Field Exercise #2-NHCC Art Museum

          It’s been a while since I have been in an art museum.  I almost forgot how delicate the surroundings are.  When the three of us walked into the museum the security woman reminded us the rules we are to follow in such a fragile place.  After we were informed of the simple rules, it went completely silent with the faint sound of music coming from hidden speakers.  We allowed ourselves to separate and explore all of the pieces, each one speaking to us in a different way.    

I found myself rather fond of some artwork.  The materials used in some were so bizarre it made me wonder how someone would get such an idea.  One piece in particular was called El Sueno de Matachire, a microchip piece made of: circuit board, wire, resistors, ribbon, cable, a copper circuit board and audio plugs.  The artist, Marion Martinez put these materials together to create a religious scene of a woman on a pathway leading towards a church.  It was very beautiful and I couldn’t wrap my mind around how he made electrical circuits and wiring send such a powerful message. 

The concept of art is used to show the mind of an artist.  We look at an art piece and realize that we are seeing the imagination of an artist come to life.  It was hard not to notice horror and heartbreak from people who express these feelings with nothing but colors spread onto canvas.  Every piece of artwork had a story behind it whether it was seen as negative or positive, either way it was expressed with beauty.  -I couldn't find the El Sueno piece but this is the type of work done by Marion Martinez

Field Observation: National Hispanic Cultural Center

Sonora: During our field observation at the National Hispanic Cultural Center located in the Barelas Neighborhood on 4^th and Avenída Cesar Chávez, I found myself in a very familiar place. As I was observing the outside infrastructure, the foyer was quiet and empty, the tall stairs adjacent to the Art Museum seemed like the mimicry the ancient pyramids in Mexico. The site also had flagpoles of the different countries in Latin America. The positioning of these flagpoles were very interesting because at the very front was Spain’s flag, excluded from the other flags. I also noticed that there was no Mexican flag, which I also thought was curious.

Reading Response #8

The idea of creating value standards and mapping economic concerns onto nature is both practical and depressing. On one hand, nature does have value, and it’s important that we realize and protect that. I feel that finding balance between the movement to protect nature at all costs and the faction that wants to exploit nature for profit is the only way to come up with a reasonable, actionable environmental plan. Many people simply aren’t moved by arguments that nature is sacred and that we are one with the environment, so assigning value in terms of capital is a way to show this value more logically. However, the author’s point that there are some things that cannot only be assessed in monetary terms is very accurate. It’s sad that we have to resort to putting a monetary value on nature to fight for its conservation.

Pathologies of Power is more accessible, and thus far, more inciting. A few years ago, I read Bravo for the Marshallese, which details the impacts of nuclear weapons testing on the people of the Marshall Islands. I thought at the time that his was an extreme example of environmental injustice, but have since become aware of a number of other examples, such as those detailed in this book. Human rights violations often occur in the pursuit of the dominant group’s goals, and those who have been hurt are often left with very little recourse. It’s horrifying that the right to health, the keystone to quality of life, is so easily violated in the pursuit of power.

Reading Response From "Environmentalism of the Poor"

       On page ix of the introduction Martinez-Alier points to environmental solutions emerging from a change in our economics. While I agree with a need to change our economic structure along with our environmental attitudes, changing economics in order to change environmental politics is a task that is tantamount to our nation's difficult transition from the period in which we had an economy based on slavery to the period of Reconstruction. In many ways we still exploit people to meet the same ends that slavery existed to. Beyond simply sweat shops producing cheap goods, we are also exploiting land rights, mineral rights, and other aspects of the troubled economics of the third world. We now generally turn a blind eye to those effected by our economic misdeeds, because they are not in our own backyards anymore, they are thousands of miles away, maybe even across an ocean, speaking different languages, living lives that seem to hardly resemble what we can relate to. Yet, we are dependent upon those people for the way of life we are familiar with, lest we endure some reconstruction of our current way of life.

