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.

Response to Steph's "Critical Engagement Post #1 – Art as Activism" post.

Steph’s interpretation of Nina Felshin’s, But is it Art?: The Spirit of Art as Activism, addresses questions that had arisen in my own mind regarding the reading selection. What is the difference between being an activist, and activist art (if there is a difference at all)? What qualifies the art as being “public”? And as to whether or not Edward Burtinsky is to be considered as an activist, or as someone that is the means to providing said “activist art”.

As we discussed thoroughly within class, because an artist has produced what is to be considered as activist art, they are not necessarily an activist themselves. As is the case with all works of art, the interpretation is to be left up to the viewer of the piece(s). When a viewer raises questions or personally interprets their own meaning of the art that they are observing, then that would qualify the pieces to be works of art. In regards to public art, that interpretation is also what defines the art as actually being “public”. Felshin discusses that activist art does not always conform to traditional methods of the sharing of art (such as in galleries, etc), but at exhibitions, on billboards, etc. But as Derek pointed out in class, a public art showing of activist art in Edmonton’s Churchill Square, is not going to be seen by the larger public. Location is what matters when the public art is displayed, and in a city like Edmonton, not everyone is going to be on that side of the city, let alone walking through the square (we’re a large city with sprawl, therefore commuters do not always pass through that specific area).

In my own opinion, word of mouth can perhaps be the simplest way to participate in activism, as long as the facts are straight. This is a simpler form of activism, but activism nonetheless. Edward Burtinsky on the other hand, uses his camera and photography skills as his method of providing activists with the art that they react to. By doing so, IS it actually activist are that he is partaking in? Or is he more simply, an activist that is using his art as a way of educating the greater public on issues such as the Tar Sands, etc. I see Burtinsky as an activist, yes, because he sees where change is needed, and provides the necessary tools that are required to spread awareness. The photographs that he takes are seen from his own point of view, propagate his desire for more attention to be paid to global issues that affect us all; in either a major or minor way. Steph’s post had raised a few questions in my own mind that I went back to the reading selection to answer. By Felshin addressing the beginnings of activist art being used as a way to further the message that activism is spreading, I was intrigued by how thorough she was in explaining the roots of it. Activist art is not something new, but it is consistently being brought to the forefront to spread awareness of issues. I now question what I had considered to be as art, and am curious as to just how much art, primarily in Alberta, focuses on the energy economy, and how much of it is considered to be activist art within the public sphere.