MICROSTORY OF ART

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

Dedicated to Eyes of Tomorrow

(Picture: DS)

Eyes of Tomorrow

(15.5.2023) It’s been a while that I have embarked on the adventure to study the iconography of sustainability. This undertaking has developed into an art history of sustainability, and it is time now for a more general reflection. The question that I would like to raise is the question: does the discourse of sustainability need visuality at all? Is a visual dimension needed? Is an imagery of sustainability needed? Or simply: are pictures needed? And perhaps the answer will be: it depends. It may depend on what someone is seeking to do. The field is wide, and of course there is not one discourse of sustainability but many. And there is not one definition of sustainability but many. So let’s go. Let’s go on a walk to explore the field again. With new eyes. And perhaps: with the eyes of tomorrow.

1) ›Observing the World of Today with the Eyes of Tomorrow‹

The search for an elegant as well as concise definition of sustainability has cost me a sleepless night. It is not that easy to define that noun. But here is what I am proposing: sustainability is the prospect of an object, a structure, or a process, to further exist into the future. To have a secured future. ›Sustainable‹ one might call an object, a structure, or a process, if it has such prospect; but it makes sense also to name practices that seek to secure the future of an object, structure, or process, sustainable practices. Practices in accordance with the ideal to give a something the prospect to exist into the future. Of course I am aware that, often today, ›sustainable‹ does not mean more than ›ecofriendly‹, or ›somehow in accordance with the ideal of protecting the climate‹, but my definition does not seek to cover any use of the word. It does seek to define precisely what the core, the essence of the discourse of sustainability might be.
The classic object is yield forestry. If forestry is practiced with the goal to retain a stock of natural capital it may be called sustainable forestry. Such forestry does avoid the overuse of the natural capital stock: the forest. But my definition could be applied to any object. The above picture was not taken to illustrate what the problem is (the motivation was rather to document the atmosphere of an upcoming thunderstorm), but it does serve to illustrate that problem: we have embarked on a walk, but if we might continue on a certain path, we may get wet, because there is an thunderstorm upcoming, which already shows on the horizon. The prospect of our walk, our project does not look good. May it be continued? And if we replace ›walk‹ with ›forestry‹, or ›future of humans’ life on earth‹, we come closer to the matter. We may also replace ›thunderstorm‹ with ›ecological crisis‹, or, more specific, if we think of forestry, with ›a crisis in resources management‹, due to strategies that were not in accordance with the principle of sustainability, but rather with complete and quick exploitation.
The problem with the notion is that one has transferred the notion from forestry to anything else, and it is symptomatic that one always has to come back to forestry, if it is about to define and to explain what sustainabiliy is really about in its essence. If, as an object, forestry is replaced with, ›the needs of people that have to be satisfied (so that also future generation can satisfy their needs)‹, the concept does become much more ambitious, but it is also becoming more cloudy what exactly we are talking about. And if it is about the relation of the fields of the economy, of ecology, of society and of culture, that, somehow, are to be organized in accordance to the ideal of harmony (so that the prospect of life on earth may be good) – this is most ambitious. But is it more than wishful thinking? Or is there some kind of theory that would secure the future of everything, or is there not? And I would rather say that such theory does not exist (and diagrams are all we get, in terms of images). But why speaking, then, all of the time, of sustainability? Why suggesting that, by constantly speaking of sustainability, a key has been found. A consensus might exist only as to the most general definition (and perhaps not even as to this).

So far, so good. But now to my question: are we in need of an imagery of sustainability? Are we in need of pictures? And the answer may be another question: are we speaking about forestry now? Does sustainable forestry need pictures? And I would say: yes, if pictures may be of help to clarify how exactly sustainable forestry does look like, pictures may be of help. If we are able, if our eyes are able to detect fungal diseases early, or if we have an eye for overuse of resources, if we know to what degree our resources are renewable – why not working with pictures, to document a problem, to secure that knowledge, by making that knowledge available to everyone. And most helpful would be a documentation of the early markers that may indicate that sustainable resources management would be beginning to turn into unsustainable resources management. This seems to be one key, because not everyone might have an eye for the normal, sound development, for a routine that has worked for some time, and for the indicators of upcoming crisis.