        At our current level of understanding and confusion over environmental and economic practices being intertwined, clarifying rhetoric is essential – just as it was to rally people around the abolition of slavery. While The Environmentalism of the Poor might not be the most far reaching variety of rhetoric, it does seem to be an important piece of the foundation necessary for environmental-economic rhetoric to grow. Though The Environmentalism of the Poor is a bit utopian or, perhaps, a bit too “all encompassing” in its considerations on economic and environmental changes, it is rich with great ideas on economic and ecological intersections. Even with the daunting scope of this book there are certain simple takeaways that I feel make this book really important.

Excerpt of Field Exercise #2, Chaco Canyon: Christina, Bailey, Josh, and Lauren

For our field exercise, our group attended the Chaco Canyon field trip and made observations as we explored the landscape and the ruins. Some of our observations are recorded here.

Bailey: The one thing that bothered me entirely was the fact that there was reconstruction of the original structure. Our tour guide was very happy that they had to reconstruct and alter the original scene. I started thinking to myself, it’s just like an entitled American to believe they are right when changing things and other cultures that do not fit with their own way of living. The white man came in and decided to wreck ancient history because they wanted to preserve it their way. And also taking credit for a structure that was built by thousands of people before you is disrespectful in my opinion. I fully lost interest in the tour when I learned more about the reconstruction. It was more than just a wall they fixed the rangers just went in and modified what they thought needed to be modified instead of letting the natural environment take over like Dr. Kells stated. It would still be there but it just wouldn’t be fabricated as much as it is now.

Christina: At Chaco Canyon, I was most interested in the rhetoric used to discuss land and inanimate objects in the video we watched when we first arrived at the park, and with the juxtaposition between the use of land in the video vs in the national park system. In the movie, the land was spoken of in very human-like terms and it was clearly very well-respected. A Pueblo woman discussed going into kivas – places of worship built in the ground – as “going back into the womb.” A statement like this both humanizes the land and recognizes it as a place of beginning, where all life comes from. A Navajo man in the film discussed the earth and origins of people in similar ways. When discussing the sacred mountains, he described them as the center of all life, where people were born from the earth. He also spoke of the artifacts that could be found in Chaco Canyon, and instead of giving the typical reason not to steal from the park (to preserve the park for future generations), he was more concerned about the life cycle of the artifacts than about the people who might visit the park and not see the artifacts. He said that the pot shards “are living themselves and need to return to where they need to go.”

Lauren: I was impressed with the fairly advanced architecture of Pueblo Bonito, and curious about the true purpose of the structure. I think I agree most with theories that it was used as a trade center, especially with the goods that were found in the rooms and the sheer size of the pueblo in contrast with what it could realistically support. I also think the sheer grandeur of the pueblo was very intentional, probably to impress visitors—which is continues to do centuries later! Although I appreciate the idea of letting the ruins return to nature, I’m glad they have been preserved. I think that the site has immense cultural value, and offers insight into the people of the past. It’s a privilege to be able to visit a site with so much history, and I don’t think that protecting this site is wrong. Rather, the reconstruction and visitors are adding to its history.

Reader Response: Environmentalism of the Poor

Reader Response

One of the aspects of the reading which most caught my attention was in Chapter 2 of Environmentalism of the Poor when Mart’inez discusses “the relationship between environmental conflicts and the language of valuation” (18). Mart’inez identifies the difficulties involved in applying economics to the environment by showing the multiplicity of aspects needed to be taken into account when trying to calculate the value of an environmental space. The profitability of a piece of land is not the only thing that must be considered, so too the value of the space as an ecosystem and its aesthetic value should be weighed up. But how is it really possible to combine and compare these different qualities? How can we measure how visually or sensually pleasing a space is or how this can be held up against the importance of the space to wildlife? Mart’inez refers to the possibility of creating a “super value”, however he also outlines the mutability of such a value judgement.

