My Baby

What if I never had a baby.

If I never had a baby, I would never be pregnant

Never feel that joining of me and another.

Never feel that kick from the inside.

I might never fall that deeply in love at first sight, or even before.

If I never had a baby, she would never have her first steps.

She would never make a twisted face when she first tastes a lemon.

She would never howl in the darkness of midnight

or fall bare-bottomed in the summer grass.

If I never had a baby, she would never buy a computer.

She wouldn’t work at her first job and save up to buy her first car.

My baby would never fly in a plane and travel to other countries.

She would never cut down a tree to build her home or buy oil to heat it.

She would never leave the lights on or step on an ant.

If I never had a baby, she would never be an annual birth statistic

or add to our population.

She would never consume resources or have a footprint.

She would never have to struggle and suffer in a future of climate change.

My baby would never endanger the wilderness and take the lives of others.

If I never have a baby, I would be a little sad, but try to be a little more proud.

If I never had a baby, it would benefit all living things,

even if I know she would be beautiful.

Pangolin Clothing Company

Justin Allen is a friend of mine who lives in Western Massachusetts. He has started a clothing company that raises awareness about endangered species as well as helps contribute to their conservation.  Justin and his co-founder, Craig Velozo, are building their company and starting to work with other artists as well, to design more work and help protect some of our most endangered animals. 

Some Pangolin models getting their wild on!

Currently they have a small collection of designs, which are consciously made and sourced. They buy their shirts from American Apparel, ensuring the socially-just production of their products. Each of the shirts cost a mere $25 and they donate at the minimum of 50% of their profits to conservation of the animals they highlight. 

A happy Pangolin T-shirt owner

In their own words: "Founded in July 2014 by Justin Allen and Craig Velozo, Pangolin launched with a few simple goals in mind: Create unique clothing that stands on its own, provide support and protection to endangered animals, and raise awareness about what’s being done to help."

Red panda design from Pangolin

Check it out and support them here: http://www.pangolinclothingcompany.com

Tricia Zimic

In delicate palettes and dynamic compositions, Tricia Zimic juxtaposes native wildlife with cityscapes to address how human society affects the natural environment. Zimic works in as a re-forester and make some of her art based on things she sees and experiences in the field. She works in porcelain sculpture as well as in oil paint. She researches the conservation status of her subject matter and then explores interesting ways of portraying them and their story. She shows a bobcat in the city, a salamander next to its beer can home, the battle between native and invasive species, and haunting images of toxic landscapes where our very survival is questioned. 

"To me, these pieces are as fragile as the true animals and remain a record of what we have with us today but may lose tomorrow." -Tricia Zimic

The Garden of Earthly Delights: As it is
A triptych: As it was, As it is, and As it will be

Zimic with The Garden of Earthly Delights
In the description of this piece:
"Years ago Chief Seattle said to his tribesmen ‘What is man without beasts? If all beasts were gone, men would die from loneliness of spirit.  For whatever happens to beasts soon happens to man.'"

UprisingAddressing the contentious debate over the presence of wolves in and around human development. Here the wolves are taking back their territory that we have taken from them.

Zimic working on a sculpture.

Flight or Fight
Depicting a fight between native species of New Jersey and alien invasives from Europe.

What is useful anyways?

Although I understand why it happens, I frequently find myself asking "why?" Why are humans so self centered? Why does nature have to benefit humans to be valuable to us? Why is the anthropocentric world view so common and socially acceptable? 

"Oh, it is just human nature." "All species worry about themselves first." "That's natural." 

Maybe to a certain respect it is natural, or at least makes sense on some primal level. It makes sense that someone will worry about their daughter more than an insect, and how a flower may cure their cancer more than a "useless" minnow swimming in a stream. But shouldn't what sets humans apart from other animals allow us to think more deeply and broadly about the value of nature?

I can't help wondering why our consciousness, our understanding of how the world works, and our ability to flourish on this earth rather than just survive doesn't leave room in the human mind to appreciate and value all living things for their innate worth. Let things live for their own sake. Attempt to protect living things for their own right to live. Do we really need more than we already have, more space, more water, more forests, more resources? Or can we understand that our ingenuity is all we need to be perfectly satisfied with what we have and still continue to raise our standard of living in order to leave plenty of space and resources for other life. 

We have all we need in intellectual capitol to live amazing and beautiful lives today without taking away from other living things. Yet, somehow, we still have to convince people to care about the natural world only through describing how the natural word will benefit them in some tangible and utilitarian way. 

Below is an article from New York Times blogger Richard Conniff addressing just this issue. I really appreciate this article and the questions that it brings up. For my last project, that involved raising awareness about 50 species affected by climate change, I thought about this a lot. I chose some species that conjure up sympathy from people, such as the panda bear and the holy cocoa tree. Since I feel pretty passionate about all living things being equally important in the unbelievable complex network that is the biosphere, I consciously chose other species that people usually don't recognize like zooplankton, chytrid fungus, and pine beetles. 

