Topic: Adrian Piper's "Notes on Funk"
Questions: How did lessons in funk promote black acceptance among white people?
Were many people aware of the author's initial intent when taking these lessons in funk? Are people more likely to discuss the issue of racial acceptance if the intent is subliminal (funk lessons were used to promomote discussion)?
Sources: Participation by Claire Bishop
Adrian Piper Art Forum http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_2_41/ai_93213721
Adrian Piper: A Canvas of Concerns http://www.asu.edu/cfa/wwwcourses/art/SOACore/piper-art-review.html
Adrian Piper: A Retrospective http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2000/10/27/27632.html
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
One Place After Another
In Kwon’s book, one of the projects depicted is a garden grown for AIDS patients. The two artists, Haha and Flood “transformed the storefront space in which the garden flourished into a kind of community center for AIDS education…” (Kwon 130). I thought this was a strange form of art, since one would typically not consider an act of charity artwork. To me, these “artists” were just doing something good to help others in their community. If everyone who lent a hand to those less fortunate were considered artists, what would those who created paintings be called? I believe that there has to be some limit on what our society considers art. Before we know it, everything will be labeled “art” and those pieces created with talent and precision will be considered much less special. To me, physical actions should not be considered art, despite their rewarding results.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
"Video and Resistance: Against Documentaries"
"Video and Resistance: Against Documertaries" opens by stating that photographs capture facts and real events so individuals don’t have to rely solely on memory to recall specific details. With photography came documentaries. However, unlike pictures, documentaries are often a disaster as they reveal only distorted versions of the truth. Documentaries are often bias and are created for persuasion purposes. The film can also be manipulated to make viewers believe or think a certain way.
The ideas presented in this article relate to Sontag in the fact that overtime, images begin to consume our reality. We are a visually oriented society and we believe what we see in photographs and on film. This is dangerous however, because often times the things we believe are not the absolute truth.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg
(for some reason I can't post a picture, only a link appears but it's supposed to be a picture of Piss Christ)
The ideas presented in this article relate to Sontag in the fact that overtime, images begin to consume our reality. We are a visually oriented society and we believe what we see in photographs and on film. This is dangerous however, because often times the things we believe are not the absolute truth.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg
(for some reason I can't post a picture, only a link appears but it's supposed to be a picture of Piss Christ)
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Essay Revision
Superfund Slipups
Today, as a society, we put little value in taking care of the environment. For years, individuals have carelessly thrown and created waste, killing off many of our nation’s greatest natural wonders. One of the most concerning problems, water pollution, has become dangerous, increasing infection and spreading disease. Contamination of our water supply is only one of the many ways in which humans are destroying the world in which we live. Syracuse’s Onondaga Lake, once a popular tourist spot, is now suffering from negligence and extreme pollution. Although various organizations, including Superfund, are aimed at eliminating waste, the task has become overly expensive. The government can no longer control the copious amounts of waste expenses and thus, taxpayers are burdened by Superfund’s debt. In fact, the organization is borderline bankrupt, leaving many polluted sites untouched or incomplete. With dwindling funds and the inability to effectively “take action”, one is left wondering whether Superfund is capable of securing a future for our environment.
Brad Knickerbocker’s CMS article entitled “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag”, addresses many of the issues presently facing the Superfund program. Superfund, a federal program aimed at eliminating hazardous waste across the country, was created in 1980 to help pave the way to a more environmentally friendly nation. The Superfund cleanup process claims to be long lasting as it hopes to promote a cleaner environment, encouraging others to follow by example. Currently, Superfund has undertaken “18 new construction projects ranked by the National Risk-Based Priority Panel at 16 National Priorities List (NPL) sites.” (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/) It seems as though the government has everything under control. By creating a program aimed solely to aid in both toxic waste elimination and pollution prevention, the nation’s environment should be improving at a rapid pace.