The problem to which Mart’inez refers is a real topic that needs to be considered and discussed. It is all too unfortunate that in current times it seems as though the profitability of land is often considered before the other factors which may be comparably as important if not more so. Mart’inez’s challenge to the idea that a better economy means a more sustainable lifestyle also seems significant. As he points out, more money does not necessarily mean more investment in conservation or preservation, but rather it often leads to a greater output of greenhouse gasses and higher use of resources. As a result the sustainability of development and the possible impacts of a development on the environment is another factor that needs to be considered.

The references made to Marxist ideas are also interesting. The Marxist notion of the “fetishism” of commodities relates to the environment because it implies the illusory nature of value. Marx discusses objects or commodities but the idea is also fitting for the environment. The value given to the material world is based upon relational interactions and places and limited by time.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXFOVQsJYEs


I wanted to share this video because it has gotten me in the sprit of celebrating Farmworker Awareness Week and César Chávez and his life work.  Hope you enjoy!


"Mi mamá me dijo que sembrara flores que saliera al campo a buscar amores."
"My mother told me to plant flowers, to go out into the fields and look for love"

Field Exercise #2 

Chaco Canyon was memorable; I wanted to get to know the land just as much as the native rangers that lived there because it was nothing like I have seen before. I do live in the city so the openness of Chaco was astounding and appealing to me. I’ll start with my positive observation and will move into a more critical one, but don’t get me wrong it was life changing!

Positively speaking the structure/ building we stopped to see was Pueblo Bonito I believe. It was extremely large and covered around a football stadium. Most building today do not expand lengthwise they expand up. Pueblo Bonito did have different floors; I believe Kayla our tour guide said there were three stories up of the Pueblo. It was massive and impressive and took probably hundreds of years to complete by hand and ancient tools. The native people who still survive today do not remark Chaco Canyons Pueblos as Ruins, perhaps because it is still standing and the structure hasn’t changed much or because it is alive and well. The weather was indifferent and wanted to change every minute with a new challenge for us. I could only imagine what the residents of Chaco Canyon did to stay moderately stabilized. They probably had lots of fire in the winter and probably no clothes in the summer, until it rained. I noticed how structured the people of Pueblo Bonito were and how they must have had to work together to make their lifestyle work. They used every resource around them they could until it was exhausted and then moved on when the land couldn’t give them anything anymore in my opinion.

On a more critical note the one thing that bothered me entirely was the fact that there was reconstruction of the original structure. Our tour guide was very happy that they had to reconstruct and alter the original scene. I started thinking to myself, it’s just like an entitled American to believe they are right when changing things and other cultures that do not fit with their own way of living. The white man came in and decided to wreck ancient history because they wanted to preserve it their way. And also taking credit for a structure that was built by thousands of people before you is disrespectful in my opinion. I fully lost interest in the tour when I learned more about the reconstruction. It was more than just a wall they fixed the rangers just went in and modified what they thought needed to be modified instead of letting the natural environment take over like Dr. Kells stated. It would still be there but it just wouldn’t be fabricated as much as it is now. Christina mentioned that you could see the piping they used to try and hold “Death Rock” up with. I am not even sure what they named the rock but it didn’t come from the ancient people so in my opinion I could name the rock what even I want because Americans are entitled. If it doesn’t have a name, we name it. If it doesn’t have a purpose, we make it useful and if it isn’t beautiful we modify it. The mentality of Americans couldn’t be described better than that, again in my opinion.

All in all I enjoyed the experience of being in an ancient Pueblo and learning about the history from the short film and then being able to get out there and discover something I am not familiar with. I enjoyed the details of the place but did not like the guessing about the way things were for the people there. I know there an idea that we should try to put the pieces together about things we don’t know so that we can educate ourselves but when most of it is presumption and fact less it seems fabricated and what we want out of the ancient place not what actually went on. Bittersweet is the adjective I would use to describe my experience at Chaco Canyon. Maybe I will take a trip on my own and study the Pueblos myself.

Acequia Madre

Acequia Madre

 (For Jacob)

37^th Birthday

26 March 2014

 

 

 

Snow melt, spring waters

flowing, grace, mother stream

goes back to the sea.