With regards to environmental art, the idea of how to frame environmental conservation and how to get people's attention are central to how to be effective. What do you want your main message to be? Do you want to "market" the environment in order to "sell it better?" Or, do you want to be more raw, crunchy and lean towards deep ecology? Maybe the inherent worthiness of nature doesn't quite sell as well to society. 

Life on earth and all her interconnections are too complex for us to fully understand. Who are we to judge what is important and more worthy of life? Given that we all evolved here together shouldn't the miracle that life is, be enough?

Useless Creatures
By Richard Conniff

September 13, 2014

This article contains no useful information. Zero. Nada. Nothing. If usefulness is your criterion for reading, thank you very much for your time and goodbye, we have nothing more to say. The truth is that I am bored to tears by usefulness. I am bored, more precisely, of pretending usefulness is the thing that really matters.

I mostly write about wildlife. So here is how it typically happens for me: A study comes out indicating that species x, y and z are in imminent danger of extinction, or that some major bioregion of the planet is being sucked down into the abyss. And it’s my job to convince people that they should care, even as they are racing to catch the 7:10 train, or wondering if they’ll be able to pay this month’s (or last month’s) rent.

My usual strategy is to trot out a list of ways even the most obscure species can prove unexpectedly, yes, useful. The first effective treatment that turned H.I.V. from a death sentence into a manageable condition? Inspired by the biochemistry of a nondescript Caribbean sponge. The ACE inhibitors that are currently among our most effective treatments for cardiovascular disease (and which have lately been proposed as a treatment for Ebola)? Developed by studying the venom of the fer-de-lance, a deadly snake found from Mexico to northern South America. The new medical bandage that’s gentle enough for the delicate skin of newborns and the elderly? Modeled on the silk of spider webs.

Every time I begin this line of argument, though, I get the queasy feeling that I am perpetuating a fallacy. It’s not that I’m telling lies; these examples are entirely real. But given, for instance, that three-quarters of our farm crops depend on insect pollinators, or that more than 2.6 billion people rely directly on seafood for protein, it seems a little obvious to be reminding people that wildlife can be useful, or, more to the point, that human survival depends on wildlife. Without saying so out loud, the argument also implies that animals matter only because they benefit humans, or because just possibly, at some unknowable point in the future, they might benefit humans.

You don’t have to look too far to see how silly this can get. In truth, I don’t have to look at all, because university press offices fill my inbox with examples every day: The Harvard scientists who hope their study of cuttlefish skin will “inspire improved protective camouflage for soldiers on the battlefield.” The Berkeley team that thinks studying the genetics of blubber-eating polar bears could help us learn to live with our bacon-wrapped, wide-load lifestyle. And the wonderful folks at Nanyang Technological University, in Singapore, who believe “Squid sucker ring teeth material could aid reconstructive surgery, serve as eco-packaging.” (And you thought they were good only for calamari.)

I don’t entirely blame the scientists. Their research often depends on taxpayer funding, and their dreams are haunted by the ghost of United States Senator William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award. That award garnered headlines by ridiculing outlandish-seeming items in the federal budget, and animal behavior studies were a juicy target. So now people doing that kind of research all feel obliged to imply that they are two steps away from a cure for the common cold. No basic research here, Senator, sir, no idle curiosity. Useful “R” Us. (They also delight in pointing out that one of Mr. Proxmire’s targets — a $250,000 investigation into the sex life of the screwworm fly — has yielded $20 billion in benefits to American cattle farmers by enabling control of a major insect pest.)

Improbably, wildlife conservationists now also often hear the call of the useful. Along with a large contingent of eco-finance bureaucrats, they try to save threatened habitats by reminding nearby communities of all the benefits they derive from keeping these habitats intact. Forests, meadows and marshes prevent floods, supply clean water, provide habitat for species that pollinate crops, put oxygen into the atmosphere and take carbon out, and otherwise make themselves useful. In some cases, conservation groups or other interested parties actually put down cash for these ecosystem services — paying countries, for instance, to maintain forests as a form of carbon sequestration. The argument, in essence, is that we can persuade people to save nature by making it possible for them to sell it. They can take nature to the bank, or at least to the local grocery. They can monetize it. (The new revised version of Genesis now says, “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, and he said, ‘Let them be fungible.’ ”)

I understand the logic, or at least the desperation, that drives conservationists to this horrible idea. It may seem like the only way to keep what’s left of the natural world from being plowed under by unstoppable human expansion and by our insatiable appetite for what appears to be useful. But usefulness is precisely the argument other people put forward to justify destroying or displacing wildlife, and they generally bring a larger and more persuasive kind of green to the argument. Nothing you can say about 100 acres in the New Jersey Meadowlands will ever add up for a politician who thinks a new shopping mall will mean more jobs for local voters (and contributions to his campaign war chest). Nothing you can say about the value of rhinos for ecotourism in South Africa will ever matter to a wildlife trafficker who can sell their horns for $30,000 a pound in Vietnam.