Onondaga Lake is just one of the many sites in dire need of Superfund care. Once a major tourist attraction in the late 1800s, Onondaga Lake is now one of the most polluted lakes in the entire nation (Williamson 1). The lake’s demise was ultimately caused by two very important factors: sewage discharges and industrial waste disposal. With increasingly large amounts of toxic waste, Onondaga Lake quickly became dangerous as leaky waste-beds became hazardous to nearby inhabitants. In 1950, “the waste-beds themselves had grown 80 feet in height” (Williamson 2). Irregular amounts of mercury made the lake too contaminated for both swimming and fishing activities.
In general, Superfund claims to target sties similar to Onondaga Lake. Certain sites suffering from extreme pollution are at the top of the organization’s list. Yet, many are not receiving the treatment they deserve due to the program’s lack of funding. Twenty-three years from its birth, Superfund had to declare bankruptcy. It seems that, with a cost of over one billion dollars a year, the government can no longer support its’ production. Thus, the 699 construction projects underway at 436 various sites are too large and expensive to complete (Knickerbocker 1). But the real question remains, “where is all this money going and could this situation have been prevented”?
Not dealing with the bankruptcy situation effectively is perhaps one of the most aggravating issues regarding the Superfund program. Environmental health advocate, Julie Wolk, stated, “We’ve known for a long time that the Superfund trust fund was running out, but unfortunately the president and Congress have continually failed to reinstate Superfund’s “polluter pays’ fees, leaving regular tax payers to foot the bill” (Knickerbocker 3). The program should have taken more action if members had known for so long that it was running low on funding. If adequate planning had been done, many “orphan sites” wouldn’t have been started and less time would have been wasted. Perhaps efforts could have been consolidated since money was low. With less money, Superfund should have aimed its efforts at aiding the sites that needed urgent care.
In most cases, Superfund ran low on funding because much of their money was not spent wisely. The program initially established a policy entitled “polluter pays”. This way, those responsible for the pollution would be paying out of their pockets for the damages they have caused. Yet, it became too difficult for Superfund to track down those solely responsible. Instead, the program wasted many precious dollars hiring lawyers to investigate the companies involved with the pollution. Both time and funding were spent on investigation and thus, none of the money was going directly towards the actual cleanup.
Most can agree that Superfund had all the best intentions. The environment needed saving and thus, the program was created to solve pollution issues and prevent future problems. Although many did not anticipate Superfund’s decline or ultimate bankruptcy, individuals are also not aware of the growing number of contaminated areas in our country. So is Superfund all to blame? Can the responsibility lie solely on the program when it is the countries fault that pollution is increasing at an uncontrollably rapid pace? Perhaps one should not waste time blaming, but taking action. Superfund has the authority, all it needs to do is use it. The program needs to reinstate “polluter pays” and use the majority of its dwindling funds to aid with site production only. Although the fate of the Superfund is indeterminable, one can only hope that the costs will somehow be paid so we can attempt to preserve what’s left of our polluted environment.
Today, as a society, we put little value in taking care of the environment. For years, individuals have carelessly thrown and created waste, killing off many of our nation’s greatest natural wonders. One of the most concerning problems, water pollution, has become dangerous, increasing infection and spreading disease. Contamination of our water supply is only one of the many ways in which humans are destroying the world in which we live. Syracuse’s Onondaga Lake, once a popular tourist spot, is now suffering from negligence and extreme pollution. Although various organizations, including Superfund, are aimed at eliminating waste, the task has become overly expensive. The government can no longer control the copious amounts of waste expenses and thus, taxpayers are burdened by Superfund’s debt. In fact, the organization is borderline bankrupt, leaving many polluted sites untouched or incomplete. With dwindling funds and the inability to effectively “take action”, one is left wondering whether Superfund is capable of securing a future for our environment.
Brad Knickerbocker’s CMS article entitled “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag”, addresses many of the issues presently facing the Superfund program. Superfund, a federal program aimed at eliminating hazardous waste across the country, was created in 1980 to help pave the way to a more environmentally friendly nation. The Superfund cleanup process claims to be long lasting as it hopes to promote a cleaner environment, encouraging others to follow by example. Currently, Superfund has undertaken “18 new construction projects ranked by the National Risk-Based Priority Panel at 16 National Priorities List (NPL) sites.” (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/) It seems as though the government has everything under control. By creating a program aimed solely to aid in both toxic waste elimination and pollution prevention, the nation’s environment should be improving at a rapid pace.
