Critical Engagement Post #2 - My Reflections

As this is the last technical week of classes and new materials, I've become reflective on what we did cover in class and through the speaker series that will continue on once we're out of the classroom. The course description is as follows: 'How do oil and art mix? How are artists responding to the oil and energy economy?How are artists, curators, and other cultural producers representing, documenting, and archiving Alberta’s oil economy?'

This course has consistently returned to us reiterating and redefining the terms 'activist' and 'art'. The extensive discussion that related back to these words, showed both how opposite and how interrelated both concepts could be. Yes, you can have art that's activist in nature, and an artist that's an activist. But where it got tricky to define was, what qualities come to define someone as an activist? As well as, how does something come to be known as art? The course description, when read between the lines, acknowledges both of these things.

In regards to Alberta's oil economy and the art that has been produced in response to the growing industry, we have viewed photographs, video, been introduced to artists and galleries, read artist statements, etc. It is clear that the oil industry has had quite the input into what art is produced and which art is shared; this is the grey area within my own mind. Before being introduced to this discussion, which is sadly not acknowledged often if at all here in Alberta, I hadn't truly looked at just how much the energy economy has affected us on a day to day basis. The 'greenwashing' counteracts with the campaign 'Stop the Tar Sands' on such a public level, yet the general public is more eager to side with the oil companies due to their percieved positive interaction with the environment. That is the viewpoint I approached the class with. I knew that not all oil extraction methods were good for the environment, but I neglected to learn about the specific methods; such as in situ mining. It is being canvassed as being 'green' due to it's relatively small impact on the surface of the mining projects. Yet after meeting with Carmen the farmer up north on the FOLA weekend camping trip, it is becoming more and more apparent that the generally accepted mindset in Alberta is, 'take what we can get, deal with the consequences later.'

The opening of doors that this class has presented is great. My involvement with FOLA is only just beginning, and I'm very excited to see what will happen in the upcoming months, and possibly years. The speaker series allowed us to interact face to face (and also skype to skype) with many different people that had various backgrounds and differing opinions - yet the common thread shared by all was that the oil industry had touched their lives in such a way, that they're now, for the most part, advocating for change. As the Lubicon Cree in Little Buffalo see it, there's no way to stop oil and gas production and extraction on their lands. But it is their intention to see the industry become more regulated and observed with more caution for the land and people. The frustration with the class is that there's so many large and significant changes that need to be made in order for us to preserve our land to some degree, that it's simply overwhelming at times. But as I see it, it's all about the little changes. Focus on the little steps that'll gradually grow to become milestones. We may not see the full changes that we want come to fruition within our lifetimes, but we are nevertheless getting the ball rolling on the issue. After all, this is occuring in our own backyard - shouldn't we have some say on the matter?

Response to Sarah's, 'Critical Engagement Post #2'

Activism and what qualifies as being considered ‘activist’ in nature has been a common thread throughout this course. Being at the tailend of this semester, the readings, and speakers series, we have all been fairly exposed to a wide variety of activists, and activism. Therefore, regarding Sarah’s question as to whether or not iHuman could be considered activist in nature, I would agree that yes, it is. And looking at my own CSL placement with Freedom of the Lubicon Alberta, I’d consider FOLA to be activist as well.

In regards to Ted Kerr individual activism, he is what I’d consider to be an activist on a smaller scale in the grand scheme of things. Not everyone is aware of his work, and not everyone will receive the opportunity to view his work (unless they’ve heard of his residence, know of him, etc). On a more vocal and widespread stage, is Greenpeace. It is an activist organization that is worldwide, and known for partaking in riskier forms of openly criticizing people, governments, transnational corporations; by making their messages loud, blunt and public, they are deemed as radicals as they often break the laws with their demonstrations. But which way is the most successful in pushing for change? An individual with a subtle approach, or a group that only needs their name mentioned for people to either condemn or applaud their actions?

iHuman and FOLA are organizations that strive for change; be it with individuals or the community as a whole. Both use different methods to spread their name. iHuman uses the arts to motivate youth to change for the better of themselves and the community. FOLA has a documentary that was produced in order for the general public to hear the voice of the Lubicon Cree and educate those who are unaware or vague on the details in regards to their 30+ year struggle for equality and recognition of their rights by the Canadian government. The United Nations and Amnesty International have openly condemned the Canadian government’s apparent ignorance of basic human rights. Therefore in response to Sarah’s last question of ‘What do you think?’, I’d have to say that the fact we are considering what is and isn’t activist, that whoever we are trying to define as activist has already succeeded. By debating how successful their messages are, we have proven that they have achieved their attempt to be recognized and for the issues they stand for to be acknowledged. Be it with Greenpeace, the local iHuman project, or Ted Kerr’s photos... we are aware of their message, whether or not we believe in it.

