Over the weekend, I watched a beautiful film called Meru. It’s about three of the most famous climbers, two of which are North Face photographers/filmmakers, and the story of how they were, eventually, the first people to ever summit Meru mountain in India. Some of the visuals, many of which are not at mount Meru, take your breath away because they are so gorgeous. The story, itself, is truly fascinating as well.

I bring up this film because I noticed that, after being in Cultures, I viewed it quite differently than I would have before this semester. I more deeply analyzed the cinematography (thanks, Andy) and was able to see how production decisions added to the meaning of the film. I could also put many of the dialogue and story in the broader context of how humans interact with nature. This movie features, almost exclusively, professional climbers who work with The North Face, National Geographic, Outside Mag, etc., so I did a lot of thinking about what these kinds of people can contribute to the dialogue about how humans should interact with nature.

Renan Ozturk, Jimmy Chin, & Conrad Anker are, no doubt, extreme thrill seekers with an inhuman ability to read their own bodies as well as their natural surroundings, which, in many circumstances, could kill them. It was incredibly interesting to see how these three men, an many others interviewed for the film, find the most meaning in their lives through extreme climbing, skiing, and other sports where one false move or bad luck could end your life. At one point, I felt like they were disrespecting nature by pushing those boundaries, but by the end of the film, I realized that their motivations were not to antagonize danger, but to risk it in order to experience nature at a level very few people ever will.

P.S. WATCH THIS MOVIE, IT’S SO GREAT!

P.S.S. If you have an instagram, follow these three men. You won’t be disappointed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34980491

In this article, peppered with the dry, British sarcasm that keeps me coming back to BBC, Jon Sopel outlines the terribly ironic fact that the American media loves weather disasters, but is conveniently ignorant that these disasters are the implication of a changing climate. It goes on to discuss that, although President Obama has been making strides to make climate a policy priority, it is being systematically blocked and dismissed by Republicans.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this is rooted in money. Our system is set up in such a way that those who fund the media and political elections are the ones who potentially have the most to lose if humans are, in fact, causing the climate to change. This will always end in coverage to be skewed and blur the truth of climate change and politicians to always vote against changing the status quo. The only way for America to get its head out of the sand is to uproot this system.

I fell completely in love with this film. I’m a sucker for any kind of abstract film, especially when it has as a complex and hypnotizing score as Koyaanisqatsi does. Something, in particular, that struck me about this film was how much it explicitly states without saying a word. It makes it completely clear, through camera angles/effects and music, that what humans are doing to their environment is wrong, destructive, and will lead to an inevitable doom. This is not an thesis with which I am unfamiliar, but it usually is presented in the form of shocking statistics and dramatic pleas of those who have already been affected by our “koyaanisqatsi”, if you will.

The parallels it drew between clouds & water and machines & humans were beautifully done visually and musically. I was entranced by all of the shots and transitions from visual to visual. The natural shots were incredible, sensual, dramatic, and complex. They weren’t the usual nature scene. The beginning natural shots displayed life in clouds which was nicely juxtaposed to the life-less clouds that were later shown coming out of smoke stacks and explosions. The pervasive irony of cacophony during the first sped up highway scene and then complete silence when cut to a city scene forces the viewer to reevaluate every learned association that they’ve had with cities. The movie does that in many other ways, as well. By using the same musical theme in the scenes with the commercial airplane and the fighter jet, we’re forced to reconcile the obvious destruction that fighter planes cause with the atmospheric destruction in which everyone participates when they travel via air. It put things side by side that we normally wouldn’t see in that fashion and ties cinematographic and musical threads through those things so that we are faced with direct comparisons that show us uncomfortable truths.

The thesis of this film, which I mentioned briefly above, is that we are living in an unbalanced life and, if we continue in this fashion, the beautiful natural scenes and lively clouds in the beginning will recede into machine-like life which, sped up, will display routine, boring patterns as opposed to the organic, unique patterns of the natural world. The lively beauty of natural clouds will descend into depressingly deliberate dark, poisonous clouds that are only an externality, rather than a phenomenon to be appreciated intrinsically. This argument is made through the artistic juxtaposition of things that we wouldn’t naturally put side by side and the emotional music placed over things that we wouldn’t normally associate with the implied emotion. The film uses musical and cinematographic techniques such as discordant notes, odd-time signatures, heavy bass, unsettling speed, sped-up and slowed-down visuals, and unusual camera angles to place emotions upon common visuals and make us reevaluate our associations with these visuals. This reevaluation causes us to understand how the meaning of the Hopi proverbs relates to our current path of consumption, routine, and destruction.