Onondaga Lake is just one of the many sites in dire need of Superfund care. Once a major tourist attraction in the late 1800s, Onondaga Lake is now one of the most polluted lakes in the entire nation (Williamson 1). The lake’s demise was ultimately caused by two very important factors: sewage discharges and industrial waste disposal. With increasingly large amounts of toxic waste, Onondaga Lake quickly became dangerous as leaky waste-beds became hazardous to nearby inhabitants. In 1950, “the waste-beds themselves had grown 80 feet in height” (Williamson 2). Irregular amounts of mercury made the lake too contaminated for both swimming and fishing activities.
In general, Superfund claims to target sties similar to Onondaga Lake. Certain sites suffering from extreme pollution are at the top of the organization’s list. Yet, many are not receiving the treatment they deserve due to the program’s lack of funding. Twenty-three years from its birth, Superfund had to declare bankruptcy. It seems that, with a cost of over one billion dollars a year, the government can no longer support its’ production. Thus, the 699 construction projects underway at 436 various sites are too large and expensive to complete (Knickerbocker 1). But the real question remains, “where is all this money going and could this situation have been prevented”?
Not dealing with the bankruptcy situation effectively is perhaps one of the most aggravating issues regarding the Superfund program. Environmental health advocate, Julie Wolk, stated, “We’ve known for a long time that the Superfund trust fund was running out, but unfortunately the president and Congress have continually failed to reinstate Superfund’s “polluter pays’ fees, leaving regular tax payers to foot the bill” (Knickerbocker 3). The program should have taken more action if members had known for so long that it was running low on funding. If adequate planning had been done, many “orphan sites” wouldn’t have been started and less time would have been wasted. Perhaps efforts could have been consolidated since money was low. With less money, Superfund should have aimed its efforts at aiding the sites that needed urgent care.
In most cases, Superfund ran low on funding because much of their money was not spent wisely. The program initially established a policy entitled “polluter pays”. This way, those responsible for the pollution would be paying out of their pockets for the damages they have caused. Yet, it became too difficult for Superfund to track down those solely responsible. Instead, the program wasted many precious dollars hiring lawyers to investigate the companies involved with the pollution. Both time and funding were spent on investigation and thus, none of the money was going directly towards the actual cleanup.
Most can agree that Superfund had all the best intentions. The environment needed saving and thus, the program was created to solve pollution issues and prevent future problems. Although many did not anticipate Superfund’s decline or ultimate bankruptcy, individuals are also not aware of the growing number of contaminated areas in our country. So is Superfund all to blame? Can the responsibility lie solely on the program when it is the countries fault that pollution is increasing at an uncontrollably rapid pace? Perhaps one should not waste time blaming, but taking action. Superfund has the authority, all it needs to do is use it. The program needs to reinstate “polluter pays” and use the majority of its dwindling funds to aid with site production only. Although the fate of the Superfund is indeterminable, one can only hope that the costs will somehow be paid so we can attempt to preserve what’s left of our polluted environment.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Superfund
Superfund, a federal program aimed at eliminating hazardous waste across the country, was created in 1980 to help pave the way to a more environmentally friendly nation. However, many did not anticipate its decline and ultimate bankruptcy twenty-three years down the road. It seems that, with a cost of over one billion dollars a year, the government can no longer support its’ production. Thus, the 699 construction projects underway at 436 various sites are too large and expensive to complete (Knickerbocker 1). The article by Brad Knickerbocker, “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag” addresses many of the issues facing the Superfund. Although the fate of the Superfund is indeterminable, one can only hope that the costs will somehow be paid so we can attempt to preserve what’s left of our polluted environment.
I will use the following sites for research:
www.epa.gov/superfund/ (Superfund Official Site)
www.onlakepartners.org/ (Onondaga Lake Info)
I will use the following sites for research:
www.epa.gov/superfund/ (Superfund Official Site)
www.onlakepartners.org/ (Onondaga Lake Info)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)