Finally, there is the unavoidable problem that most wildlife species — honey badgers, blobfish, blue-footed boobies, red-tailed hawks, monarch butterflies, hellbenders — are always going to be “useless,” or occasionally annoying, from a human perspective. And even when they do turn out, by some quirk, to be useful, that’s typically incidental to what makes them interesting. Cuttlefish do not fascinate because their skin may suggest new forms of military camouflage, but because of the fantastic light shows that sometimes play across their flanks. Spider web silk doesn’t intrigue because somebody can turn it into bandages, but because of the astonishing things spiders can do with it — stringing a line across a stream and running trotlines down the surface to catch water striders, for instance, or (in the case of the species named mastophora dizzydeani) flinging a ball of silk on a thread like a spitball to snag moths out of the air.

Wildlife is and should be useless in the same way art, music, poetry and even sports are useless. They are useless in the sense that they do nothing more than raise our spirits, make us laugh or cry, frighten, disturb and delight us. They connect us not just to what’s weird, different, other, but to a world where we humans do not matter nearly as much as we like to think.

And that should be enough.

Midway: a film by Chris Jordan

MIDWAY

Both elegy and warning, Midway explores the interconnectedness of species, with the albatross on Midway as mirror of our humanity.

                                                                              -Chris Jordan

Watch the trailer, beautiful and heartbreaking. 

This needs to be seen: http://vimeo.com/25563376

http://www.midwayfilm.com/

Sarah Hatton and Bees

Over the past weekend A very dear friend of mine came to visit me. We had a wonderful time together staying up late and having a three hour breakfast at the kitchen table. At one point I was telling her about my We are all in this together project. Her eyes got wide and she sat up straight in her chair patiently waiting for me to finish my sentence. “Can you paint a honey bee?!” she asked me with apparent excitement.

“…ummm well, maybe, is it related?” I answered. Despite anyone’s passion, I want to stick to my theme of climate change.

“Yes!” she replied. She went on to tell me a great and very local reason why the honey bee would be perfect for my project. My friend is a new and avid bee-keeper and loves to talk to anyone about them who will listen. Her passion is not held by her alone.

Bees are integral and essential to plant pollination around the world. Along with other animals such as butterflies, moths, other insects, bats, and birds, bees have co-evolved with flowering plants. In many cases the plants rely on the these creatures for pollination and reproduction. The symbiotic relationship is a beautiful one, but it is also extremely fragile, prone to upsets at even the smallest of changes.  

Over the past decade or so, the accounts of colony collapse disorder have increased in North America and Europe sparking environmental, social and economic concern. The phenomenon itself, which is a when the worker bees of a colony suddenly disappear, is not new, but its increased frequency is a cause for concern. There are a few possible causes of colony collapse disorder including pathogens, fungus, mites, and malnutrition. Many experts, including the European Food Safety Authority, are attributing the recent increase in colony collapse on the use of modern pesticides. 

This issue is complex and still being studied to be fully understood. One person who picked up on this multidimensional and international issue is Sarah Hatton. A visual artist who predominantly works in paint, branched out to create her body of work called "Bees". 

Here is the statement of "Bees" from Hatton herself:

The link between neonicotinoid pesticides and the worldwide decline of bee populations is a crisis that cannot be ignored.

I have arranged thousands of dead honeybees in mathematical patterns symbolically linked to monoculture crops, such as the Fibonacci spiral found in the seed head of the sunflower.

The viewer experiences the vertigo of this lifeless swarm, a dizzying optical illusion that echoes the bees’ loss of ability to navigate due to the toxins locked within the very source of their sustenance.

Sarah Hatton in front of her Bee work

Hatton's Bee piece

Hatton's Bee piece

Hatton's Bee piece

Bees from Hatton's piece

Art and Biodiversity Partnership and Biodiversity Loss

"The Art and Biodiversity Partnership brings together artists, scientists, conservation experts, students and the public to raise awareness of the links between Art and Biodiversity. We want to encourage action through the arts and to widen awareness of the current biodiversity crisis, stimulating discussions and positive responses to this rising crisis. At the same time, we want to contribute in bridging the divide between art and science, looking at new paths of interdisciplinary cooperation." 
                                                                                                --http://artandbiodiversity.org/

The Art and Biodiversity Partnership is based in Norfolk, England, on the east coast, north of London. Their collaborators are an interesting group, truly straddling the art and biodiversity line including: the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, the University of East Anglia School of Biological Sciences, the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, the Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership, and artists. 