As for the question, “can art help us save the world?”, my answer is of course. I don’t think we can save the world without it. People are trained from an early age on how to face a verbal argument that challenges their beliefs. They are less equipped with how to handle truth that is presented more abstractly. Then, when they do “get it”, it tends to hit them in a much more emotional way. Emotions, in my opinion, can sometimes be much more strong than reason.

“Environmentalists so often seem self-righteous, privileged, and arrogant because they so readily consent to identifying nature with play and making it by definition a place where leisured humans come only to visit and not to work, stay, or live. Thus environmentalists have much to say about nature and play and little to say about humans and work. And if the world were actually so cleanly divided between the domains of work and play, humans and nature, there would be no problem. Then environmentalists could patrol the borders and keep the categories clear. But the dualisms fail to hold; the boundaries are not so clear. And so environmentalists can seem an ecological Immigration and Naturalization Service, border agents in a social dubious, morally ambiguous, and ultimately hopeless cause” (White 173). 

I think this is an incredibly oversimplified view of environmentalism. I couldn’t quite find when this essay was published, but I think someone would have to be fairly ignorant to say that about the environmental movement recently. The sustainable farming movement, specifically, has taken off drastically and it is becoming more mainstream for environmentalists to work on organic farms. Programs like WWOOF have made that even more of a reality for people. Furthermore, fields such as geology, conservation biology, and other science fields generally go hand in hand with environmentalism and involve, quite directly, working in nature. Additionally, conservation hunting is a thing, despite its’ lack of mainstream appeal. Although outdoor recreation and leisure is still a large part of environmentalism, the preservation v. conservation divide is not nearly as intense now as it has been in the past.

“Fast forward to the textbook, which airs plenty of against-the-grain opinions, like the contention that nature is more resilient than most environmentalists realize (Kareiva won’t even utter the adjective fragile when discussing ecosystems) or the unsentimental assertion that the days of pristine wilderness are long gone. Mankind’s fingerprints can be found everywhere on the planet. Get over it, Kareiva would say. And start focusing on preserving what’s left of the good (if no longer great) outdoors” (Dunkel 35).

This passage captures the heart of what is so special about how Kareiva approaches conservation. Its much more realistic, less emotional, and, I think, can do more good than many other approaches. It has been proven that the doom and gloom messages of past environmentalism simply don’t motivate most people. Messages that are more realistic and clearly outline that there is an important role for humans that can result in a positive change are the productive messages that should be more prevalent in environmentalism and conservation alike.

Before transcribing any passages, I would first like to direct your attention to the environmental Kuznets curve:

Environmental Kuznets Curve

For those who are not familiar, this is essentially a hypothesis that as per capita income increases for the first time, environmental degradation also increases. Per capita income will then hit a turning point (most studies put that at about $8000/yr) where society will decide that they want a cleaner environment and will begin to allocate money to be more environmentally conscious and friendly. Notice how this is almost the exact same thing as the biblical narrative of (1) fall, (2) desert, (3) garden?

“Using science, technology, and biblical imagery, they changed first the easter wilderness and then the western deserts into cultivated gardens. Sanctioned by the Genesis origin story, they subdued the “wilderness,” replenished the earth, and appropriated Indian homelands as free lands for settlement. Mercantile capitalism cast America as the site of natural resources, Africa as the source of enslaved labor, and Europe as the locale of resource management” (140). 

“The narrative of frontier expansion is a story of male energy subduing female nature, taming the wild, plowing the land, re-creating the garden lost by Eve. American males lived the frontier myth in their everyday lives, making the land safe for capitalism and commodity production, Once tamed by men, the land was safe for women. To civilize was to bring the land out of a state of savagery and barbarism into a state of refinement and enlightenment. This state of domestication, of civility, is symbolized by woman and “womanlike” man” (147). 

I just wanted to share a recent Facebook post from my family friend who is a deer hunter. I’m not entirely sure what the second sentence in his post means, but I think it has to do with shooting off some piece of the buck before he actually got it. I was wondering what the general thoughts may be on the kinds of pictures in this post, the fact that he posted it on Facebook in the first place, and his commentary.

Our adventure through Hawk Mountain and Cabela’s was, at times, inspiring, and others, disturbing. Both places aimed to appeal to broader audiences and consumers than just die-hard birders or lifelong deer hunters. They employed crafty marketing techniques to attract children, suburbanites, and those who may not otherwise be interested in nature. The main difference between these destinations, however, is that Hawk Mountain promotes and acts upon much more socially and environmentally beneficial goals while Cabela’s reeks of unnecessary consumerism, braggery, and violence.

