Category Archives: Interpreting Ecoart

A recent exchange with eco art colleagues revealed a deep-seated reluctance to accept the role of artists who are manipulating DNA, culturing tissues, and otherwise engaging in sophisticated bio technologies. It seems these colleagues reject the possibility that high tech processes are capable of generating solutions to stubborn environmental problems, increasing output sustainably, remediating contaminated sites efficiently, and providing for the needs of all living species. At the core of their skepticism is lack of faith in human ingenuity. The brilliant artists who I am privileged to write about in my forthcoming book provide irrefutable proof that the human imagination is thriving and that it is possible to apply prudence and responsibility to innovations that can also threaten and destroy. Their goal defines eco art not as according to materials or processes, but according to mission. They all seek the means and tools to vitalize the Earth’s systems.

Context for an ecoart Unconference

As I reflect on the underlying why of all of this:

Plenty has been said about the big changes going on globally: climate change, mass species extinction, peak oil, peak topsoil, peak water, etc. and the apparent incapacity of our current decision-making bodies to deal with any of this. Our civilization is clearly ripe for a large shift in paradigm.

One of the things that people often seem to forget when it comes to sustainability, is that unsustainable means that it can’t continue. Human populations that can’t figure out how to live within the carrying capacity of their environment will inevitably decline until they can.

Posted in Conference 2012, Interpreting Ecoart, Posts | Leave a comment

Interpreting Ecoart

by Chris Fremantle

I think it would be really good to use the public facing web site to push the scope of the discussion about ecoart.

My proposal is that we ask the question “What is ecoart?” or “How has ecoart been interpreted?”

Respondents are encouraged to answer this question by taking any approach they see fit, conventional or otherwise. Our single stipulation is that responses be around 300 words (artwork is also gladly accepted!).

We encourage a wide range of responses from diverse disciplinary perspectives.
To submit, please post your response to by March 1, 2012.

Posted in Interpreting Ecoart | Leave a comment