This post is going to try and incorporate “You Are Here (You Think): A San Francisco Bus Tour” in Reclaiming San Francisco and a film I saw at the Nick called "The Salt of the Earth". What interests me is the difference between the consideration of 'empty space' between the article and the film. Both the article and the film seemingly agree that "only emptiness can fill a space with possibility" but while the article sees this as the possibility of human expansion (albeit for ‘community’), Salgado saw and sees emptiness of space as a responsibility of humanity to rebuild what they destroyed. The aim of the tour was to take the tourist away from the typical, commercial space and into a psychological space wherein the nature of commerce and human ideals are examined and critiqued. As much as I can appreciate how artistic and liberating this purpose may be, it ignores the city as an inorganic, repressive force of the natural human potential. While we remain distracted by existential desires, the earth beneath our feet is dying as a result of the bleak concrete we put on top of it.
The film is a documentary about Brazilian born photographer, Sebastiao Salgado. Salgado began his adult life as an economist working in London but soon found photography. It was more than passion that drove Salgado to change careers; he saw photography as a greater means of combating human suffering than economics. He grew up on a farm surrounded by plentiful rainforest which became arid desert during his time away taking photographs. It was during this time away that he saw the immense and insane human suffering in such places as Rwanda. From such morbid destruction, he understood humanity as a monstrous force but rather than wallow in depression, Salgado understood his suffering in the greater context of humanity and saw an opportunity to replenish life on Earth. He returned to the land he grew up on and began a restoration project. 27 years after its commencement, the rainforest is replenished. 2 million trees now exist where there were none. Wildlife (including jaguars) have returned to the site. In an article by sfgate (referenced below), Salgado is quoted as saying ""I'm an optimist because we have the resources to do it. But I'm a pessimist because I wonder whether we are capable of it. Our survival as a species is now compromised. Can we organize things so that we create this discussion democratically?" This beautiful dichotomy between hope and necessity grounds my thinking as a human in relation to the planet and the destruction we bring to the Earth in urban life. “You are here (You think)” quotes H.G. Wells, saying that if nature destroys urbanity (1906 earthquake), humans will rebuild the urban center, "bigger, better and after the very briefest of intervals". Sure, on one level this is a marker of human achievement but only in such a way that it shows how selfishly developed we are. In Salgado’s terms, we can “organize things” such as rebuilding company skyscrapers because we are engulfed in a life that dictates the necessity of such rebuilding. Perhaps if the rebuilding of the earth was thought of in the same necessary bracket that skyscrapers are, we would recognize what we are “capable” of and “democratic discussion” would ensue.
"Horribly Bleak Study sees Empty Landscape as Large Herbivores Vanish at Startling Rate"
Great post! I thought that “empty spaces" being seen as lacking progress and needing to be filled and connected to the rest of the city, is similar to the way that the beat generation writers were seen. It seemed like people who didn't adhere to the industrial, political, military, capitalist or societal machine and instead tried to live on the outside, wandering around and meditating in nature, were seen as lazy and wasting potential. They were “empty” where money and societal expectations was concerned rather than as vessels for change and enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of Professor Godzich's class "International Cyberpunk." I'm sure some of you were in this class and may have gotten lost at some point, so please correct me if I misspeak. However, one of Godzich's main statements that truly stuck with me was that nature no longer exists, that it's been completely overshadowed by urbanity. I'm not sure that I agree with this statement, especially considering countries like Rwanda, but from his lectures, I gathered that it seems hopeful but improbable that Earth will continue to survive based on customary sources of humanism. Rather, people need to find a way to advance while keeping in mind the notion that technology will continue to progress, likely including those that thrive on narcissism and corporate greed. This is a new era, and although the progression of these negative aspects may still be present, there can be a solution outside of individualistic priority. I fully believe that nature still exists - perhaps Professor Godzich hasn't been to the bottom of the ocean quite yet (neither have I, but it covers more ground than we do). But the questions he elicited through his lectures - what to do with this new era and how to draw a sense of unity despite any instinctive greed, made me think about the dichotomy you mentioned and how it might be solved.
ReplyDelete