A definition of sustainability that even stresses the visual dimension of the concept I have found in a popular history of 20th century architecture (see reference given below): »Sustainability thus means observing the world of today with the eyes of tomorrow.« Architecture may be one field to which the basic concept of sustainability has been transferred, and the discussion of what makes sustainable architecture might be unfolded elsewhere, because, for the moment, I am only interested in the question for the visual dimension. It might be about knowing in the first place, what kind of architecture is in accordance with the more general idea of sustainability, but also here it could be helpful to work with pictures, seeking to make it more graphic what such architecture would be about, and why it would be in accordance with the ideal of sustainability. Pictures do simply help to illustrate what one is talking about, and to understand why one practice might be more in accordance with the ideal than another one. In the event it is also about architecture that is meant to last, and also aesthetically, not only physically, but this goes without saying and does not need further explanation. The point is: sustainability has a futuristic side, and perhaps we cannot do at all – without pictures, visions and without the imagination.

The more we come closer to theories on the relation of economy, ecology, society and culture, the more complex things are getting. Visuality is not always wanted, and often, as we have already seen, the imagery of sustainabilty is becoming rather stereotypical. We are observing that visuality is often rather identical with simplification, and the basic practice might be to brand something as ecological. Visuality, yes, but only in terms of a label, because, otherwise, things might get too complicated.

The same with wind turbines everywhere, but ›wind turbines everywhere‹ is exactly the kind of visualization that instigates political argument. Since not everyone may agree with wind turbines everywhere. And any idea of how the future should look like, speaking generally, is usually controversial. Sometimes it does even appear that a lack of graphic images may be wanted, because any illustration of what makes a something sustainable might scare someone else; or simply because any visualization might reveal that no one has a really specific idea or theory of how problems could be solved, and how exactly the future should look like, in other words: not everyone is prepared to enter the field of vision (that seeks to build back, to reform, or to rebuild) or even utopia (that seeks to envision the yet unseen).

How about a general answer now? Does thus the discourse of sustainability need a visual dimension? And I would say, yes, if it is meant to be substantial, graphic and honest (and also in case we deliberately want to enter the field of ecological vision or even utopia), an imagery of sustainability would be wanted and needed, just as a critique of such imagery (which is perhaps not wanted by everyone) would be wanted an needed. And such critique is exactly what we are striving for by embarking on a (field) study on the iconography of sustainability, and with our art history of sustainability. But our perspective should not be a naive one. Which is why I am suggesting now to embark on an excursus, an excursus into the field of imaginary architecture.

(Picture: amazon.com)

2) Erastus Salisbury Field and the Eyes of Tomorrow

The American painter Erastus Salisbury Field is perhaps not an completely unknown painter, but certainly a rather neglected one. I am conceding that I only know him, because on the cover of a CD with Renaissance music with the title of »Utopia Triumphans« I had noticed a spectacular piece of imaginary architecture (see small image above on the right), which caused me to find out who the author of that picture was. The result of that inquiery was astonishing. Erastus Salisbury Field was a 19th century painter (he lived 1805-1900), but his perhaps most famous painting Historical Monument of the American Republic, if placed on the cover of a CD with Renaissance music, seems to work as a rather suggestive depiction of the New Jerusalem (and this was the idea that I had: that this piece of imaginary architecture had meant to visualize the New Jerusalem).
But wrong: this piece of imaginary architecture was actually meant, by its author, to represent the American Republic (perhaps with allusions to the New Jerusalem). And more than that: it was meant to be a monument for the American Republic, on occasion of the centennial of 1876. And more than that: it had actually meant to be a monument, in terms of a cluster of towers with reliefs depicting historical scenes etc., that apparently Erastus Salisbury Field had imagined to be built – in reality.
This did not happen, and instead, posterity seems to have misinterpreted what Field had proposed with eyes of tomorrow. Because a monument is something, by definition, meant to last, a something whose value one does project into the future, envisioning that also posterity will appreciate the value of what is being honored as well as the value of the representation. Close inspection of that painting reveals that trains are part of the scenery, but not trains on the ground, but trains that seem to connect the various towers up high in the air. And one might interpret this, given that this is a 19th century painting, as futuristic. Only, what Erastus Salisbury Field had proposed with eyes of tomorrow, neither art history nor any audience, nor the American Republic itself, seems has interpreted as such. If the painting is only known to specialists, and if the painting does appear on the cover of a CD with Renaissanc music, this is interesting, but probably the opposite of what the artist had wanted. Projecting oneself into the future, this means, can result in posterity placing you into a distant past or at least associating you with that past, even if one could imagine the scenery of the monument as a somewhat surreal scenery which might be encountered, some day, in the metaverse, built, as one may say, or rebuilt, in a completely artificial manner, and not in reality, as the artist actually had wanted, and not for the reasons the artist had had in mind.