Strolling through the small, yet well stocked, gift shop at the welcome center of Hawk Mountain, I saw numerous birding books targeting children and adults alike. There were bird sticker books, stuffed animal birds that make their respective calls when squeezed, and postcards with pictures and descriptions of different bird species. Although some of these trinkets and souvenirs were superfluous, it was clear that they were there to get the public, especially children, excited about nature and birds, and to raise money to keep the sanctuary thriving. There, they were selling a bird-centric, easy to get excited about version of nature. Then again, Hawk Mountain’s goal is to protect birds, so I don’t find much fault with this. I commend Hawk Mountain immensely for the fact that it can appeal to such a wide range of people, because that’s probably one of the big sources of funding for maintaining their more scientifically and environmentally important goal of monitoring raptor populations. Furthermore, the ease of the climbs to the lookouts make the richer part of the experience accessible to a wider range of people. The spirit of Rachel Carson lives on through the birders and official bird counters whose data collection can be used to indicate the relative health of ecosystems since raptors are incredibly sensitive to magnified chemical poisoning. The methods used for funding this essential function are successful and commendable, even if they paint a bird-centric view of nature.

Although I understand taking advantage of the consumerism of the Hawk Mountain visitors, I was much more relaxed and inspired when we got to the top of the lookout which was void of any price tags. It became apparent immediately who at the lookout was experienced and who was a newcomer. The birdwatching excitement and lingo carried through the frigid, windy air and demonstrated a culture of nature that I had not previously experienced. It was full of enthusiasm and excitement every time a bird of prey flew into the scene. I was truly inspired to see so many paying visitors who were there to get excited about nature, but also have contributed to important scientific recording.

My distinct mental image is a panorama. I’ll detail it from right to left: our group listening to the biologist, official bird counters, tree, older woman who was talking to us about the mouse under the rocks on which we were sitting, roaming family that seemed only mildly interested in the birds, more die-hard birders, beautiful autumnal landscape (Farmer’s Field, was it?), owl pole, more amazing landscape, boulders directly in front of me, more die-hard birders. This view was magnificent and I will never forget it as a representation of raptor-lovers and an incredibly successful environmental non-profit.

Those who run Hawk Mountain are certainly explicit about their motivations, and although they use consumerism to their advantage, they do so to achieve socially and environmentally respectable goals. Cabela’s, on the other hand, exists to make money, assert the manliness of the gun-wielding American, and pass on to younger generations the undenied fact that nature exists to be pried open, much like the catfish in the aquarium, and dominated by man and their tools.

Disclaimer: I believe deer hunting in the name of population control is necessary. I believe fishing for sport, with precautions taken to prevent overfishing, is perfectly alright. I love camping, durable outerwear, and wool socks as much as anyone else shopping in Cabela’s, but that store paints a narrative that pushes far past enjoying nature or becoming more intimate with it through sustainable deer hunting. The “mountain” in the middle of the store struck me as a marketing tool to get customers mouths watering and heighten their desire to buy the tools necessary to, one day, hunt animals as proud as the taxidermied ones perched on the mountain. It also presents every person in the store with proof that man can take down beasts twice the size of himself and preserve it to be forever still and photogenic.

A piece of evidence I have for the obnoxious manliness of the store is the marketing of weapons. In every bow section, gun section, or hunting gear section, there are always a few pink versions. The color pink indicates that THIS is the weapon for women since women definitely would have no interest in purchasing anything that’s not pink even though wielding a brightly colored weapon through a forest would most likely alert potential prey and decrease one’s chances of a kill. The interior decorations that were being sold in “home goods” also promoted the view that women are either annoyances or trophies. One sign said “Girls Make Hunting Look Good.” Another said “I let her shop so she lets me hunt.” Allowing children to see the pink guns or these signs hammers in the message that men are effective hunters and women can hunt if they want to, but they’ll never be good at it, so maybe they should just stick to shopping.

Another source of obnoxious manliness was the pure difference in the size of the sections. Guns, gun storage, Deer Country, and meat processing took up more than half of the store while the camping, home goods, clothing, aquarium, children, & food sections paled in comparison. The opinion that everyone should have a gun and have somewhere to hide it/lock it up was not subtle. The gun library included ornate handguns (for deer hunting…?) including one that was advertised as having “pre-ban” ivory on the handle. I have no evidence to believe this decoration on the handle contributes to any hunting effectiveness which would mean that the ivory, whose harvesting was surely questionable, exists purely to show that man can own part of a powerful animal.

