Jake is my dominant rooster. His plumage glows with the splendor of an autumn forest in the mid day sun. Detergent is his subordinate. His brilliant red beak, comb, and feet are dazzling contrasts to the pure white expanses they surround. The two do not fight because Jake's supremity is impenetrable. Detergent simply takes the wide course around his competitor and avoids confrontations. The slow, tense ritual they perform each day is a study in conflict resolution.

Wouldn’t it seem that having seven roosters would be a certain formula for blood spilling? In fact, hostilities were diminished when we kept seven roosters last year. Here is my theory about this surprising turn of events:

Everyone knows about the pecking order. But roosters are not only competitive. They are also intensely social, as evidenced by the powerful bonding that exists among brothers. Thus – our sole rooster had to contend with two brothers after one hatching. All three encountered four brothers from the next hatching a few months later. Both sets of brothers were inseparable. Thus, the seniors were always outnumbered by the youngsters. If it wasn’t love, their display of tolerance was impressive. Once the boys matured, they were even allowed access to the hens.

Detergent is not that fortunate. Jake will not tolerate an intruder in his harem. But Detergent neither fights for his rightful share of chickens, nor sulks. He is a resourceful lad who transferred his yearnings to another species. Detergent, the rooster, mates with the female ducks!

That may be the secret of our peaceable kingdom, but it does not provide a moral for this tale. Is Detergent's behavior an unnatural perversion or a natural accommodation? In either case, he confirms ‘nature's’ amazing ability to break its own rules and adapt to circumstance.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (99) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 482

The media abounds with information regarding which presidential candidate deserves our votes. Here is another opportunity to vote:

A. The future promises health, security, peace, prosperity, and contentment. Government, religion, education, technology and science work together to solve problems and offer guidance.

Machines are efficient and whisper quiet?

Vehicle exhaust consists of water vapor?

Parks and greenways replace urban freeways?

Oil is obsolete?

Living standards for disadvantaged people improve while privileged populations voluntarily conserve?

Employment is secure and fulfillilng?

Landfills areunnecessary?

Forests increase?

Dams are dismantled?

CO2 levels decrease?

Water leaving factories is clean?

B. The future is a troublesome prospect of environmental degradation, information overloads, global inequities, political turbulence, racial conflict, grinding poverty, rampant disease, crime, corruption, unemployment and unfulfilling work.

There are enough fishing boats, but not enough fish?

Therea are enough pumps but not enough aquifers?

There are enough chainsaws but not enough trees?

There are enough tractors but not enough fertile ground? 

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (102) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 470

Today, it is common for people to survive by purchasing goods produced by multinational corporations through networked communications, dispersed production sites, and long distance transport.

It is rare for people to survive by depending upon intimate knowledge of local resources and local conditions, relying on trade for luxuries like spice and silk. This model was the norm for the all but the past two hundred years of humanity’s 100,000 year history.

Such a scrambling of ordinary and extraordinary experiences is essential for grasping contemporary environmental conditions:

Currently Ordinary / Formerly Extraordinary

Maintaining the same temperature in winter and summer.

Eating fresh fruit and vegetables twelve months a year.

Flicking a switch to access light at night.

Communicating instantaneously and globally.

Using labor-saving devices for convenience, not necessity.

Hiring others to collect and dispose of your waste.

Having indoor plumbing and hot water.

Traveling long distances for entertainment.

Not knowing who fabricated your clothes, food, shelter, fuel, etc.

Not knowing where or how your clothes, food, shelter, fuel, etc. were fabricated.

Relying on imported goods that traveled an average of 1,200 miles to get to you.

Generating approximately 56 tons of trash per year per person in the U.S.

Expressing affection, celebrating holidays, and cheering yourself up by purchasing manufactured goods.

Having your own room, bed, closet, vehicle, communication devices, etc.

Currently Extraordinary / Formerly Ordinary:

Walking on dirt or stones instead of pavement.

Gathering fuel for oneself

Satisfying fuel needs locally.

Living in your ancestors’ homestead.

Eating only local plants and animals.

Eating only native plants and animals.

Architecture tailored to local topography, temperature, humidity, soil conditions, wind patterns, and the activities of the residents.

Linking spiritual practice to a local river, mountain, tree, fish, mammal, etc.

Deriving art and craft materials from local minerals, plants, animals.

Managing your own waste.

Developing intimate knowledge of local plants, animals, soils, minerals, geological formations, air patterns, weather, etc.

Being buried on your family homestead.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (107) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 446

I woke in middle of the night, opened my eyes, and saw my prized African violet, my grandmother’s brass candlesticks, and a, pseudo hollowed tree-trunk containing about five pounds of loose change that is a classic example of 50s kitsch. They are components of my visual field each night and each morning.

 
Yet last night I saw these familiar items and my senses quickened. My mind raced. I was enthralled. My attention was rivetted because they had mysteriously migrated from the windowsill on one side of my bedroom to the wall on the opposite side.

 
As I scanned the room to check my sanity, they appeared lined up in their proper places. But their double lingered too. I could see them both clearly.

