I have been working on and off over the past few years on a series of endangered animal drawings that I hope to make an alphabet book for children. I don’t know exactly where the idea came from, but as a kid I was really interested in the world wildlife fund and other conservation groups. I would spend hours paging through lists and reading about endangered animals. It was hard to fathom then that such beautiful creatures could be fading from our planet. It still is hard to fathom a 6^th mass extinction, though not hard to believe given the extent of anthropogenic influences threatening the other life forms that we share this planet with.  I have completed 10 drawings so far: Amur Leopard, Bison, Coral Reef, Dolphin, Elephant, Frog, Giant Panda, Hummingbird, Iberian Lynx, and Jaguar.

For my final project, I wanted to put my drawings in a digital format to preserve them as well as make them easy to share. I also wanted to compile them into a book format and begin writing and assembling my children’s book, which I plan on titling “A is for Animals.” My hope is that by using art and the creative format of a book, I may be able to inspire a respect and reverence for nature in others. I wanted to make it a children’s book because, as Catherine Flowers reminded us, there is a lot of hope in future generations. There is still a lot we can do, a lot that

My first colored pencil drawing.

young people can do, when inspired and passionate about a cause. I hope that my art and subtle calls to action in this book may plant seeds of hope that grow in younger generations.

Although Pedro and Paul did not talk about monuments/art as environmental activism, I still greatly enjoyed their presentation and the discussion we had in class on Friday. Something that I had never even thought about was the question of what space do you put the monument on? You have to consider the demographics of the area and who will be walking by that monument. There are also questions of ownership; what defines a space as public and do we have a right to place anything we want to in this public space? These are all things I have never even considered as I’ve walked by countless monuments or even other forms of artful activism, such as graffiti. One Robertson alumnus dedicated her summers to looking at graffiti and art festivals’ impact on local communities. I thought it was pretty rad: https://www.startstreetart.com/about

Another question that I thought was interesting was what makes something a monument? Like Dr. Gould said, you can really make anything a monument if you give meaning to it. There is a whole market around American monuments; people spend so much money going to see the Washington Monument and the Statue of Liberty! I wonder what causes something to become a significant monument, like those ones are.

One last thing that I thought was SUPER interesting was the Data Refuge project. I definitely want to learn more about digital activism, because I think it has the potential to be somme of the most influential forms of activism out there. It is not flashy and in our face like a monument, and it may not be as raucous-causing protests, but it sure does have an impact. To think that our entire history of climate change data could have been deleted and unrecoverable is absolutely mind-boggling! I might even go so far to say that these Penn students have been the greatest activists we have learned about in this class. They obstructed irreversible damage and changed the fate of climate change discourse forever — in a positive manner. They also made the private data public, which I think makes it even more activism-like as it puts important facts/statistic out there for people to come across.  As a total digital-dummy and lover of protests, I never thought I would say that the digital activists take the cake, but I think it’s true!

Good art is hard. Meaningful art is harder. Provoking action and change through art? Nearly impossible. I’m someone who cares a great deal about environmental issues and is strongly dedicated to many different social causes, but when presented with impressive, beautiful art about these problems, even I tend to respond with a brief burst of emotion — sadness, anger, frustration, sometimes hope or excitement — before going back to my daily routine. Photographs of birds, dissected to reveal the plastics that killed them in their stomachs? Very sad, but I still use and throw away plastic several times a day. Paintings or photography of people suffering from climate change-induced drought, disease, or famine? Tragic and heartbreaking, but I continue to rely on fossil fuels for power nearly 24/7, and my American lifestyle remains centered around consumption and convenience, no matter how “green” I like to imagine I am.

Art has a powerful ability to evoke emotion and thoughtfulness, but for that reaction to persist for more than a few minutes, hours, or days requires extraordinary effort by the artist as well as the audience. In many cases, a nontraditional approach is needed; in particular, the audience must become participants rather than observers. Countless studies have demonstrated the importance of experiential education and the active involvement of students in order to learn effectively; it is not hard to see how this principle extends beyond the classroom and into the realm of art and activism. To not just see artwork, but to take part in its creation, existence, or destruction breaks down the barrier between bystanders and participants and brings art out of galleries and glass cases and into the real world, where emotions spark actions, and actions have consequences.

