CLIMATE CHANGE: CAN ARTISTS HAVE ANY INFLUENCE? YES?

I found the following article in TATE ETC Magazine the summer edition 2017 and it was really interesting as it offered two opinions on whether artists can really make a difference. I have pulled out the main points of the arguments by J.M. Ledgard from the Head to Head feature below.

JM Ledgard: Former Foreign political and war correspondent for The Economist and novelist.

Ledgard argues yes that in the face of man made climate change, destruction of the environment and politicians in denial of science that artists can make a difference.

The first reason is that"art will have agency is that everything is in play, positive futures are possible, and many artists care passionately, almost painfully about the living world. The blog roll call of those working on climate change issues alone runs into the hundreds. Admittedly, some are vulnerable to missionary positions and green agitprop, but others strike a melancholic intensity." He cites
Rachel Sussmans photographic series documenting the world oldest living things which I will follow up on. he also adds that it is not just the artists who care but the patrons too who are becoming more inclined to spend money on ambitious installations dealing with the issue.

Rachel Sussman: Oldest Living Things in The World Book Cover

His second reason is "an alliance between art and science at a level not seen since the 18th-century foundation of the Royal Society and French Academy. By backing up the conceptual with the science art has gained heft". Ledgard uses the collaboration between artist Olafur Eliasson and specialist Greenland ice geologist Minik Rosing to illustrate this and their sculpture for the 2015 UN Paris Climate Change Conference. The ice sculpture they created allowed the audience to touch, circle and see them selves as flushed, hot and fleeting next to something so clear, cold and ancient. The sculpture was indeed beautiful but the science behind it elevate the work to the profound.

Olafur Eliasson: Ice Watch

Thirdly and a really interesting viewpoint is that Ledgard proposes that "artists are more trusted than politicians and are likely to remain so in the confused populist movement." The unguardedness and often intimacy of artists their idea and their medium of wordless light, colour, shade, form and space give it a separate authority.

The fourth reason is for betting on artists is their embracing of technology and new forms of communicating their ideas. "The near future is going to be one of visual fragments, of meta-visions, reconstituted in isolation by individuals on smart-phones and mixed reality headsets." This online, interactive, immersive, 3D world offers huge potential for artists and whole new and as of yet uninvented and therefore un-embraced technologies. These will possibly contrast the natural and the simulated highlighting the difference between the tow. He predicts that "in response to digital connectivity, art shown in public spaces will become more social and coherent, and perhaps more meaningful".

Lars Jan: Holoscenes (Garden Hose and Guitar)

Lastly Ledgard argues that many other conventional methods promoting understanding of the future are not as immediate as art can be. Economics, philosophy and neuroscientists have all demonstrated that humans struggle to project themselves into the future. He states "But art can move effortlessly outside of time and space".  Arguing that our classical ancestors were locked to the land and sky by, storms, stars, solstices and harvest. He art and as ambitious as the geometric sculptures in the Texas desert by Donald Judd, Agnes Dene's wheat fields in NY city, Peter Doig's Caribbean paintings and Tomas Saraceno's airborne sculptures can tap back into that state. That is how art will inform the debate.

Donald Judd: Texas Desert

Agnes Dean: Wheat Field

Tomas Saraceno:Solar Bell

My Thoughts.

I agree with all of Ledgard's arguments and they back up my own thinking. Art allows an examination and critique of the issue in a different forum. In my own practice which has been moving image primarily and rooted in documentary it is also backed up by facts even if it is playful with the truth. I have been exploring creating the "ecstatic truth" as Werner Herzog calls it or the "creative treatment of actuality" to quote John Grierson. I agree that in a world of spin and fake news many artists are indeed trusted more than the machinations of politics and politicians. I also find his thoughts on the embracing of technology interesting as someone who has been exploring it in my work. Pushing the boundaries of vision and audio and experimenting with audience dissemination of these is certainly something that will have huge influence in the future. Finally I agree art can transcend science, vision, perception and comprehension to help an audience emote and feel. When talking about an issue as huge as climate change if you can tap into this you are halfway there in changing perceptions and calling people to action.