I truly do not want to condemn every inch of Cabela’s, but I am finding that quite difficult. There are definitely products there that a well-intentioned, knowledgeable nature-lover environmentalist would purchase, but those products are overshadowed by taxidermy and weapons. The tools necessary to hunt sustainably and environmentally beneficially are also sold at Cabela’s. It would not surprise me in the least to know that hunters with whom I would agree come to Cabela’s to purchase necessary tools. There may be educational aspects present in the labeling of the kinds of deer and bears as well as the “Diver Dan” show, but it’s all too easy to argue that one needs to know these things to become a respected, nature-dominating hunter. The culture of nature present at Cabela’s terrifies me. I fear that children raised on Cabela’s will lack respect for nature and fellow humans, alike and will load up their gun cases so they “never have to call 911” (quote found on a doormat in the home good section).

I’m a big fan of the Adult Swim show, “Off The Air.” The episodes are all about 12 minutes long and are all available on YouTube. The show is a series of strung together vignettes and music that all follow a loose theme. Each episode is a one word theme (dance, falling, nightmares, nature, etc.) and includes stock video, bits from other movies or videos, and a lot of strange animation. These videos are incredibly fun to watch, as they break the traditional “rules” of media and rest gently on the border between profound social commentary and complete nonsense.

The one entitled “Nature”, however, displays some pretty great symbolism that represents and critiques humans’ relationship with nature, especially through film, art, and hunting. I made a bit of a scavenger hunt (much like the one in Cabela’s), and would love to know if you found these things in the video and what you think the filmmakers were trying to say by including them:

1. Flash Drive -> Owl
2. Hunter & Rabbit
3. Digitizing nature
4. Drumming birds
5. Milk & Honey
6. Park Bench
7. “What’s up?” birds
8. Bear & Rabbit
9. Rhino & Airplane
10. Cartoonization
11. Dog “blob”

One thing I want to direct everyone towards is their attempt to reverse anthropomorphization. How did they do it? Do you think it worked?

“I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one. It is remarkable how easily and insensibly we fall into a particular route, and make a beaten track for ourselves. I had not lived there a week before my feet wore a path from my door to the pondside; and though it is five or six years since I trod it, it is still quite distinct. It is true, I fear that others may have fallen into it, and so helped to keep it open. The surface or the earth is soft and impressible by the feet of men; and so with the paths which the mind travels. How worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity! I did not wish to take a cabin passage, but rather to go before the mast and on the deck of the world, for there I could best see the moonlight amid the mountains. I do not wish to go below now” (Thoreau 351). 

This message will be the one that I hold closest to me while concluding my adventure through Walden. Thoreau and I agree wholeheartedly that one of the more threatening dangers to humans is the ease with which we can fall into the deep “ruts of tradition and conformity.” Pair this passage with the volumes of studies done on how mental and emotional health deteriorates due to the pressures of conformity. Falling into these ruts robs oneself of discovering the truth about life and themselves. Allowing each individual within a society to stay in the “cabin passage” inhibits the potential for social progress. Staying below the metaphorical deck does not permit us to question traditions and conformity that marginalizes, endangers, and disrespects members of society as well as the environment in which society resides. If every member of society followed Thoreau’s advice, in this passage, we would be living in a much better society.

“It is obvious that people would eat a lot less meat if they had to hunt, kill, skin or pluck, eviscerate, disassemble, and cook whatever animal or bird or fish they wanted to consume. These tasks are work, and many people would find them unpleasant. The modern protein industry made it much easier and cheaper to get battered, ready-to-eat chicken parts from the freezer section of a food store and pop them into a microwave or toaster oven. Even serious cooks buy raw chickens, whole or in parts, with feathers, heads, and feet removed, usually packaged in a plastic tray, resting on a little paper diaper, and sealed in a clear plastic wrap. Those birds have come a long way from the chicken coop” (Sterba 199).

This is the phenomenon that, for me, is at the root of the overconsumption-of-meat problem. I truly believe that everyone should at least see what it takes to kill and process food, specifically that which was once a living animal. This is yet another reason that I am pro-hunting for food/population stabilization. I truly think people would reconsider their meat consumption if they saw the inside of a slaughterhouse or had to kill and process an animal themselves.