Political Cartoons Regarding Alberta's Energy Economy

I was looking at some of Malcom Mayes' editorial cartoons that he creates for the Edmonton Journal, and in the archive from March until now, I have found many that are relevant to Alberta's energy economy. Here they are!

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Concert+review+Nickelback/3101983/Malcolm+Mayes+Cartoon/1007472/story.html

CSL Response

In response to Matthew’s blog post, I myself also see that although Ted Kerr claims himself to be a non-biased artist, his personal views on the Shell’s artist-in-residence project point him in a different direction. His apprehension towards sharing his sexual preference with the workers he was interacting with on a daily basis tread the line between himself hiding it for the benefit of his art and him neglecting to share it for fear of the workers shunning him because of it. To look deeper into Kerr’s hesitance, I have chosen to focus on the realization that a majority of the workers at this particular worksite were men. Within Alberta’s energy economy, women are not assumed to take part in the dirty jobs of the work; such as pipelining, swamping, etc. Perhaps this is not only a thought of Kerr’s, but an assumption that is shared by Albertans in general. Kerr discusses how “anybody growing up in Alberta has a mythical love of those industrial scenes,” and his focus instead shifted from the industry part of the work, to the human faces of those who conduct the work itself.

Yet it is not only Kerr that has preconceived assumptions. I assumed that when discussing an artist-in-residence for Shell, that I’d be observing paintings and perhaps murals. Not photography as an art form. This reflects back on class when we discuss what constitutes as art, and whether or not it is activist in nature. Kerr understands himself to be an artist freshly starting his first job within a paid position, and because he was hired by a large transnational corporation, it is clear that he was intimidated with the results that he was going to provide Shell with. Perhaps his work was biased to begin with, in regards to his acknowledgement that, “the early shots were static, as if I were compiling a human resources brochure. I was battling the urge to be pleasing.” But after looking at the pictures he concluded his placement with, it is clear that he no longer looked at Shell as an intimidating factor in making or breaking his career. Instead, he turned his lens to the workers as people with stories and a passion for their work. It is when he changed his stance on what work he was going to be presenting to Shell, that his work shows the passion for his art and the story he wants to tell through his photos. By putting faces on the energy economy of Alberta, it humanizes the work and personalizes the statistics and readings we read in class.

Critical Engagement Post #1: Burtinsky's Visual Response to Alberta's Energy Economy

Edward Burtinsky’s photographs titled Oil, featured in one of 2009’s National Geographic magazines, literally gives us a picture of what we have discussed in class, during the speaker series, and read within the assigned readings. It is said that a picture is “worth a thousand words”, and this expression could not be more true when observing Burtinsky’s work within this article. Words that came to my mind, were ones that drew conflicting ideas within my mind. For example, the river was beautiful, yet the threat of the tailings ponds leaching in and becoming the possible cause of high rates of cancers in Fort Chipewyan caused myself to be rather frustrated when looking at the series of photographs.

As stated within the article, “the oil can be further refined into gasoline or jet fuel” at one of the numerous upgrading facilities at Fort McMurray. I’d like to calm my inner conscience by saying that my lifestyle does not further the Tar Sands (and other oil extraction endeavours within Alberta), but in reality, I know this statement is not true. I’m guilty of having flown in airplanes, driving in cars, and using products that have been made with petrochemicals. Even though I ride the bus and recycle everything that I possibly can, I know that the global movement of reliance on non-renewable resources puts everyone within a contradiction. How can we live ‘green’, yet fully function within a society built on and around an energy economy?

My bookshelf at home is yellow top to bottom, due to it being weighed down with the signature yellow bindings of National Geographic. So these pictures were not necessarily new to me. Yet, I appreciate them within a whole other context now. Drawing on the information that I have learned about the Lubicon Cree and their own struggles with oil and gas extraction on their lands, and the presentations during the speaker series that seem to come back to the Tar Sands (such as Sherri Chaba and Brenda Kin Christiansen’s stories of travelling to Fort McMurray for their projects), I have a very different opinion on this series of Burtinsky’s photographs.

Before, I simply appreciated these pictures within the article for their compelling comparison between nature within the shots, and the man-made destruction that is ever present within each one. But now I know the political struggles and human resistance that is all related to the rate of destruction for the sake of bitumen extraction that is occurring within our very backyard. But seeing as how the article first came out last year and much attention was paid to it, did it really change things? The Tar Sands continue to grow, so is the visual representation of the destruction and harm caused to the environment and people effective? Or simply something that may catch a persons attention before they move on, forgetting the images that they have seen?

