So, I just made a really long comment on Michael Pollan's actual video on plants, so I'll just relegate some things I learned from it. The deep struggle I had with the video was Pollan's personification of plants as if they were intelligent beings with consciousness. Really, all Pollan was trying to point out was the fact that the plants intelligently evolved in order to be spread all throughout the world. For example, corn was originally domesticated in only one part of the world, but was eventually globalized due to its popularity. This is also my struggle sometimes with art. I need to start to see things from others' perspectives, as I believe I have a somewhat myopic view of the world, and especially the interpretation of art. Also, I do think it's amazing that rice has thousands of more genes than humans. I guess that speaks for how complex the simple things really are.
Essentially outlined here is the need for a shift in perspective, for a re-seeing of the world in the light of the subject. Often, the subject of art is described either as an individual distinct from the artist (who becomes essentially a journalist) or an indirect and subconscious reflection of the artist (where the artist becomes the master of the creation). But, much like corn can be seen as having conquered the human race and progressed its existence, the subject need also be perceived as the dictator of the artist, creating meaning out of its own existence. Moreover, more focus must be placed on how the environment of the artist creates the meaning he or she is trying to achieve in their work and not the opposite, which is commonly espoused.
I absolutely loved the comment, "we have a grammar that suggests that we are sovereign subjects in nature...but what if that grammar is nothing more than a self serving conceit." As Americans it is very hard for us to imagine that something other than us in our own intelligence and through the understanding of the laws of science can be probing our actions and decisions. I would not say this issue is one that is found world wide as many other cultures perceive life through the lens of all things working in equal harmony to keep the world in balance. The idea of the all or nothing conquering nature point of view is very European/ American, and so this talk was presented from that perspective, which is another avenue of perspective which was overlooked in the totality of the perspective idea.
Another quick note about the idea of nature exploiting people: in regards to corn being converted to ethononl, this mass production of corn is still people believing that we know better than nature. In innovating to combat global warming (an issue caused by an earlier innovation) and deciding that corn is better used as fuel than food, we have neglected to consider the impact of this increase in demand on world food rices, and have left many in least developed nations with the burden of greatly inflated prices and the inability to afford a food that is a staple in their diets. Additionally, if this is corn's cleaver way of taking over the world, it wasn't too cleaver. The take over has lead to an agricultural monoculture which depletes the soil of all nutrients and makes fertilizer necessary in order to render the soils usable. However, in turn, the use of fertilizer causes hypoxia in water ways that depletes water of oxygen resulting in mass fish kills and wide spread water pollution. As environmentalist fight to outlaw the use of fertilizers, these species of corn, many of which cannot be consumed in their current states, but must be processed for consumption, will be obsolete as they cannot grow in the nutrient depleted soils, meaning in the end the corn loses. However, this loss is not the fault of the corn, but still the result of people believing they know best and ignoring the natural growth patterns and needs of nature. So to say that nature exploits us to get what it wants is to overlook the ways in which our supposed exploitation actually hurts the exploiter.
I see this Ted talk as relating to the previous one we watched. That one challenged us to look at the world as through a different lens. This video dares us to come face to face with the fact that we are not always calling all the shots. In the previous video, engineers discovered the power and ingenuity of nature. Pollan challenges us to realize that nature is not something we can control. The developments that we have come about with have been codeveloped between both man and nature. We work together to create something new and beautiful. In our class, we can work with nature to create beautiful photos.
I agree with Grace here. Michael Pollan really has revolutionary ideas regarding agriculture and his idea that nature is calling the shots, contrary to our belief that gardeners or farmers have the ability to choose what type of crop to grow is very interesting and makes sense when thought about deeper. Using an evolutionary lens it makes sense that nature will always have the power in growing crops etc. Taking this idea over to art is, as Grace suggests, accepting that us humans cannot overpower the earth (something many people are not willing to believe) and instead working with it to create a greater form of beauty.
This TED Talk blew my mind a little bit. The agricultural model presented is amazing and something that seems very basic, almost like common sense, once explained but that most people, myself included, would never have thought of. I think it is fascinating how much food the farmer mentioned in the video was able to get from the space that he had and the fact that he was able to do this while making the land more fertile. This being said, I don't have any point of comparison for the production numbers mentioned so it might not be nearly as much food as I thought. Regardless of the food production, it is really cool that he is able to farm while increasing the fertility of the land. Traditional farming techniques involve reducing the fertility of the land which means that chemical fertilizers are often used so that crops can continue to be grown in "exhausted" fields. They also involve growing food for livestock completely separately from the livestock in a lot of cases. An example of this is that farmers might have fields of corn that go to feeding chickens. The method presented in the video is much more efficient and sustainable; it could really solve a lot of problems that we face today.
