Now, in this video, listen to the author himself talk about his book, its portrait of human failings and how it was reflected in the farce that was the Copenhagen summit.

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.

This is the question that is addressed in a recent Hollywood movie entitled “The Day The Earth Stood Still”.

Given Hollywood’s power to shape our culture, it is regrettable that Hollywood seems to be dragging its heels about engaging meaningfully with environmental issues.  This in spite of actors, directors, producers and sundry other claiming to be concerned and committed to environmental issues.

“The Day The Earth Stood Still” (a 2008 remake of a 1951 movie of the same name) does take environmental issues head on.  Here is a brief synopsis:

Beings from another planet land on Earth, sending Klaatu – one of their own in human form (in fact in the form of Keanu Reeves) – to speak to world leaders about the need to stop destroying the planet.  Needless to say, Klaatu doesn’t get a civilized invite to the White House but, instead, is met by bullets, capture, interrogation and other well known welcome methods that humans have adopted for centuries towards anything, or anyone, that is not considered of their own kind.

Finally Klaatu reveals that his mission is to destroy the human race and all that it has created as the only option left to save the planet.  “If you live, the Earth dies.  If you die, the Earth lives”.  There is no other option.

A cloud of tiny robots (nanobots) is released and the destruction begins.  Until the attractive Dr Benson (Jennifer Connelly), persuades him otherwise.  Witnessing the strength of a mother’s love for her son, Klaatu is persuaded that the human race has some merit after all.  He believes that, once we see the edge of the precipice, we will do something about it and mend our ways.  The destruction is halted.

Did Klaatu get it right?

I have to admit, that watching this movie, I wondered about the outcome.  I wondered whether destruction of the human race and all our intrusions on the planet would have been a preferable ending.  I did not really believe that we were capable of turning back at the brink. Would the world be better off without us?

After Copenhagen, what do you believe?  Did Klaatu make the right call or was he had?  Leave a comment with your verdict.

This movie is not the most gripping or best acted movie ever made but it’s a reasonable story line, it is one movie that addresses environmental issues head on and the special effects are great.  You can view a short trailer here.

Minkkinen is a Finnish photographer who created ‘self-portraits’ of a different kind. He set himself the task of creating a set of photographs of his own body, or parts of his body, unclothed and generally in some sort of natural environment. The result is a set of potent, elegant and often surprising images.

Self Portrait

Minkinnen’s focus was the exploration of process and the creation of clean, elegant and visually powerful imagery.  Re-interpreting his work today, in a world occupied with environmental concerns, the images become a powerful statement on Man’s relationship with the natural environment.

Looking at these images I am left with the feeling that Man’s relationship with nature has been reduced to that of an intruder; an unwelcome presence that no longer belongs in a natural environment.  All sorts of questions spring to mind. Will our handiwork continue to smother all that is around us?  How long will it take us to snuff out the light and everything that gives life to this world?
As polar ice caps continue to melt, world leaders head to Copenhagen in December for yet more talk, talk, talk as a substitute for any meaningful action.  When they emerge, in which direction will we be headed?

Left, Right, Business as Usual?

Maybe one of Minkkinnen’s most powerful images is the one below. He titled it simply – ‘Self-Portrait, Narrangansett’. What I see is a desperate scream at the point where the Man-made meets what’s left of the natural world.

It has been said that artists do not own the interpretation of their art.  Once an artist puts his art work ‘out there’ it becomes public property, subject to different opinions and interpretations.  It may end up with a meaning that is quite different from what the artist intended.  Focused on the modernist concerns of line and aesthetic, Minkinnen never intended his work to be a commentary on environmental issues. Yet, in today’s postmodern world, it is difficult to see it as anything else.

The installation brings to London 10 rain forest tree stumps from a commercially logged, regulated rain forest in Ghana and installs them in Trafalgar Square to make what is doubtless one of the most striking visual statements ever about deforestation.

"Ghost Forest" - computer generated image of installation in Trafalgar Square

All the tree stumps in this installation came from trees that fell naturally due to adverse weather conditions. Seven different tree types are represented, all coming from the Suhuma forest reserve in Western Ghana.

Denya tree being washed prior to shipping

The scale of this installation and the size of the trees will no doubt be impressive.  Some of these trees will have stood as high as Nelson’s column. Lasers will be installed to show how high these trees once stood in their natural spaces.

Tree stumps installed in Trafalgar Square

This video tells the story behind the installation.

In December, the installation will move to Thorvaldsens Plads, Copenhagen, to coincide with the COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen.