UHP399 Gardens & Machines

This weekend I watched the movie “Gattaca.” For
those of you who may not be familiar, “Gattaca” is a movie depicting a future
in which everyone’s genetic past, present, and future is open for scrutiny. The
vast majority of people exist as a result of artificial selection and
manipulation of genes at or before conception.  I had watched the movie in
the past, but in light of everything we have discussed in class this semester I
came away with a few new insights. 

The first response I have regarding this movie is
the social implications of an exposure and manipulation of genes. In the world
of Gattaca, genes determine your stake in life the moment you are born—unless
you are the main character, Vincent Freeman, who discovers a way around the
system. Vincent is prevented from pursuing his dream of going into space
because of a congenital heart condition that he retained because he is one of
the last people to have been born naturally without any genetic intervention.
In watching this movie, I was a little disturbed to realize how easily this
kind of discrimination could occur in our current society. Just since I first
watched this movie 5 years ago, the scene of genetics and its place in society
has dramatically changed. 

When I first saw the film, I was only vaguely
aware of how genetics could be used and of the genetic tests available. Now, I
hear of new genetic discoveries every day. My own family has discovered we
carry a gene for breast cancer. Every other television series includes a
character struggling with a genetic disease, from Huntington’s on “House” to
Achondroplasia on “Little People Big World.” The problem is, as of today, we
have the ability to screen for thousands of disease-causing genes but have very
little ability to treat them once they are diagnosed. Fortunately, laws have
been developed in the recent past to prevent insurance companies from
discriminating against individuals who have tested positive for genetic
diseases, however there are always loopholes and discrimination is still possible.
What the movie points out is the danger of exponentially increasing our ability
to diagnose genetic traits without increasing our ability to help people with
these conditions. While we can identify individuals who carry genes that
predispose for cancers, from the BRCA genes that cause breast cancer to
mutations in P53 that cause just about every cancer imaginable, we can do
little more than carefully watch individuals and attempt to treat their cancers
at very early stages. We can test fetuses for genetic syndromes from down’s
syndrome to cystic fibrosis to, but by the time we diagnose them they are
already present in the child and offer no positive treatment options—leaving
parents to decide between aborting or having a child who will live with limited
capability to care for himself (down’s) or who will struggle for all of his 30
years of life to not suffocate from a buildup of fluid in his lungs (cystic
fibrosis). The dangerous precipice we are hinging on is that of accepting that
we cannot treat or change these conditions and attempting to react to it as
society has in the movie—by discounting the imperfect individuals and giving
their liberties to those who are deemed more genetically valuable. 

Fortunately, our society is still fighting to
retain its ethical duty to people, regardless of their genetic make-up.
However, the movie—in which society has forgotten this duty—works to make an
argument for the limitations of genetic testing. Through a parallel between
Vincent and his brother, Anton, the movie demonstrates genetics’ inability to
account for some of the most valuable and unmatchable human characteristics of
passion, determination, and faith. Whereas Vincent is a “God Child,” whose
genetics were determined by chance, his brother’s genes were modified and
perfected. However, in a scene revisiting their childhood, the movie shows the
brothers compete to see who can swim the farthest out into the ocean. Vincent
wins, and ultimately saves Anton from drowning. When Anton discovers that
Vincent has been cheating the system to achieve his dream, the two fall back
into the same competition and once again Vincent wins, saving Anton. In
response to Anton’s question as to how in the world Vincent, with his genetic
heart condition, is able to swim faster and stronger than Anton, who is
supposed to be genetically superior, Vincent responds: “I never saved anything
for the swim back.” Ultimately Vincent’s passion and determination to overcome
his shortcomings make him more powerful than his brother, who always relied on
his genetic perfection to get him by and never learned to struggle for
anything. 

With relation to this class, the movie
demonstrates the danger of using technology to replace the natural side of
humanity. The society’s preoccupation with breaking down every component of
human beings’ existence makes them forget the non-technical, innate part of
what it means to be human. As Vincent demonstrates, to be human means to bend
circumstances to your advantage—not to create circumstances within which to operate.
We use technology to enhance our natural existence, but must struggle to avoid
using technology to replace our natural lives. 

I am left with just a couple of questions:

1. Do you fear that society will lose its grip on
the developments being made in science each day? Or do you believe we will be
able to adapt to control the changes being made?

2. Do you think there is a line to be drawn
between which diseases should be screened for versus which should be left to
chance? For example, should there be a difference between screening for a
disease you can treat and screening for one that almost certainly means death
for the individual in question?

In “The American Lawn: Surface of Everyday Life,” Georges Teyssot begins by providing an overview of the evolution of the domestic lawn and cultural perceptions of the enigma. Tracing grass’s “roots,” pun shamelessly intended, back to pastoral time in England and Western Europe, Teyssot explains that the short, green lawn’s appealed to American colonists both for its practicality and its roots in the pastoral ideal. Ultimately, grass became the “canvas” to which all other adornments to an American home were added. As lawns became a cultural staple in the United States, they developed societal and psychological significance.

According to Teyssot, research indicates that Americans associate the maintenance of a lawn with the hygiene of its owner. Furthermore, a respectable lawn has become a staple of what defines an “ordinary man,” who, as defined by Robert Fishman, simulates the job of a pastoral farmer by tending to his own plot of land for the sake of the community. Psychologically, the lawn is another outward indicator humans use to assess those around them.

In relation to this class, I feel that this reading was very relevant in that it illustrates the most prevalent example of the trend toward controlled nature in our society. Despite its less-than-natural origins, I feel most Americans embrace a green lawn because in many cases it is the closest we get to nature amidst the development of cities and suburbs. I feel the lawn, more than anything, represents our desire to be close to nature but at the same time in control of it. As far as the essay’s analysis itself, however, I have mixed feelings. While I feel that much of Teyssot’s assessments of the American lawn’s significance are accurate, I do not feel that a lawn is any more impactful or oppressive than any of the other societal norms that pervade our world. Our clothing, hairstyle, expression of our femininity or masculinity, even the food we eat and the way we talk, all have as much of an impact on our psyches as a lawn. Teyssot does allude to this same idea by comparing the ideal of a perfect lawn to the ideal of a perfect body, both of which represent the American sense of competition and goal of perfection. Ultimately, we are products of our environment, and we are judged according to the standards of our society. So, while I will admit this reading provided some interesting perspectives on our societal expectations, I think that it would be unfair to argue that the lawn industry is “abusive” because it is no more powerful than—if not less powerful than—other components of our society.

While I felt the analysis of the psychological impacts of the lawn may have been overemphasized, I did find Teyssot’s analysis of Americans’ views of private versus communal property intriguing. In the latter part of his work, Teyssot describes historical opinions on fences, their functionality, their aesthetic purpose, and their underlying meaning in society. Ultimately, Teyssot’s testimony adds up to the idea that a fence, or lack thereof, represents a community’s opinion of shared property. In historical times when fences were preferred not to be used, Teyssot argues that Americans favored actual private property with the illusion of communal property. In contrast, opaque fences represented a desire for both economic division of property and a visual cue as to who owns what. Finally, Teyssot argues that the trend toward transparent fences produces an effect somewhere in the middle between that of a community with no fences and a community with opaque fences. Transparent fences, while providing distinct indications of where private property begins and ends, still allows for members in a community to view into one another’s lives. This careful sense of openness represents a desire to filter between those who are “family,” and those who are not. I feel that symbolic meanings to different types of barriers between properties are both accurate and relevant in today’s society. In this, I am reminded of our discussion of suburban neighborhoods with home-owners associations that forbid certain things, including fences. I find this both ironic and intriguing, because the enforcement of a policy about fences speaks to not just the aesthetic preoccupations of our society, but of our desire to create a sense of community—even if forcibly. Whereas in the past a lack of fences may have indicated a true sense of trust between neighbors, now it merely represents a neighborhood’s preoccupation with resale value and a superficial sense of kinship.

So having read this piece, I have a few questions:

1) Having grown up in suburbs, as we discovered many of us did, do you associate grass with nature?

2) Do you feel oppressed by the landscape of suburbs? If so, which parts of the landscape bother you the most and why?

3) What assumptions do you make when you see a lawn that is unkempt? What other violations of societal norms lead us to make assumptions about people and which do you feel are the most profound?

The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson is an overview of the history of climate change and how it has been perceived in societies around the world. Ultimately, Henson lays out the four main arguments against global warming. Describing the views of “It isn’t warming,” “the warming is due to natural variation,” and “the amount is insignificant,” Henson’s personal opinion on the topic becomes clear. While Henson covers both sides of the issue, he continually criticizes those who do not believe in the human cause of global warming.

In her book Field Notes From a Catastrophe, Kolbert presents evidence for the argument that global warming is of human origin, both in the form of scientific facts and personal anecdotes. The Preface of the work explains that while she tries not to over-simplify the issues at hand, she hopes to not provide too much in-depth science in her work—presumably so as not to deter readers.

In Chapters 2 and 3 of Field Notes, Kolbert covers important discoveries in the field of climate change, including scientists Tyndall and Arhennius, who set the foundation of our scientific knowledge of the atmosphere and how it heats and cools. Throughout these chapters, the author attempts to use her personal experiences in the “field” in places like Greenland to add to her credibility and to make the information she presents seem more like real-life, rather than a complicated story of numbers and facts. In these chapters, Kolbert describes a man at Swiss Camp who described to her the decay of the ice from the bottom and the growth of the snow on the top of the ice sheets. Furthermore, she explains the history of natural climate change, elaborating on the rapid rise in temperatures that preceded the ice age.

Chapters 7 and 8 of the work, titled “Business as Casual” moves into a deeper criticism of how the United States in particular has responded to climate change. Explaining how population growth, economic growth, and the speech with which new technologies are adopted will determine growth of carbon emissions, Kolbert lays the groundwork for her ultimate criticism of the United States’ “Greenhouse Gas Intensity” policy. Kolbert first describes Socolow’s “wedges,” which include technologies such as solar power and wind electricity that, if combined, could combat the rise in CO2 levels. Then, the author elaborates on the pressing nature of the problem, citing India and China’s expected industrial growth and the large carbon emissions their growth will prompt. Kolbert then visits the ideas of Marty Hoffert, who feels that only new technology will truly be able to combat the issue of climate change but that in the meantime we must use the tools we have. Finally, the author moves to her final criticism of the action, or inaction, of the United States in the climate change situation. Explaining the United States’ refusal to agree to the Kyoto Protocol as well as the “Greenhouse Gas Intensity” plan, which related investment in environmental technologies to the growth of the American economy, Kolbert makes a case for the United States’ selfishness and apathy.

Having read these chapters, I find myself left with several conflicting feelings. For one, with regard to Kolbert’s writing, I felt that her anecdotes about her time in the field helped her case, however, the lack of in-depth science left me wanting more explanation to prove her point. For one, I would have liked her to include the causes of the ice age, to explain the relative time span in years it took for the earth to heat naturally to the extent that it is heating today, presumably at the hand of humanity. Without these pieces of information, I still felt at times the information provided was not enough—without total contextualization I was still left in doubt. My second reaction to these chapters was conflicted, as I was unsure whether to feel the shame that she feels for the United States’ policies or to justify our actions in light of the fact that in my entire life, I have never seen two reputable scientists explain the details of the causes of global warming and contrast the causes of ancient times of warming to the causes of today’s climate change.

As far as my opinion of the climate change goes, I am still on the fence in many areas. I am first and foremost a believer in sustainability, and I believe that we need to be working as a global society to preserve the earth for future generations and to make life more pleasant for people across the globe. However, I am not convinced about the nature or cause of climate change, and at this point I feel I am still not informed enough to make a judgment on that fact. I feel frustrated, because I feel that there are no unbiased sources to provide information about the subject. While the information Kolbert provides is undoubtedly true, she leaves out other information that prevents me from understanding the entirety of the issue. While Kolbert’s opponents will undoubtedly cite evidence against the human cause of climate change, they will undoubtedly leave out valuable information as well. It is infuriating that seemingly no one is capable of taking a side that is anything less than a radical view—either on one far-reaching end of the spectrum or the other. In my opinion, we need to stop playing the blame game and do the best we can to reduce pollution and our consumption—regardless of whether it is causing global warming. If it is not causing global warming, it is causing a lack of resources in parts of the world, heinous degrees of pollution, and damage to the planet as a whole that we will only feel when it is too late.

So, I am left with a few questions that I’d like to discuss—some of which are questions of opinion, some of which are questions of fact.

1. What is your opinion on the politics that influence climate policy?
2. Do you feel that there is a connection between economics and a nation’s ability to implement new technologies and programs?
3. Does anyone have any information on the particular time span in which the earth heated and cooled preceding and during the ice age? In researching the question, I have found some websites that claim it took centuries, while Kolbert describes it as something that occurred very rapidly. I feel that this is an important fact in measuring the degree to which humans are speeding global warming.

Thanks to the background information we were provided, I felt a connection to the abstract strokes and ambiguous themes of Mary Hambleton’s late works. Having watched my mom fight breast cancer, I felt a particularly strong connection to the work “Enough.” Furthermore, I found the exhibit left me with some lasting and powerful impressions.

Several elements of the work spoke to me. The first thing that jumped out to me when I first saw “Enough” was the layers upon layers of paint that resulted in the coral-like, 3-D texture of the majority of the work. This was distinctive among the rest of Hambleton’s late works and, to me, spoke to the rawness of the emotions that the artist was trying to convey. While most of her works incorporated layers, “Enough” was the only one featured that included textures that were not flat and parallel to one another. The irregularity of the structures gave me a sense of loss of control, which perhaps is what Hambleton felt in her last years struggling with cancer. Furthermore, the structures and colors added atop the irregular, raised layers of black paint inspired images of pain and struggle.

Protruding from the black were seemingly sharp objects, shards that were reminiscent of being stabbed and injured. Beyond the shards were, most disturbingly, rusted nails. Finally, hazards of color were splashed over the black structures, which to me symbolized a desperate attempt to achieve or maintain the same order and joy prominent in the bordering regions of the work. Together, these elements communicated to me a sense of struggle—a fight to maintain a philosophy and a perception of life while undergoing pain and abuse. The reading by Tiffany Bell suggests that this work could be addressing Hambleton’s frustration at the countless operations and procedures she must have undergone in attempt to regain and preserve her health. Examining the work inspired in me feelings of pain and frustration, and having analyzed these different elements in the piece I would have to agree with Bell’s assessment of its meaning.

Leaving the exhibit, I found myself endowed with two lasting impressions. The first of these was a greater appreciation for the power of art, and more particularly abstract art. Before today, if someone had asked me if I was a fan of abstract art, I probably would have said that I did not understand it, and that perhaps it was less valuable because its interpretation is so subjective. However, being exposed to Hambleton’s works today made me realize that understanding just a little bit of an artist’s life can enable you to understand and appreciate the profound nature of his work. Moreover, having seen the works in the gallery today, I would be more likely to submit to the possibility that in some cases, abstract art can be more powerful for its ambiguity than can other more straightforward works.

The second impression I left with today was of a more personal nature. Leaving the gallery, I found I had a greater awareness, or had been reminded, of what my mom must have gone through when she had cancer. I was only nine when she was diagnosed, and as a kid I could not fully understand what cancer meant. More importantly, the thought never crossed my mind that she could die from the disease. Touring relics of a real person’s life who died from cancer, I found myself with a new appreciation of how lucky my mom was and how lucky I am that she is still here. The fact that Hambleton’s work inspired in me such a personal realization further speaks to the power of abstract art. While other forms of art may limit audiences’ interpretation of a piece, I feel that abstract art may provide a greater opportunity for sympathy. The high level of ambiguity found in abstract art may allow viewers to place themselves, their experiences, in the context of the work and therefore to gain more personal insight. This further reminds me of the discussion we had last week about the narcissism of the artist. While the experience of creating her artworks may have functioned to help Hambleton cope with her struggle, the abstract and ambiguous nature of the product makes the work less narcissistic and more humanistic. 

In the Introduction of his book, Signs of Life, editor Eduardo Kac explores the modern applications of new technologies and the attitudes with which society meets them. Pointing out the contrast between society’s acceptance of technologies such as in-vitro fertilization and its discomfort with—even fear of—other technologies that involve manipulating life, Kac concludes that what we consider to be “natural” is entirely subjective. While Kac illuminates society’s false divisions between what is “normal” versus “deviant,” he concedes that new technologies do present moral, medical, political, and even economic dilemmas.

            After exploring the “Ecological art movement” of the 1960s and 70s, which capitalized on the use of human body fluids in art, Kac goes on to explain the meaning of “transgenic art”. “Transgenic art” is considered to be “the manipulation of biological materials at discrete levels,” meaning the use of small components of life such as proteins, cells, genes, and nucleotides to create art in the form of new life. Having defined transgenic art, Kac finally moves into exploring its potential to not only impact the art world but to have real-world applications as well. In his description of the book Biotech Culture, Kac explains that while new technologies are becoming sources of inspiration, they are simultaneously and inevitably creating issues of ethics. Kac believes that we are moving into a world in which “technology increasingly shapes cultural sensibility.” In essence, biotechnologies serve to inspire both great art and great public debate.

            In Chapter Ten of his book, Kac further explains the meaning and significance of transgenic art, focusing more on his personal experiences with the field. Kac begins by explaining that his work with transgenic art is a culmination of his experience as an artist. He then explains that “Bio art” is better thought of as “Bio agency” than as “Bio objecthood,” which I took to mean that bio art’s purpose is to create an experience that serves a purpose, rather than to create an object that may or may not inspire thoughtful discourse.

Having previewed his experiences with transgenic art, Kac then delves deeper into projects he has worked on, including “Genesis”, “GFP Bunny”, and “The Eighth Day”, and “Move 36,” all of which were connected in their goals. I found Genesis particularly interesting. The idea of physically creating a gene by translating a sentence from the Book of Genesis in the Bible into a genetic code and then constructing a protein from that code is fascinating to me because it physically acted out what the Bible argues occurred in the process of Creation. Using the “word of God” to create a new life is powerful in and of itself; however, the project was even more significant in my opinion because it inspires inquiry into humanity’s true purpose in relation to nature. The sentence Kac chose to use—“Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth,”—begs the question of whether the Christian doctrine must adapt in order to survive the modern world. In today’s world, where the common media message is that humanity is ruining the earth, this ancient message from the Bible rings ominously. Ultimately humans have the power over other life on earth, for better or for worse, and it is for this reason Genesis is such a provocative project. Genesis proves just how much control we have over other life, thereby inevitably inspiring another round of ethical and political debate.

While reading Kac’s work, I found myself thinking back to some of the topics my genetics class has discussed. Through that class, I have had the opportunity to learn about how scientists manipulate genes for the purposes of treating genetic diseases and creating vaccines. Having seen the real-world benefits biotechnology, I was surprised to read about its applications with relation to the art world. I would have never considered manipulating a gene or creating a new species of plant a form of art. However, going back to the definition of art we came up with as a class earlier in the semester, if “good art” is what inspires thought and contemplation, transgenic art is as good an art as any other we have studied.

