Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen – shame about the climate change art.
In a recent column with the above title in Britain’s newspaper ‘The Guardian’, environmental writer Bibi van der Zee gives her views on whether the art works that surrounded the Copenhagen Climate Change conference would do any good at all. Written before the summit finished in spectacular failure, here, in brief, were her conclusions:
- the art was generally good and much of it was very moving
- she could not believe that any of it would do any good and would make a blind bit of difference to the outcome in Copenhagen
I believe that both her conclusions are right. But her whole article somewhat misses the point.
Producing artwork surrounding a summit like Copenhagen hoping that it will make a difference to the final negotiations is silly. But to conclude therefore that art focused on environmental issues cannot have an impact is even sillier.
Let us start with Copenhagen. Over the past 20 years, we have had plenty of science, plenty of data, plenty of reasoned arguments, plenty of learned reports, plenty of demonstrations, plenty of NGOs making their points and telling the world about climate change, plenty of carbon heavy miles spent in endless multilateral negotiations – and it all ended in spectacular failure in Copenhagen. While it is easy to point the finger at politicians, the reality is that we have all failed.
On the other hand, there has been precious little art devoted to these issues over the past 20 years. Art is a powerful element that shapes the cultural environment in which decisions are made. The art itself does not necessarily influence those decisions directly but it does shape the social substrate that drives the direction of those decisions. Copenhagen did not fail because of lack of science. Copenhagen failed because, as a society, we are culturally unprepared to take the decisions that need to be taken. Going forward, art and its popular application can make a significant difference in re-shaping that culture so that, next time round, we might stand a chance.
Ms van der Zee should realize that what we need is more artistic involvement not less. The science/data/learned report route has, on its own, led us to nothing short of a spectacular failure.
Oh, and if anyone wants an alternative view of why the summit failed, read this article and its rebuttal.
