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
Ashling, you pose some very thought-provoking questions here, and I myself have considered these myself when reading the Burtynsky interview and looking over the Oil photography. Your first question “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?” makes a valid point, and I agree that the outlook is bleak in terms of how much of an effect Burtynsky’s work will have on ceasing or slowing down oil sands operations. I am reminded of Sherri Chaba’s feelings of futility in creating any change with her own art, and I guess the question we are asking is “is [activist] art futile?”
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, getting the photography and the article circulating in the first place has arguably already created a social change, as now people are more in tune with the reality of the devastation being left behind by oil sands development. I guess this is the point where we come back to the question “but is it enough?” and the only answer I can give is that only time will tell, because looking at the current situation, I do not think that the article has inspired any sort of (active) change within the oil industry itself, and only with time may we perhaps see a change brought about by individuals who were inspired by the article, who will work to make these changes take place.
In my opinion, this “work” needs to take place on the inside by powerful individuals who will respectfully lobby for the issue, as opposed to disrespectful and often violent protestors, such as those who demonstrated at Syncrude last summer. I do not believe that protesting often has the positive effect that motivates the act, but I realize that the change I am advocating for is also far-fetched, as powerful oil executives may not be willing to work against their own company, and this is why we see so much difficulty to get any sort of change in motion. Hopefully, work like Burtynsky’s will not end up as “simply something that may catch a persons attention before they move on, forgetting the images that they have seen,” and will provoke action-inspiring thought on an executive level within oil companies some day, and we will see our positive change.
In response to the question posed, “How can we live ‘green’, yet fully function within a society built on and around an energy economy?” I personally believe that everything we do makes a difference. So whether that be, ride your bicycle everywhere or pick up litter in your community, you are making a difference. I think that we have to believe in what we are doing and that it will make a change. Otherwise I find the outlook on the world to be rather bleak and frankly very depressing. It is although, very difficult to live a truly ‘green’ life in the world we live in due to the mass reliance upon the oil economy.
ReplyDeleteBurtynsky makes a valid point when he states, “Every living being takes from the earth, There is no creature that doesn’t need something... We’ve always taken resources from our planet for survival, but what changed dramatically... are the explosive numbers of humans involved and the rate at which they are taking the earth’s resources”(43). I found his point rather intriguing and it helped me find a new understanding to the concept of ‘green’ living. Living ‘green’ within our society, to me, means living within our means and respecting the environment we live in. We need to recognize the land and the environment we live on and find a mutual respect for it. We will need to live off the land but we must respect it too. I think we can take a look at Aboriginal communities and learn from the respect they have for the environment and perhaps practice it in our own lives.
The points made in the article regarding the rate at which the world’s resources are being depleted provide for a better understanding in why Burtynsky takes the photographs he takes. As we discussed the issue in class during the last few weeks, we struggled with the dilemma of Burtynsky’s work and exactly what it truly represents. After he states “my work is dedicated to seeking out a landscape that speaks to this global dilemma (resource extraction)”(43), I found myself drawn to read and research more into his work. He simply takes the photograph to “preserve the moment”(48). Through the use of a photograph one individual can cause others learn and think. His passion is to elicit emotions and reactions to his photographs that he himself finds fascinating.
The irony of the situation is that I am not sure if there is an correct answer to his reasoning behind his photographs. He takes them due to being intrigued by the depleting landscapes and unseen territories. It is acknowledged that every photograph means something different to each individual and Burtynsky plays with that. The quotation, “Cultural objects, art objects are things made by artists to give you the opportunity of creating something your mind”(50) leads me to think it is not important what the artist is trying to convey, what is important is your own thoughts and impressions.
In keeping with the theme of 'change' brought up in your questions, I'd like to point out that I don't think Burtynsky is setting out to create tangible change with his art. I admit I could be missing something in my quick read of his interview with Craig Campbell, but I took his intentions to be more philosophical in nature, and while this doesn't preclude the intention of his work being to evoke change--or the potential for his work to create change--it's clear (to me) that he's not doing this in the name of securing a more positive future. I'm not even sure you or Ana or Sarah believe this, but I thought it might help to clear the air first.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I'd like to think Burtynski's work has made some headway, even in the way it has influenced other artists. In the interview, he says that his goal is to facilitate "reactions that don't end at [the] image itself but allow for the launch into a larger discussion of things that truly matter." I'd say he's met his goal, and perhaps more easily than the more polemic approaches often employed by self-identified environmental activists like the ones Ana mentions (though I'd like to point out that direct action isn't synonymous with violence and disrespect). Still, coming back to Burtynski's emphasis on interconnectedness, multiple approaches are needed to create real change. How do we measure that change? I'm not sure, but we'd be wise to keep Shakesville's mantra in mind: creating change in this world is like emptying the ocean one teaspoon at a time.
On a final note, addressing your question regarding awareness, I'm about as skeptical about the idea that awareness facilitates change as I am about the idea that single people recycling and riding their bicycles does. (Sorry, Sarah.) My best and most depressing example is that of the missing and murdered Indigenous women. There have been a lot of efforts to create awareness, but it doesn't seem to have done much good, probably because awareness doesn't do much to challenge our racism or egotism we begin learning as children. Again, our approach to change needs to be multi-faceted.
And finally (I lied), a short point to address Sarah's comment, inspired by an article at Jezebel (I think) I read a while back. Depression and unhappiness have their uses in the world. So long as we're happy and believe enough is being done to change the way this world is run, we won't do anything more to make things happen. Happiness is good and all, but it has its dangers, too.
I agree with Ashling that it is unnerving to see the devastation we have caused further it is frustrating to realize that a work which has spanned over 25 years has in reality had little impact. It is definitely a benefit that works such as these spark conversation and awareness around the issue. However, awareness, ideas and conversation have to be paired with actions. Presumably those actions will be sparked by high prices, shortages and the eventual disappearance of natural resources, my hope is that we are not that ignorant.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that you bring up the phrase that a picture is ‘worth a thousand words’. Although Burtynsky’s work is impactful I’m not sure if it would have the same impact on me had I not been given the context through taking this class. In his interview with Craig Campbell, Burtynsky states “...I don’t necessarily think that any given photograph is either entirely truthful (or entirely fictional).” Therefore the ‘thousand’ words give the photograph its context and its meaning especially when it comes to Burtynsky’s particular style of blurring the lines between art and documentary photography.
After going through Burtynskys work I’m torn between the same issues as Ashling, is it possible to sit on the fence between environmental peril and an energy driven economy? I believe that living in Alberta naturally puts us at risk of hypocrisy; therefore (and here I agree with Sarah) I hold on to the idea that every little bit counts and even though major changes are nowhere to be seen, everyone doing a little will provide some sort of Band-Aid solution for now. To address your question regarding change, creative responses such us Burtynsky’s, Chaba’s and Christiansen’s hopefully create a little ripple that will inspire the waves of change. Education on how to do things better (greener) is another major promoter of change; some of us would not be asking these questions had we not been exposed to CSL 350. These are not enormous social movements but in truth at this point it seems to be all we have.