Three Questions that came to mind while I was reading these selections:

1. With the advances in both science and bio-art, do you feel that we are re-defining what is “natural?”

2. What do you feel Kac’s purpose was in creating his works of art?

3. Do you feel that humanity has too much control over the fate of the world and other living creatures? Do you feel we are equipt to handle this responsibility?

Unfortunately I was not able to attend Teri Rueb’s lecture or workshop this week. So, in lieu of that experience, I researched her style and discovered a few interesting projects she has created.

One project I found interesting was Itinerant, a “site-specific sound installation in Boston Common.” In this project, Rueb installed sound clips in different areas of Boston Common and participants activated them as they “wandered” along a pathway. Each sound clip communicated a part of the story of Frankenstein, which is significant because the work is centered on the idea of the dangers of technology in the hands of human ignorance. Ultimately, Rueb’s goal in this project was to cause participants to reflect on the place of technology in our society as well as how their identities are defined by technology.

Another project I found to be very thought-provoking was Drift. In Drift, Rueb installed interactive sound on a four-square kilometer region of beach. As participants wandered along the beach, they experienced the sound of the water and the sand interlaced with quotes from famous philosophers and poets, spoken in different languages. The purpose of this project was to disorient individuals, creating a contrast between their experience at that moment and their everyday life, where GPS technology gives people the ability to have the latitude and longitude of their position at any time of the day. Through the project participants had the opportunity to become lost, wandering in search of the next sound clip, and to widen their perception beyond the linear paths we typically take each day.

One final project of Rueb’s that I was impressed with was Trace. In this work, Rueb installed sound clips in a national park in British Columbia. As participants wandered through the environment, they activated certain sound clips, each of which told a story of loss. Through these sound clips of mournful poems and songs, Reub created a “memorial environment” in which those who have past are honored in a non-traditional yet highly profound way. The use of technology to memorialize lost loved ones is significant in that it highlights the changing definition of mortality. As technology makes it possible to preserve memories and ideas for generations, mortality becomes less easy to define—forcing us to consider whether its scope includes only physical life, or whether the preservation of a memory can lead to immortality.

Having researched Rueb, I find I respect her work more than some of the other artists we have discussed in class. Whereas some of the other ideas are interesting, such as mapping the interpersonal connections between “Familiar Strangers” or simply tracking the frolicking movements of two dogs in a park, I find that Rueb’s projects are more focused on inspiring personal reflection. For this reason, I feel that is it more powerful, by inspiring individuals to be aware of their personal connection to their surroundings and to the impact of technology on their daily human experiences.

In his first chapter, Can we define “Technology?,” Nye explores the evolution of tools in order to reveal that “technology” is ancient, rather than modern. In the most basic sense, Nye defines the birth of technology as the point in time when humans became capable of “remember[ing] past actions and reproduce[ing] them in memory.” This capacity to “see actions as a sequence in time” is what has allowed humans to create tools and therefore shape our environment.

Whereas today technology is viewed as anything involving computers, the internet, or other machines, Nye points out that technology can be traced back through the ages to this most basic ability to shape our surroundings. Simple tools, he argues, were most basic form of technology because they enabled us to satisfy for our desire for more than just the “necessities.” By analyzing the desires that result in tools, Nye believes that technology can be used to analyze the development of cultures and societies.

Having illustrated that tools are products of the societies from which they originate, Nye proceeds to correct the misconception that science creates “practical discoveries.” Rather, Nye contends that practical discoveries come first, tending to the desires of men, and scientific theory gradually follows with an explanation of why the discovery is possible. Considering this discovery-before-explanation definition of technological progress, Nye then makes the argument that technology is in fact more like art than science. Like art, technology must work with the “un-analyzable” before progress can be made. Only once a technological discovery is made can its meaning and processes be interpreted.