This is the aspect of monuments, as conceptualized, studied, and created by Dr. Paul Farber and Pedro Lasch, that I find particularly interesting and full of potential for environmentalists — and it has already been applied by activists across the globe. Monuments can memorialize losses, victories, or momentous events in society and culture across history, and as climate change marches relentlessly onward, it is imperative to expand our concepts of monuments to include natural and environmental losses, victories, and momentous events before they are irreversible.

The United States government as well as other countries around the world has already taken one approach to creating environmental monuments by setting aside particularly notable natural landforms and large swathes of “untouched” land as “national monuments,” perhaps as a memorial to a fictional time when the land was “untouched” by humans. In reality, no part of the world, no matter how remote, has been unable to escape the shadow of the Anthropocene. It is time to shift our mindset from an idealized concept of “wilderness” and start creating art that confronts, questions, and challenges the complex relationship between Homo sapiens and the vague concept of “nature” from which we have spent so many centuries and so much energy trying to escape. Monuments, as well as other forms of interactive, dynamic, and participatory art, have the ability to reinsert humans into the story of our planet and force us to confront what we have done to ourselves — and struggle with the question: what are we going to do about it?

Originally I discussed with Professor Gould the idea of researching and writing about nuclear energy and how it can be a solution to our climate crisis and how activism could contribute to the movement. However, after thinking about it I realized I was not nearly attached enough to the topic as I would have liked. So as Amanda encourages, I got creative.

Now I am going to put together a short 1-2 minute video followed by a research paper showcasing the effects of climate change on the ocean, ecotourism economy, and local residents in my home town of the Florida Keys . Not only is this something personal to me, but I think the combination of the video and the paper really hammers home the aspects of art, grass-root techniques, literature and environmental science we have harped on this year.

In the video I intend to show the effects of coral bleaching, sea level rise, and also statistical evidence showing how climate change has altered the local economy and lives for the worse. I hope to really raise awareness with visuals about how seriously we need to treat these issues. Throughout the class, we have used and seen how effective videos and artwork can be to change opinions and start a movement. For example, the permaculture documentary, the video game, etc.

I think this final project was a perfect opportunity to put together all the aspects of this class in a sort of “show me what you got” fashion. I believe that my impromptu project will do this successfully and I look forward to sharing it with everyone.

MDG is a relatively new political party in Norway focusing on environmental issues. Promoting an environmentally friendly lifestyle in Norway is the core of its politics. Therefore, MDG has been heavily invested in the Lofoten debate – the question whether Norway should open the island group for oil exploration and potential excavation – ever since it truly took center stage in the political sphere in 1994. MDG were naturally against the proposal but could not directly influence the larger Labor Party and Conservative Party, two parties who were for the proposal and have been battling for control of the Parliament over the past two and a half decades.

Lofoten. Link: https://res.cloudinary.com/simpleview/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,q_65,w_768/v1/clients/norway/bc58b5b7_2eee_49d2_925e_1a362e1e5f97_90c0e8e1-a9a0-4873-8b23-604249f90ca7.jpg

However, the environmental movement was growing in Norway. Public protests erupted in the years following the state-owned oil companies’ implementation of oil searches in the region, along with events organized by Norwegian environmental organizations. As Norway shifted towards a more environmental mindset, the government announced plans to cut carbon emissions in the future, and smaller green political parties such as MDG received an increase in vote in the midterm and national elections. As a result, MDG and the other small environmentally friendly parties formed a strong alliance that the larger parties needed for a coalition in the Parliament, which gave MDG a platform to directly influence the Lofoten debate. Thus, since 2006, Lofoten has been protected from oil excavation. And even though the debate is still in full swing today, it seems like MDG and the environmental movement has won. We can only hope that the future brings a continued protection of the island group, along with other measures to reduce the carbon footprint in Norway.