 

I'm very much looking forward to visiting class tomorrow, and I've enjoyed very much your moving blogs, reflections, poems, mementos.  Your class assignments reminded me of my graduate student days at UNM.  I took an architecture class with Chris Wilson and wrote a reflection on Zimmerman Library.  Here's a small excerpt from that reflection, just to share a small part of my journey to becoming an academic in my home town:

Zimmerman Library continues to set the architectural limits of UNM’s burgeoning campus, and it remains the focal point of student activity.  Its visionary, John Gaw Meem, is the godfather of the state’s revivalist movement, and his work attests to the contradictory production of New Mexican history.  While Meem sought to maintain harmony with the state’s landscape and its indigenous cultures, he also (inadvertently, perhaps) produced a hybrid, modernist architectural movement.  Meem’s masterpiece, Zimmerman, marks a post-modern moment in the 1930s where pre-modern techniques came into contact with the modern industrial era.  The library attempted to erase its own colonial moment by refurbishing the campus look—from red bricks to pueblo revival—and in the process produced a contradictory cultural movement that continues to (re)define the narratives that shape the state’s history.  Indeed, Meem’s success is so pronounced in the state that beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, “developers began copying the most superficial characteristics of Pueblo Revival when turning out tract homes, offices and even airports, thus turning a style that started out as a curiosity into one intrinsically linked with the Southwest” (Eauclaire 28).  Meem’s Zimmerman Library spurred one of the most popular and lasting cultural movements in New Mexico’s architectural history.

Reading Response Exercise

Chapter 5, “The Environmental Impact Statement and the Rhetoric of Democracy” raises important questions about how rhetoric is and should be used as a tool. “Instrumental rationality” was a term that I had not come across before but I was interested to learn how governments' use it to steer public opinion by presenting a façade of personal choice and leeway but, in actuality, offering the public with options so limited that their choice is reduced almost to the point of nonexistence.

The alternative of “communicative rationality” in which a self-regulating system creates “imperatives [that] override the consciousness of the members integrating into them” sounds like an ideal democratic process of decision making. However I do worry that there me be some element of truth in the claim made by the instrumentalists that there is a potential for confusion within this system.

I find it interesting also to consider the rhetorical role that Killingsworth takes in Ecospeak. It is obvious that his bias is towards communicative rationality and favours public discourse that can be understood by the masses in contrast to the impenetrable scientific data produced by the creators of “instrumental rationality”. I do however find myself asking does this essay really make itself accessible to the masses? It is certainly not impenetrable like the governmental data the Killingsworth describes, but I wouldn't regard it as a user-friendly read either. Ecospeak resides very much within the realm of academic texts, which is by no means a problem, but it raises questions for me about how somebody from an academic position may be able to create rhetoric that is accessible to the masses, and what form this might take.  

Our Trip to Chaco Canyon

The canyons quickly humbled me, as the giant rocks, the open fields, and the open sky hovered over everyone and everything. I began to feel cold and meek, which disturbed me, because I suddenly didn’t feel as powerful with a roaming smartphone and a light jacket, as well as being outside of society. I could easily see why the people whom filled the lands, hundreds of years before our field trip, respected their environment so much. Mother nature seemed to be the key element to life and survival out in Chaco Canyon.

My favorite part of the trip was when we got to travel in and out of the ruins. Besides our class, we seemed to be in a group of older and educated people. These older people seemed to know some information about the area, and they would usually ask intelligent questions on the architecture of the buildings, or questions on what the people traded. The park ranger who answered these questions was very surprising. I figured that she would only speak of the geology of the area, since she was a geologist. But, the young woman knew facts, such as the agriculture of the people; the history after the natives left; turquoise as the people’s currency, all the way down to the pottery that contained chocolate that the people would trade for. She was like a human-computer, and very informative.

I learned a lot of about the area, and the people that once live in the area in our field trip. The trip was my first learning experience outside of the classroom, and I never got the feeling that our trip was part of a school activity. The trip felt like mini vacation, I was glad that I got to know my classmates, Professor Kells and her family, and myself a little more on our trip.