Nye’s interpretation of technology as a parallel to art comes in direct contrast to what he calls “technological determinism”—or the belief that a “direct line of technological development led from the first tools to the conquest of the stars.” In his second chapter, “Does Technology Control Us?,” Nye challenges the various theorists who support technological determinism. Citing societies such as the Amish and Japan who have systematically avoided the technological progress made by the rest of the world, Nye implies that the progression of technology is not inevitable but requires willful interaction and the acceptance of new developments. Whereas many historians argue that technology forces change, Nye argues that it can only result in change if it is used in a way that is accepted and effective within a culture. Agreeing with the author Fernand Braudel, Nye argues that “technology is just an instrument” and “man does not always know how to use it.”

Continuing to explore the interpretations of technology through history, Nye describes the negative attitude with which it was viewed during the industrial revolution in contrast to the hopes of socialists such as Lenin and Marx who held high hopes that the evolution of technology would create perfect, egalitarian societies.  Further contending with the singular power of technology to compel change, Nye contradicts the “externalist” views Alvin Toffler and Marshall McLuhan. Nye’s ultimate argument is that technological determinism is a misguided theory that overemphasizes the impact of technology’s existence and undervalues the significance of the societal forces that create it and its use within a culture.

Nye’s arguments made me think about our discussions in class regarding the merging of technology and art. Whereas Nye points out that technology cannot be developed without intuitive leaps, we have encountered artists who are developing art with the determined use of technology. What is most interesting is that we have seen Nye’s theory in action in the real world—even in our own classroom—as we conceptualize the art we want to create but then have to back-track to create the technology necessary for its actualization.

Questions:

1. Would you consider yourself a technological determinist? Or do you agree with Nye in his perspective on technology’s relationship to society?
2. Has your view of technology changed having read Nye’s work? If so, how?
3. Nye considers technology to be a reflection of the society that creates it. What do you think the internet, laptops, cell phones, etc. say about our society as a whole? What about other technologies—such as nuclear weapons? Cars?  

In “A Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey,” Robert Smithson sardonically demonstrates the failure of modern society to produce works that match the great masterpieces of the past by describing the bridges, sewage filters, and sandboxes that constitute the suburb of Passaic as “monuments.” As monuments are typically erected to protect the memory of a society’s accomplishments, by referring to parking lots and highways as monuments, Smithson argues that modern, suburbanized society has produced nothing worthy of carrying into the future. Smithson states that the suburbs have no past and “only what passes for a future,” further shaping his argument that what the modern world praises as accomplishments of society are truly disappointments. Suburbs such as Passaic, New Jersey do no justice to the grandeur of the past, to the aesthetic and societal accomplishments of ancient cities such as Rome.

Further articulating his dismay at the failures of modern society, Smithson writes that the buildings being constructed in Passaic “don’t fall into ruin after they are built but rather rise into ruin before they built.” In saying this, Smithson is ultimately arguing that the modern landscape is one of ruin—ruin that, in the scope of eternity, is irreversible. Smithson illustrates this idea of irreversibility by describing how if black and white sand were placed in a sandbox and a child ran clockwise to mix the two colors together, a grey color would be produced that could not be separated back into black and white even if the child were to run in the opposite direction. Through this metaphor, the author articulates the idea that the imperfections created throughout time can never be reversed. In the comparison, the white and black sand is Rome while the muddled, gray sand is Passaic. Although the original of the past may have been perfection, once the future has created imperfection, perfection can never again be achieved. Ultimately, Passaic has failed to measure up to the greatness of the past, and therefore has no “true” future.