While facts and data have tremendous power in changing our thoughts and actions, their influence pales in comparison to that of art. Any type of media, whether a painting, video, or monument pushes our boundaries of thought because it gives us other perspectives on otherwise stale situations. For example, look at this video about what would happen if mother earth treated us the same way that we treat her – it’s not such a pretty sight. I love this video because it forces people to think differently about how they really treat the earth, and it even sub-consciously suggests things that we can do to treat her better.

In my opinion, monuments have the same potential. Albeit our guest speaker Dr. Paul Farber did not speak much of environmentally-specific monuments, the activity that we did on Friday speaks volumes about the power of these landmarks to make a statement. We all showed tremendous creativity in coming up with our own ideas for monuments, which speaks to our potential as a group to teach people about how to be more environmentally conscious in their daily lives.

At the end of class on Friday, we reflected on what we learned and what we did throughout the semester, and at least for me, everything was related through one concept – art. For me, the fictional stories had more impact than the non-fiction ones because they gave me a different perspective on environmental issues. Those stories in addition to the photographs, movies, and even video games showed me that we can change the story around environmental consciousness solely through art.

One story that particularly impacted me this semester was “Spider the Artist” by Nnedi Okorafor. It took a gruesome true story – the story of oil companies invading land in third-world countries – and revealed the hope that lies layers underneath the inconvenient truth. The spider showed compassion in caring for the woman and in the end showed commitment to her by saving her life. Works of art like this one give me hope that we can make a better world by spreading positive stories. And at the point where we can truly impact people deep-down with art, we can change the conversation about the environment.

This past week, we reflected on the amount of information that we learned in class over the semester. One of the most influential short stories that I read during this time was the “Spider the Artist” written by Nnedi Okorafor.

I found this work to be particularly interesting because of my experience on the continent of Africa. This work is an accurate description of how the first world views Africa and in the event, an accident was to occur in Africa it would not be worldwide news. The stories around the world would not even mention Africa because the rest of the world views Africa as somewhere they can exploit and use as a dumping ground for items they do not want. However, the part of the story that was even more indicative of the developed world’s relationship with Africa was the description of how the Nigerian government sold out their own people for their own monetary gain. One of the quotes that I found intriguing was, “The government came up with the idea to create the Zombies, and Shell, Chevron and a few other oil companies (who were just as desperate) supplied the money to pay for it all.” The zombies were creations that were killing the people trying to break into the oil pipeline to earn a living. The zombies were seen as the enemy in the Nigerian villages and were the causes of destruction. These inventions were created by the Nigeran government, with the urging of the oil companies, to kill their own people just so foreign oil could be protected. The very institution that was supposed to be protecting their constituents and their interests were the ones funding a project that was leading to the death and destruction of their own.

        I found this story to be refreshing because it is not something that is written about very often. People living in first world countries typically only care about African countries when a war or a terrible tragedy occurs. The story of exploitation and destruction often goes ignored and this story shed light on the real events happening in African countries. The quote that was interesting to me was, “You should also pray that these Zombies don’t build themselves some fins and travel across the ocean.” This quote really struck me because at first, it seemed like she was warning us about the technology that could wreak havoc on the United States, but what she actually was warning about was preventing this news from spreading across the world because then the first world nations would be held responsible. Moreover, the news would finally make the nations exploiting African countries explain their action and what they were doing in these countries.

The question that stuck with me from Dr. Paul Farber and Pedro Lasch’s discussion with our class is one that was brought up at the end of class: are there monuments we could make now that wouldn’t be destroyed by future generations? This question wasn’t discussed in much depth at all, though I wish it had been. My first response to the question was no, of course not. Our world is far from achieving the type of progress that could allow us to build a monument that would please future generations because the monument would be bound to be challenged by someonein the world. We would encounter so much trouble deciding what the monument would be, and this would limit our ability to truly imagine a monument that could be appreciated by future generations. At least in my perspective, our populations are becoming increasingly more progressive as time goes on, which is why I think the monument would need to be progressive to maintain appreciation in the future. Nonetheless, we have trouble envisioning our future progressiveness potential because we haven’t seen it yet, and it is not easy to imagine, as is anything in the future. What I, at least, hope the world will be one day is a type of progressive that is far, far from where we are now.