They work on a themes of Invasive Alien Species, Climate Change, Habitat Loss, Over-exploitation, and Pollution, a well rounded, and generally agreed upon comprehensive list when thinking about threats to biodiversity. They also list a few projects that they address, such as a summer camp and a basketry exhibit. 

There isn't too much specific information about what they are working on and doing other than the four projects listed on their website. I am not sure if this is because they are a new organization or haven't updated their website in a while. With the sweeping topic of biodiversity loss, there is definitely no lack of inspiration. 

Despite the lack of more specifics, I love that this organization exists. We are in a biodiversity crisis and most people do not even know. There is so much information out there about this topic, but the short of it is that we are in a biodiversity crisis, it is driven by anthropogenic forces including climate change, and biodiversity loss is bad for the environment and bad for us too. But don't take my word for it: The United Nations Secratary General Ban Ki-moon: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36052#.Ub9qTPmyDb8 or http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions or https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/28-6
And, just for clarification Biodiversity is the diversity of living things on the cellular, species, and ecosystem levels. 

IUCN 2010

I am personally involved in biodiversity loss in my own art, which started with my Global Amphibian Decline Series, but if anyone is looking for inspiration and/or an important issue to work on, here it is.

Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature: http://www.iucn.org/
United Nations Decade of Biodiversity: https://www.cbd.int/2011-2020/
European Commission: Nature & Biodiversity: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm
Biodiversity is not a ranking issue with the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Built Green Space: The Future of Land Trusts?

The lapse in time from my last post is not due to lack of inspiration. On the contrary, the post that I started over a week ago just won’t end. There has also been a town-wide Nemo-induced lack of power… As I continue working on it in its fleshed out form, I want to give a shortened version here. Since it is an on-going and evolving project, I welcome your input and critiques.

The United States is projected to be a minority-majority population by the year 2042, meaning that there will be as many minorities as non-hispanic whites. This, along with changes in socio-economic demographics and increased urbanization create a dynamic and ever-changing nation. What will these changes mean for the future of the land trust movement that traditionally has been lead by and served white, fairly well off, educated, middle-aged, land owning populations?

It is important to note that segregation in the land trust movement has been more a function of form and default practices rather than a systematic elitist approach to improving quality of life for the privileged. Maybe it was easy and even acceptable to work in and with a small slice of the population in the past, but today it is counter-productive and irresponsible for the land trust movement not to involve and serve a wider audience.

Considering demographic shifts and the changing priorities of land trusts, eventually moving towards decreased acquisition responsibilities and increased stewardship responsibilities, how will trusts remain effective and meaningful? Who will fill the shoes of today’s conservationists and stewards? Who will care for the ever-growing acreage protected in perpetuity? If we do not evolve our methods today, can we rely on individuals who have been left out of the conversation to take up the cause or even care?

One strategy to diversifying the movement is to get involved in built green space. Built green space is the combination of land conservation, urban open-space, and roof-top gardens. The concept is that land trusts become involved in the multi-faceted work of conserving “built land” or “created land”, bringing land conservation into the urban environment in a new way to serve and engage a more diverse population.

Built green space is essentially green roofs, land that is anthropogenically constructed on a structure or building including gardens, parks, sports fields, and outdoor meeting areas. The “land” could be treated similar to real land in that: its protection could initiate tax breaks; it could be subject to conservation easements; it would benefit biodiversity and help create wildlife corridors; it would lessen the heat island effect and increase permeable surface area in urban settings; it would improve the quality of life for local communities by increasing access to green space, urban garden space, and outdoor recreation opportunities; and it would increase exposure to, and benefits of, land conservation to a more diverse population.

Critics may be quick to point out what they consider insurmountable challenges to a built green space initiative. They might site issues like the legal limitations of our current system to conserve and place an easement on built green space; that it is not true land, and therefore should not concern land trusts; the new set of management and stewardship strategies needed would be cumbersome; etcetera. It is true that new initiatives often come with new challenges and issues to be addressed, but there is so much more to gain than loose from the inclusion of built green space in the land trust movement and our portfolios.

As a system designed and expected to last in perpetuity, the land trust movement must evolve to remain financially and functionally strong, relevant, and meaningful. Built green space embodies many of the values that trusts generally uphold and work for: preservation of green space for the benefit of humans, wildlife; improving ecological functions such as water flow and climate systems; connecting people to the land and creating opportunities for environmental education; and encouraging sustainable and healthy agriculture. With a dynamic future in mind, let’s take the initiative to serve, benefit, and connect to a wider slice of society, benefiting citizens of all kinds, trusts, and the environment.