The picture that I am discussing, thus, is perhaps not an example of sustainable architecture, but it may remind us that projecting something into the future might have unexpected consequences, and the discourse of sustainability, on some level, is imaginary architecture as well, and it obviously has also a futuristic side: We cannot know how posterity will judge our visions, and what we believe to propose with ›eyes of tomorrow‹, it may seem to actual eyes of the future something rather naive, surreal, brief: something built on the illusions of the past. And this means: there are paradoxes to be found in the discourse of sustainability: the paradox of having to envision something, even if we actually have no picture for what we want to envision (as far as a more complex scenario of a sustainable world is concerned), and the paradox of not being able to know if sustainable strategies will really turn out to be sustainable, as far as the result is concerned. Because only the future will be able to tell, if, what we are projecting with eyes of tomorrow, does make sense still – in the future. And if we understand that, we will have to come to the conclusion that the discourse of sustainability suffers of a lack of commitment, because claiming sustainability is not necessarily a firm commitment. Since it is only the future that will tell if such claim was justified or not. And this paradox might also explain the success of the (inflated) concept with a third paradox: everyone seems to commit to the ideal sustainability, but since no one can really know if such commitment is indeed substantial in terms of a result, the commitment is actually rather a claim, or, in the best case, an honest promise or investment. Made with best knowledge and intentions (that all too easily can also be merely suggested).

(Picture: DS)

3) Direct Democracy and the Eyes of Tomorrow

A direct democracy such as Switzerland has also a visual culture which is characteristic for a direct democracy (see the example above; the Swiss people vote on a new climate-protection-law in June; the tradition of the political poster is alive and does apear here in the setting of a landscape). And we can observe the political argument on a level of visualization. The ›wind turbines everywhere‹ projection and visualization is to be found in that argument, as is the interesting example of an iconography of sustainability shown above. In both cases ›eyes of tomorrow‹, respectively eyes of today with concerns for sustainability (in the one case: of the landscape; in the other: the future of life on earth) argue for a contra, respectively a pro. Does the discourse of sustainability need a visual dimension, I asked at the very beginning. It might depend on what someone is seeking to do. What I am proposing is the observing of that visual dimension, in the context of that discourse, an observing for which the picture above is meant as an example, respectively: a visualization.

Selected Literature:
Jürgen Tietz, The Story of Modern Architecture of the 20th Century, Potsdam 2013 [p. 117: »Sustainability thus means observing the world of today with the eyes of tomorrow.«]

The Art Museum of Sustainability


Monet on Sustainability

Velázquez on Sustainability

Van Gogh on Sustainability

Picasso and Sustainability

Hopper and Sustainability

Rubens on Sustainability

Iconography of Sustainability


Iconography of Sustainability

Iconography of Sustainability 2

From Bruegel to Solarpunk (Iconography of Sustainability 3)

Concepts, Labels and Varia


Solarpunk

Renaturalization

Tipping Points

The Blue Hour in Ecotopia

Reforestation

Emergency Supply

Sustainability and Luxury

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

© DS