 
The weirdness of this doppelganger gradually gave way to a banal explanation. The black silhouette against the window had appeared again as the black shadow on the wall. The brilliant full moon, low in the sky, reflecting on the snow, had created a perfect duplicate at the precise instant when I awoke. For a brief flash, the Earth’s, the sun’s, and moon’s alignments coalesced to form an undistorted shadow with crisp edges,

 
The double illusion gave way to trip astonishment: by the illusion, by experiencing its epitome, and by its timely offering. I had fallen asleep wondering how I would introduce a presentation to graduating art students about how to get attention. The answer came not in a dream, but in a real world event. Here is what it taught me:

 
Functional behavior depends as much upon ignoring information as upon paying attention. In order to prevent our minds from becoming overwhelmed, our brains automatically select stimuli that are essential for our survival. Today, we are more likely to take note of traffic conditions and ATM locations than edible plants and animal tracks. Cultural conditioning functions like a mental map. It directs attention in the same manner that road maps, topographical maps, celestial maps, and chromosome maps each highlights a particular subject and ignores others.

 
Art functions in a similar manner. It is a map that directs attention to some physical, emotional, and/or spiritual phenomenon. Artists tend to focus on this expressive component of their art practice. They spend many dollars getting an education and countless hours after graduation refining their vision and honing their skills. But this does not guarantee that their work will ever be attended to by the public. Art can only function as a map if there is at least one map reader. Art without an audience is as pitiable as a banquet that is never eaten.

    - How do artists entice people to attend to their work?

- What if people are not seeking an art experience in the manner they might seek at ATM?

- What if they are already harried, distracted, and saturated with stimulation?

These challenges have become essential components of current art practices. It was not always so. Before the invention of printing presses, the vast majority of people were illiterate. They were exposed to symbols and representations of actuality when they went to places of worship. Otherwise they interacted with actualities. Imagine how attention-getting images would be if they existed exclusively in the chapel miles from your farm or village. No contemporary artwork enjoys this favored context. Now, stained glass windows and carvings in church niches compete with an avalanche of transmitted words and images.

 
The human perceptual apparatus never processes all the stimuli within its field. It is commonly known that mental accuracy diminishes as bits of information increase. At some point the ability to absorb information breaks down. Today, the relentless, multimedia assault upon our senses requires us to reject over 90% of the stimuli we encounter each day! This is a survival imperative. Because competition for attention is fierce, creative ingenuity is required to insinuate an artist's work into the 10% of human consciousness that is available for art-viewing.

 
This is the introduction to my talk.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (98) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 461

Soup for dinner, with beets, carrots, and turnips picked fresh from the garden. I harvested the ingredients dressed in boots, scarf, jacket, gloves, and wool hat. One hand held a garden trowel. The other held a snow shovel. The temperature had dipped into the teens the instant the sun set. Nonetheless, my stalwart veggies were as perky as they might have been on a balmy evening in July.

Winter gardening pits the abstract theory of environmental cooperation against the harsh reality of frigid winds, frozen ground, and snow accumulations. This tantalizing but incredulous abstraction rests on three elementary truthsL

- Glass magnifies the power of the sun’s rays

- Wood blocks harsh winds

- Certain plants are cold resistant

Simple cold frames moderate the winter habitat just enough to keep selected vegetables comfortable while they await their turns at the table. No fossil fuels. No engines. No waste. No effort. I am greeted by a chorus of happy survivors each time I lift the lids of the frames. Their songs resound against the constant chord of physical forces. Gardeners encounter these forces. Artists too. Indeed, every human tool and every human intention must contend with them. They are frequently referred to as forms of ‘resistance’:

- Inertial resistance to change (lift a tool)

- Frictional resistances to flow (draw with pastels)

- Gravitational resistance to elevation (model clay)

- Elastic resistance to reformation (work with spring metal)

- Viscous resistance to shearing (paint with brush)

- Tensile resistance to breaking (weave with reeds)

- Rigid resistance to bending (drill with bit)

Replacing cooperation for the desire to control transforms these inconvenient resistances into welcome helpmates. They demonstrate that yielding is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Many environmentalists believe yielding is the most effective way to enlist powerful allies to serve humanity's needs. Current technologies often ignore them. Furthermore, such cooperative acts save the material resources and the mental energy that would be required to overcome resistance.

Pumping heat into a greenhouse instead of collecting warmth from the sun is one example of cooperation. Constructing the greenhouse with a flat ceiling instead of a curved one is another. Heat energy naturally flows in a spiral. Forced inputs of energy are required to warm angular spaces.

Such simple facts make humanity's habit of shoving obsolete.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (101) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 450

It is absurd to believe that abusing a child a little bit is justified because other parents abuse their children more! Yet this skewed logic is frequently brandished in public, with neither shame nor apology, when personal environmental accountability is being discussed.

Recently a participant in a public university forum raised the issue of artists contributing to environmental degradation by using toxic materials and damaging processes. A member of audience declared that this practice was excusable. Her reason? Large scale producers commit far greater environmental abuse than artists.

We humans have negotiated a dominant position for ourselves among all the living creatures. Wielding parental powers imposes parental responsibilities.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (112) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 443