Having read Smithson’s work, I have to say I understand where his discontentment is coming from. In the suburbs and cities where most of us live, the buildings that represent our daily lives fail to say anything profound about us as a society or culture. Oftentimes, areas are constructed with practical purposes without consideration for their impact on the natural environment, for the interaction with the existing structures, or for what their appearance will mean to future generations. We remember Rome by its monuments, representing its greatness in its time. Reading Smithson’s work brings to mind the disturbing question of what our “monuments” will represent to future generations. With no monuments that encapsulate who we are, or who we aspire to be as a society, I can understand why Smithson feels we have a “false” future.

“Ideas of Nature” and “Machine in the Garden”

            “Ideas in Nature” by Raymond Williams and “Machine in the Garden” by Leo Marx both explore the evolution of man’s relationship to nature. Evaluating the personification of nature throughout history and literature, Marx describes man’s desire to escape society into an idealized conception of nature. Meanwhile, Williams explores humanity’s struggle to define nature and the societal evolution that has led humans to conclude that man is separate from the natural world.

While both authors explore the divide between society and the natural world, Marx focuses on this divide’s impact on man while Williams illuminates its impact on nature.  Exploring the works of Romantic poets such as William Wordsworth and authors such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Marx reveals the theme of the divergence between nature and man throughout literary history and elaborates on the tension created in man by the divide between nature and the industrialized products of society. Further examining the impact of this tension on man, Marx explores some possible reasons why we are so attracted to the “perverse conception of reality” inherent in the American ideal of untouched nature.  One reason Marx proposes is that the overarching negative attitude toward urban life and industrialism is inspired by what Sigmund Freud described as our natural desire to be free of constraints, such as those put in place by society.

Whereas Marx uses historical and literary works to evaluate man’s longing to be unified with nature, Williams evaluates historical and philosophical definitions of man’s relationship to nature to reveal how the divide allows us to be ignorant of the scope of our influence on the natural world. Tracing through history, Williams describes how nature progressed from being defined as a God to being defined in terms of its scientifically understood processes. Having examined the historical definitions of Nature, Williams then continues to examine the paradox in man’s relationship to nature. While men are discontented by evidence of disrupted nature, they often fail to recognize the scope of their exploitation of the natural world. In the end, nature is the true sufferer, as human ignorance catalyzes its destruction. 

Furthermore, using the ideas from philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Williams illustrates that we cannot define Nature without defining humanity and that this interconnectivity is what causes tension when society so directly separates the two. Drawing on history for support, Williams illuminates the irony in the fact that those who exploit nature the most are also the ones most likely to try to escape the thralls of society. Arguing for reconciliation between the contrasting worlds of man and nature described by Marx, Williams argues that “economics” and “ecology” must cease to be considered two entirely separate and unrelated fields. Only when this reconciliation occurs will nature be free of exploitation for the purposes of human economic and material benefit. Also implied in this proposition is the possibility that if nature ceases to be exploited by man, perhaps the divide between nature and society can begin to close and the tension man feels may be relieved. 

In reading these excerpts, I found myself remembering our discussion about “The Grizzly Man” and whether, in entering the habitat of the bears and attempting to coexist with them, Timothy Treadwell was over-stepping a boundary line separating man and nature. Furthermore, I found it interesting that Treadwell seems to exemplify exactly the type of desire to escape that Marx describes in “Machine in the Garden.” I find it intriguing to realize that man’s relationship to nature, his desire to escape the industrialized in favor of the simplicity of the natural world, is something that transcends time and the evolution of society.

Both Marx and Williams reveal crucial paradoxes in the relationship between man and nature. While Marx reveals the irony in man’s desire to escape the world he has created, Benthall reveals his failure to recognize the scope of his influence.

1.)                          What does Marx mean by the term “the little event”? How does this term fit into his overarching argument about the relationship between man and nature?

2.)                          What evidence do you see in the modern world of what Marx describes as the separation between ecology and economics? How does this relate to society’s movement toward the goal of sustainability and the relatively new concept of protecting the environment?

3.)                          Having read about the various definitions of nature that have evolved over the course of human history, have you developed your own definition? If so, what is it? If not, what is holding you back?