on uniting the black and white communities of the city by trying to bring together the slave and "superior" class cultures that were evident in the early to mid-1800s, at the height of the slave trade.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Essay 3: Analysis of an Art Project Topic Choice
My Topic: Adrian Piper- "Funk Lessons"
Question 1: The Beatnik and Hippie Movements of the 1950s and 60s are common examples of nonconformity directed mostly towards white culture. Can the funk movement be seen as a type of nonconformity or even a peaceful protest for black culture?
Question 2: Is there a deeper meaning for Piper's "Funk Lessons", or was she simply trying to teach the fundamentals of funk dancing? If so, what is the deeper meaning that she tries to teach us?
List of Resources:
1. "Out of Order, Out of Sight" by Adrian Piper
2. "Adrian Piper as African American Artist" by John P. Bowles from "American Art"
3. "Re-member the Audience: Adrian Piper's Mythic Being Advertisements" by Cherise Smith from "Art Journal"
4. "Funk : the music, the people, and the rhythm of the one" by Rickey Vincent
Question 1: The Beatnik and Hippie Movements of the 1950s and 60s are common examples of nonconformity directed mostly towards white culture. Can the funk movement be seen as a type of nonconformity or even a peaceful protest for black culture?
Question 2: Is there a deeper meaning for Piper's "Funk Lessons", or was she simply trying to teach the fundamentals of funk dancing? If so, what is the deeper meaning that she tries to teach us?
List of Resources:
1. "Out of Order, Out of Sight" by Adrian Piper
2. "Adrian Piper as African American Artist" by John P. Bowles from "American Art"
3. "Re-member the Audience: Adrian Piper's Mythic Being Advertisements" by Cherise Smith from "Art Journal"
4. "Funk : the music, the people, and the rhythm of the one" by Rickey Vincent
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Video and Resistance: Against Documentaries
The main point that the authors' of "Video and Resistance: Against Documentaries" try to convey in their writing, is that film documentaries are not always truthful. The authors claim that documentaries are not always truthful because of how they take on the ideology of the producer or filmmaker. This tends to lead to the documentaries being biased, or they depict images that are not always as they were in the attempt to capture the viewer and emphasize the filmmaker's beliefs. The author's state this on page 41 by saying, "Film is not now nor has it ever been the technology of truth. It lies at a speed of 24 frames a second. Its value is not as a recorder of history, but simply as a means of communication, a means by which the meaning is generated." This belief tends to contradicts with the beliefs of Susan Sontag. Susan Sontag argues that technology and photographs are the definition of truth because of how they depict exactly what was going on at a given time. Sontag supports her views on technology in "Regarding the Torture of Others", a piece of writing about the pictures of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. in her writing she shows how technology displays the truth and goes even further to state, "Words alter, words add, words subtract" in response to written accounts of events compared to visual information.
http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0340.jpg
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Environmental Justice in Onondaga County
Tim Kianka
October 14, 2007
Environmental Justice in Onondaga County
In 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), more commonly known as the Superfund Program. The launch of the Superfund Program was a direct response to the infamous environmental problems associated with the "Love Canal" in Niagara Falls, New York. The goal of the Superfund Program is to clean up the numerous hazardous waste sites throughout the country that had occurred from the illegal or improper disposal of hazardous wastes and contaminants. The program intended to seek out the source of the pollution and hold the responsible parties accountable for the clean up of nearly 2,000 identifiable sites considered high priority environmental problems. The primary contributors to the problems as identified by the Superfund Program were oil and petrochemical companies, mining concerns and military operations. The intention of this Superfund Program was to levy the burden of the cost of cleaning these sites onto the direct sources of the problem. There is no doubt that the Superfund Program has been a benefit to certain environmental clean up concerns and Onondaga Lake provides an excellent example of the program’s intention. A continued effort by Congress to renew the intent of the program provides a vital resource for cleaning up the remainder of the sites still waiting to be addressed.
Up until 1995, Congress had adopted the "polluter pays" concept for collecting enough money (approximately $1 billion dollars annually) to clean up these hazardous waste sites (Knickerbocker). The taxes collected from corporate America have gone a considerable way in making the program workable. However, in the years after 1995, Congress has failed to renew the taxes originally placed on oil and chemical industries specifically targeted to pay for the clean up. As the government program approaches bankruptcy today, more and more private citizen taxpayer dollars contribute to the clean up of these hazardous waste sites created by large corporations as a result of their improper disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals. The percentage of taxpayer dollars being used today to help clean up these sites has increased from a low of 18 percent to 53 percent due to the fact that the "polluter pays" concept has lost its enforceability (Knickerbocker). The decrease in money contributed to the Superfund Program by the polluters themselves is responsible for a decrease in half of the amount of Superfund sites being cleaned up each year. While there have been some 886 hazardous waste sites cleaned up since the beginning of the program in 1980, and 40 in the last year alone, nearly 1,203 sites remain on the "National Priorities List" (Knickerbocker). Legal loopholes have stalled the effectiveness of the program and the survivability of the program is being carried by the taxpayer. Politically, it seems unlikely that the Superfund Program will be done away with; however, it is uncertain how the program is expected to continue in years to come. Congress’s lack of attention to reinitiating and strengthening the “polluter pays” provisions is problematic, and their reassertion that the costs of the program be the responsibility of the offending parties is critical to the program’s future success.