I also thought it was really interesting how the speaker was talking about looking at things from the plants' points of view. I had never really thought about how agriculture benefits the plants as far as spreading genes and raising large populations goes. It actually makes a lot of sense though and is really cool. I think this goes back to what we have talked about in class with different perspectives because if you take a look at our society from a potato's point of view then everything suddenly looks much different.
doth not brutus bootless kneel
ReplyDeleteSo, I just made a really long comment on Michael Pollan's actual video on plants, so I'll just relegate some things I learned from it. The deep struggle I had with the video was Pollan's personification of plants as if they were intelligent beings with consciousness. Really, all Pollan was trying to point out was the fact that the plants intelligently evolved in order to be spread all throughout the world. For example, corn was originally domesticated in only one part of the world, but was eventually globalized due to its popularity. This is also my struggle sometimes with art. I need to start to see things from others' perspectives, as I believe I have a somewhat myopic view of the world, and especially the interpretation of art. Also, I do think it's amazing that rice has thousands of more genes than humans. I guess that speaks for how complex the simple things really are.
DeleteEssentially outlined here is the need for a shift in perspective, for a re-seeing of the world in the light of the subject. Often, the subject of art is described either as an individual distinct from the artist (who becomes essentially a journalist) or an indirect and subconscious reflection of the artist (where the artist becomes the master of the creation). But, much like corn can be seen as having conquered the human race and progressed its existence, the subject need also be perceived as the dictator of the artist, creating meaning out of its own existence. Moreover, more focus must be placed on how the environment of the artist creates the meaning he or she is trying to achieve in their work and not the opposite, which is commonly espoused.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved the comment, "we have a grammar that suggests that we are sovereign subjects in nature...but what if that grammar is nothing more than a self serving conceit." As Americans it is very hard for us to imagine that something other than us in our own intelligence and through the understanding of the laws of science can be probing our actions and decisions. I would not say this issue is one that is found world wide as many other cultures perceive life through the lens of all things working in equal harmony to keep the world in balance. The idea of the all or nothing conquering nature point of view is very European/ American, and so this talk was presented from that perspective, which is another avenue of perspective which was overlooked in the totality of the perspective idea.
ReplyDeleteAnother quick note about the idea of nature exploiting people: in regards to corn being converted to ethononl, this mass production of corn is still people believing that we know better than nature. In innovating to combat global warming (an issue caused by an earlier innovation) and deciding that corn is better used as fuel than food, we have neglected to consider the impact of this increase in demand on world food rices, and have left many in least developed nations with the burden of greatly inflated prices and the inability to afford a food that is a staple in their diets. Additionally, if this is corn's cleaver way of taking over the world, it wasn't too cleaver. The take over has lead to an agricultural monoculture which depletes the soil of all nutrients and makes fertilizer necessary in order to render the soils usable. However, in turn, the use of fertilizer causes hypoxia in water ways that depletes water of oxygen resulting in mass fish kills and wide spread water pollution. As environmentalist fight to outlaw the use of fertilizers, these species of corn, many of which cannot be consumed in their current states, but must be processed for consumption, will be obsolete as they cannot grow in the nutrient depleted soils, meaning in the end the corn loses. However, this loss is not the fault of the corn, but still the result of people believing they know best and ignoring the natural growth patterns and needs of nature. So to say that nature exploits us to get what it wants is to overlook the ways in which our supposed exploitation actually hurts the exploiter.
I see this Ted talk as relating to the previous one we watched. That one challenged us to look at the world as through a different lens. This video dares us to come face to face with the fact that we are not always calling all the shots. In the previous video, engineers discovered the power and ingenuity of nature. Pollan challenges us to realize that nature is not something we can control. The developments that we have come about with have been codeveloped between both man and nature. We work together to create something new and beautiful. In our class, we can work with nature to create beautiful photos.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grace here. Michael Pollan really has revolutionary ideas regarding agriculture and his idea that nature is calling the shots, contrary to our belief that gardeners or farmers have the ability to choose what type of crop to grow is very interesting and makes sense when thought about deeper. Using an evolutionary lens it makes sense that nature will always have the power in growing crops etc. Taking this idea over to art is, as Grace suggests, accepting that us humans cannot overpower the earth (something many people are not willing to believe) and instead working with it to create a greater form of beauty.
DeleteThis TED Talk blew my mind a little bit. The agricultural model presented is amazing and something that seems very basic, almost like common sense, once explained but that most people, myself included, would never have thought of. I think it is fascinating how much food the farmer mentioned in the video was able to get from the space that he had and the fact that he was able to do this while making the land more fertile. This being said, I don't have any point of comparison for the production numbers mentioned so it might not be nearly as much food as I thought. Regardless of the food production, it is really cool that he is able to farm while increasing the fertility of the land. Traditional farming techniques involve reducing the fertility of the land which means that chemical fertilizers are often used so that crops can continue to be grown in "exhausted" fields. They also involve growing food for livestock completely separately from the livestock in a lot of cases. An example of this is that farmers might have fields of corn that go to feeding chickens. The method presented in the video is much more efficient and sustainable; it could really solve a lot of problems that we face today.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was really interesting how the speaker was talking about looking at things from the plants' points of view. I had never really thought about how agriculture benefits the plants as far as spreading genes and raising large populations goes. It actually makes a lot of sense though and is really cool. I think this goes back to what we have talked about in class with different perspectives because if you take a look at our society from a potato's point of view then everything suddenly looks much different.