Bibliography:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/essick-photography

And the Tar Sands Just Keep on Growing With the Possibility of a Cross-Border Pipeline...

Great Falls, Montana — The Associated Press Published on Sunday, May. 16, 2010 12:27AM EDT Last updated on Sunday, May. 16, 2010 12:32AM EDT

Public hearings in Montana are being held this week to discuss a plan to build a pipeline through eastern Montana to move crude extracted from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries in the United States.

Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. aims to start construction this year on the nearly 3,200-kilometre-long Keystone XL pipeline.

The first of six meetings is planned for Monday in Malta. Additional meetings are set in Glasgow, Terry, Circle and Glendive. The final meeting is Thursday in Baker.TransCanada is proposing to pay landowners for the right to install pipe a little more than a metre underground.

“I would like to encourage all citizens, if they have any concerns about the safety and environmental impact of this, to go to the comment periods and speak up,” said Sandra Barnick, a landowner in the path of the pipeline and one of 40 members of the Northern Pipeline Landowners Group.

“What we are taking a stand on is making sure we are treated fairly and that regulations are adhered to and that there is equitable compensation for everybody along the pipeline,” Ms. Barnick said.

Jeff Rauh, TransCanada spokesman, said a draft environmental study found the impact of a potential oil spill to be minimal, and the pipeline could be shut down if there were a problem.“The risk of an oil spill is small,” Mr. Rauh said. “If a spill occurred, the volume spilled would likely be small.”

Tom Ring, of the state Department of Environmental Quality, said the state's preferred route for the pipeline is slightly different from the one proposed by TransCanada to limit impacts on stream crossings and landowners.

Under political pressure, the company said it is considering letting Montana and North Dakota crude oil into the pipeline. The company previously rebuffed calls to build an “onramp” for crude from the Bakken oil fields of Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan, saying there was insufficient demand.

The Bakken formation holds an estimated 3.65 billion barrels of oil, much less than the 1.7 trillion barrels of petroleum in the oil sands.


(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/debate-over-cross-border-pipeline-poised-to-heat-up-at-us-town-halls/article1570420/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheGlobeAndMail-National+(The+Globe+and+Mail+-+National+News)&utm_content=Google+International)

The Culture of Resistance Response

In response to Derek's blog, The Culture of Resistance (May 11th), which reflects on Aritha van Herk's article, Who You Callin' Cultured, I must say that I agree with essentially every point that he makes regarding Alberta and it's social tug-of-war with the arts and what is considered by the average Albertan to be 'art'. The title itself, with it's intentional use of slang (Callin'), the reader is made aware from the get go that Albertans are not necessarily the most cultured citizens. It's not that we don't have every opportunity to attend museums, concerts, performances, etc, but rather the conundrum is why DON'T Albertans attend such celebrations of art?

But with every additional class that we debate the definition of what 'art' is and where we can find it, it has challenged each of us to challenge our own preconceived notions as to where we can find art, and what art we're looking for. As Derek touched on, we are a culture of hockey, oversized vehicles, and general rowdiness that is anything but refined, let alone considered to be 'high culture.' But when a serious message needs to cross the public spectrum, there is a rising number of people and groups that work towards penetrating the silence and spreading public awareness. Such groups, as Derek mentioned, are the Garneau Sisterhood, Community Response Project, etc. As van Herk mentions within her article, as an artist in Alberta joining forces with other artists, they "nudge Alberta with sarcasm and laughter and tough critique, even if Alberta turns a conveniently deaf ear." When reading this article a second time, I recalled once hearing the expression, 'there's truth in jest.' By agitating and rubbing Alberta's stubborn 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mentality, an artist here may be able to cause enough friction to receive a reaction.

Our culture here is one that revolves between hockey in the winter, basketball in the spring, construction in the summer, and back-to-school blues in autumn. This consistency has made it easy for us to fall into our routine without so much as a hiccup. But when culture makes an attempt to crack our seeming ignorance towards it, culture does not always come out on top. van Herk asks the question, "how much does art reveal about our dark side, our intolerance, our oblique cruelty, our dismissive ignorance of those in trouble and marginalized?" She touches on our day to day hands on culture that consists of our constant involvement with nature and sports, farming, fishing, and family traditions. But it is her statement that in regards to our culture, albeit how unrefined it may seem to an outsider, that "it may seem quotidian, reductive and even embarrassing in its rather raw utility, but it is a culture." Whether resisting, accepting, ignoring, or embracing our culture... it's just that. A culture. And our interaction with it may be intense, or minimal; but regardless, every Albertan takes part in our culture, and every Albertan has the possibility of being able to change it for better or worse.

Bibliography

van Herk, Aritha. Who You Callin' Cultured. Alberta Views Dec 2005/Jan 2006.