Onondaga Lake located outside of Syracuse, New York, is an example of a hazardous waste site that is being harmed by the gradual decrease in the amount of funding that is sent to the Superfund Program. For a substantial time throughout the 20th century, it has been known that Onondaga Lake has been one of the most polluted lakes in America. Jay Landers elaborates on this concept in the opening sentence of his article “New Life for Onondaga Lake” when he references that, “It has been called the most polluted lake in the nation- and with good reason…Nearly 100 years of severe industrial contamination and several decades of municipal wastewater discharges left their mark on the water body” (Landers 64). It was reasonable to conclude that from Onondaga Lake’s unwanted title as the nation’s most polluted lake that it needed to be placed on the National Priority List. The formation of the Superfund Program provided the primary impetus for Onondaga Lake to receive the much-needed environmental attention it has warranted.
However, Onondaga Lake wasn’t added to the Superfund National Priority List until 1995 (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Coincidentally, the year 1995 coincides with the year that Congress stopped recognizing the “polluter pays” enforcement and focused more on the collection of taxes from the general population to pay for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. To this date, Onondaga Lake has failed to receive the attention from the federal government and the Environmental Protection Agency that it deserves. While Onondaga Lake has been recognized and protected by the Clean Water Act passed by Congress since 1972, additional resources are needed to complete the restoration of this natural resource (Onondaga Lake Partnership). With the organization of the Onondaga Lake Management Conference in 1990 and the completion of the Plan of Action adopted by the Conference in 1993, Lake Onondaga has the outline of a plan to restore the lake to its original condition (Onondaga Lake Partnership). The Amended Consent Judgment, as a part of the Onondaga Lake Management Conference, signed in 1993, mandates the upgrade of sewage treatment facilities and systems discharging into the lake. It is intended to achieve compliance for the conditions with the Clean Water Act for Onondaga Lake and its tributaries by the year 2012 (Onondaga Lake Partnership).
In 1999, further legislation drafted the Onondaga Lake Partnership to replace the Conference effective as of August 17, 2000 (Onondaga Lake Partnership). At the helm of the partnership is the Army Corps of Engineers spearheading the effort to coordinate the state and federal governments in a cooperative effort to fully restore Onondaga Lake. As a variety of clean up efforts are employed, including the listing of Onondaga Lake on the National List of Priorities and enforcing its need to receive resources, improvements in the conditions of the lake are becoming apparent. These improvements in the pollution status of the lake come after almost three decades where the people, the economic status, and the environmental quality of Onondaga County have been overlooked by their federal government. With continued efforts and appropriate management, Onondaga Lake will continue to be revitalized and the measurements of those efforts should become readily apparent.
October 14, 2007
Environmental Justice in Onondaga County
In 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), more commonly known as the Superfund Program. The launch of the Superfund Program was a direct response to the infamous environmental problems associated with the "Love Canal" in Niagara Falls, New York. The goal of the Superfund Program is to clean up the numerous hazardous waste sites throughout the country that had occurred from the illegal or improper disposal of hazardous wastes and contaminants. The program intended to seek out the source of the pollution and hold the responsible parties accountable for the clean up of nearly 2,000 identifiable sites considered high priority environmental problems. The primary contributors to the problems as identified by the Superfund Program were oil and petrochemical companies, mining concerns and military operations. The intention of this Superfund Program was to levy the burden of the cost of cleaning these sites onto the direct sources of the problem. There is no doubt that the Superfund Program has been a benefit to certain environmental clean up concerns and Onondaga Lake provides an excellent example of the program’s intention. A continued effort by Congress to renew the intent of the program provides a vital resource for cleaning up the remainder of the sites still waiting to be addressed.