When I pondered the question on a deeper level, I concluded that I think there could be a monument that wouldn’t be destroyed by future generations. Monuments now are not loved by everyone, and I don’t think they are necessarily intended to be appreciated by everyone. In the past, they have certainly not been approved by everyone. Monuments are meant to express and acknowledge our history through the present; they combine the past, present, and future. Monuments are not necessarily intended to combine everything into one—they are intended to express a select aspect of our history that is now living with us. I think when I first considered the question, I imagined the monument encompassing the entirety of our complex current political and social situations. One monument cannot express this, though, and therefore I think we could create a monument that wouldn’t be destroyed by future generations.

Last week was by far my favorite class so far in the semester. I have been working on my Program II proposal for weeks about the importance of studying the future of agriculture and how it will, and currently does, depend on design thinking to become more sustainable and still supply large populations. When I sat down in class and got to watch Inhabit: A Permaculture Perspective, a film that so brilliantly expresses everything I want to learn about and ways I can go about doing that, I was stimulated with passion. One of the parts that really struck me was when our complicated human relationship with nature was explained. Humans are a keystone species which means we are integral to our ecosystems, and yet we have an extremely flawed understanding of our relationship with nature. We view ourselves as separate from nature’s processes, which leads us to take advantage of the power we have from being the most cognitively advanced species by making the earth serve us instead of developing a give-and-take relationship and living withthe environment. Our current large-scale corporate agricultural practices illustrates this distinctly because we have created this system solely to serve humans. We use techniques that kill almost everything that is beneficial to the land and that other organisms rely on in order to grow food to feed our own mouths. Once we realize the land cannot offer what we need it to anymore (a consequence of our selfishness) we search for more land to farm and continue to destroy that area as well.

One of the reasons permaculture is so promising for our future is due to the principles the practice is rooted in. The fourth principle in permaculture practices is “Apply Self-Regulation and Accept Feedback.” This is arguably one of the most important principles because it reminds us that global warming is a human issue; We started it, we are perpetuating it, and we will be the reason the planet reaches its limit. The principle acknowledges that the current ways we are interacting with nature are “inappropriate,” and stresses the importance of human habitual change. We need to resist temptations to feel almighty and live in the most lavish luxury and let go of holding a know-it-all mentality to realize that what we are doing is hurting everything around us and ourselves. Permaculture, if listened to and adopted by farmers around the world, could truly make a difference in reducing food insecurity and slowing climate change, and it is a concept we need to continue exploring.

“INHABIT.” Accessed April 16, 2018. http://inhabitfilm.com/.

I was struck by one overlap between the two articles we read for class, “Grounds for Hope” by Rebecca Solnit and “The Limits of Utopia” by China Miéville. There are three quotes that are involved directly in this overlap, and they are below. The first quote is from “Grounds for Hope,” and the second two quotes are from “The Limits of Utopia.”

• “Dystopias infect official reports.”

• “It’s important to say what hope is not: it is not the belief that everything was, is, or will be fine.”

• “Your opponents would love you to believe that it’s hopeless, that you have no power.”

The first quote expresses how society is lacking positive and truthful reports. Even our “official reports” are biased and tainted by media, film, and fiction, and this leads to the second quote. These biased reports leave readers with an false idea of hope: the idea that everything will be fine—global warming is not as pressing as it may seem, Donald Trump isn’t taking enormous strides backwards in the progress of equity for our country.

The people that write these “official reports” have the power to control what our communities hear and read. They can twist, dramatize, or deflate the news in order to illicit any desired response, and use this to sway politics and perceived truth. They thrive and are successful off of readers feeling comforted enough to keep reading the news, yet hopeless enough to not take action, which is where the third quote comes in. If action were taken, rebellions and protests would be sparked. These “opponents” balance a delicate definition of hope which they present to their readers, one that leads people to feel hope yet does not truly empower people with hope.