Up until 1995, Congress had adopted the "polluter pays" concept for collecting enough money (approximately $1 billion dollars annually) to clean up these hazardous waste sites (Knickerbocker). The taxes collected from corporate America have gone a considerable way in making the program workable. However, in the years after 1995, Congress has failed to renew the taxes originally placed on oil and chemical industries specifically targeted to pay for the clean up. As the government program approaches bankruptcy today, more and more private citizen taxpayer dollars contribute to the clean up of these hazardous waste sites created by large corporations as a result of their improper disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals. The percentage of taxpayer dollars being used today to help clean up these sites has increased from a low of 18 percent to 53 percent due to the fact that the "polluter pays" concept has lost its enforceability (Knickerbocker). The decrease in money contributed to the Superfund Program by the polluters themselves is responsible for a decrease in half of the amount of Superfund sites being cleaned up each year. While there have been some 886 hazardous waste sites cleaned up since the beginning of the program in 1980, and 40 in the last year alone, nearly 1,203 sites remain on the "National Priorities List" (Knickerbocker). Legal loopholes have stalled the effectiveness of the program and the survivability of the program is being carried by the taxpayer. Politically, it seems unlikely that the Superfund Program will be done away with; however, it is uncertain how the program is expected to continue in years to come. Congress’s lack of attention to reinitiating and strengthening the “polluter pays” provisions is problematic, and their reassertion that the costs of the program be the responsibility of the offending parties is critical to the program’s future success.
Onondaga Lake located outside of Syracuse, New York, is an example of a hazardous waste site that is being harmed by the gradual decrease in the amount of funding that is sent to the Superfund Program. For a substantial time throughout the 20th century, it has been known that Onondaga Lake has been one of the most polluted lakes in America. Jay Landers elaborates on this concept in the opening sentence of his article “New Life for Onondaga Lake” when he references that, “It has been called the most polluted lake in the nation- and with good reason…Nearly 100 years of severe industrial contamination and several decades of municipal wastewater discharges left their mark on the water body” (Landers 64). It was reasonable to conclude that from Onondaga Lake’s unwanted title as the nation’s most polluted lake that it needed to be placed on the National Priority List. The formation of the Superfund Program provided the primary impetus for Onondaga Lake to receive the much-needed environmental attention it has warranted.
However, Onondaga Lake wasn’t added to the Superfund National Priority List until 1995 (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Coincidentally, the year 1995 coincides with the year that Congress stopped recognizing the “polluter pays” enforcement and focused more on the collection of taxes from the general population to pay for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. To this date, Onondaga Lake has failed to receive the attention from the federal government and the Environmental Protection Agency that it deserves. While Onondaga Lake has been recognized and protected by the Clean Water Act passed by Congress since 1972, additional resources are needed to complete the restoration of this natural resource (Onondaga Lake Partnership). With the organization of the Onondaga Lake Management Conference in 1990 and the completion of the Plan of Action adopted by the Conference in 1993, Lake Onondaga has the outline of a plan to restore the lake to its original condition (Onondaga Lake Partnership). The Amended Consent Judgment, as a part of the Onondaga Lake Management Conference, signed in 1993, mandates the upgrade of sewage treatment facilities and systems discharging into the lake. It is intended to achieve compliance for the conditions with the Clean Water Act for Onondaga Lake and its tributaries by the year 2012 (Onondaga Lake Partnership).
In 1999, further legislation drafted the Onondaga Lake Partnership to replace the Conference effective as of August 17, 2000 (Onondaga Lake Partnership). At the helm of the partnership is the Army Corps of Engineers spearheading the effort to coordinate the state and federal governments in a cooperative effort to fully restore Onondaga Lake. As a variety of clean up efforts are employed, including the listing of Onondaga Lake on the National List of Priorities and enforcing its need to receive resources, improvements in the conditions of the lake are becoming apparent. These improvements in the pollution status of the lake come after almost three decades where the people, the economic status, and the environmental quality of Onondaga County have been overlooked by their federal government. With continued efforts and appropriate management, Onondaga Lake will continue to be revitalized and the measurements of those efforts should become readily apparent.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
One Helpful Link for Essay 2
Click on the title of this blog to view the link.
The website of the link is http://www.aslf.org/OnondagaLake/
The website of the link is http://www.aslf.org/OnondagaLake/
Superfund
In 1980, the EPA passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund Program, in response to the infamous environmental problems associated with "Love Canal" in Niagara Falls, New York. The goal of the Superfund Program was to clean up the numerous amounts of hazardous waste sites throughout the country that had occured from the illegal or improper disposal of hazardous wastes and contaminants. Up until 1995, Congress had adopted the "polluter pays" concept for collecting enough money (approximately 1 Billion dollars annually) to clean up these hazardous waste sites. However, in the years after 1995 Congress has failed to renew the taxes on oil and chemical industries that helped to pay for the clean up. As the government program continues to approach bankruptcy, more and more taxpayer dollars are contributing to the clean up of the hazardous waste sites created by large corporations as a result of the improper disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals. The percentage of taxpayer dollars that is being used to help clean up these sites has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent because of the fact that the "polluter pays" concept is no longer being used. The decrease in money being contributed to the Superfund Program by the polluters themselves is responsible for a decrease in half of the amount of Superfund sites being cleaned up each year. While there have been 886 hazardous waste sites cleaned up since the beginning of the program in 1980, and 40 in the last year alone, there are still 1203 sites still on the "National Priorities List". Politically, it seems unlikely that the Superfund Program will be done away with, however it is not sure how the program is expected to continue in years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)