Pueblo Buffalo Dancer

 

Allan Houser

U.S. 1914-1994

Pueblo Buffalo Dancer

Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art

1991, charcoal

 

Allan Houser’s charcoal drawing, Pueblo Buffalo Dancer, caught my eye as a portrayal of a relationship between humans and the landscape, because it’s a simple, bold depiction of a Native American dancer adorning numerous ornaments obtained from nature. 

The subject of the artwork is clear since there is no background aside for light shading of swirls that empower the artwork’s tone of energy.  Also with the dancer being centered on the canvas and having extremely dark skin, made all the darker because of the charcoal, his dark torso and darker face drew my eye at first.  Although the facial features are fierce, the dancer has only basic ones with little detail given which led me to believe Houser intended for the dancer’s face to convey a strong, intense feeling while also letting it be known that the dancer’s identity is not the focus of the artwork.  Instead, far more detail is given to the dancer’s horned buffalo headdress, his shell pendant, his kilt with a depicted snake, and all other ornaments on him.  My gaze was directed to the person himself causing me to understand the tone of the art and then drawn to the surrounding details in wonder of their meaning.

I think that the contrast between the simplicity of the dancer himself and the detailed accessories on him is the key to understanding the meaning of this artwork.  In my opinion, the dancer’s ornaments were intentionally given much attention to show that the dance was an extremely symbolic act.  Native American dances are prominently known for their deep-rooted characteristics and symbolism, and wearing the ornaments must have intensified the significance.  The depiction of this dancer shows that back in the time of the Pueblo people, there was a relationship between humans and nature in which humans utilized and respected the aspects of nature.  

 

The Irrelevancy of Past Anthropology with the Anthropocene

Although I find the study of past anthropology interesting in the way it shows that humans have long interacted and shaped the environment, I actually do not find the study of such a past relevant to the current case of the Anthropocene. Dr. Randall and Dr. Balee both gave examples to the class of how ever since humans have been around on Earth, they have left signs of their existence and molded the environment to create their own niche. For instance, hunter-gatherer populations contributed to the dispersal of cereal seeds and left behind earthen mounds, and Amazonians once formed mound forests in order to influence flooding patterns (Randall 2013, Balee 2006). However, how is all of this useful to the Anthropocene? It’s already been well-known that any living thing can influence their landscape in some way. If this was for an argument that since humans have always changed the environment, meaning they are not an external factor and instead simply part of nature, so they should continue to do so, then I find it a flawed argument. The Anthropocene now matters because humans recently have (mid-1700’s) and currently are affecting the environment at more ridiculous rates and with more irreversible damage than ever. Past hunter-gatherers populations and the like are indeed intriguing and much can be learned of their lifestyles, but their effects on the climate were minimal. I definitely do not, however, think that studying the past is of absolutely no use to learning about the Anthropocene, because it’s clear that data on climate millennia ago build us statistical models useful for predictions. So overall, although past humans have clearly impacted the landscape in their various ways, those effects are weak comparisons to those recent humans have caused, and the past actions of aboriginals should not be used as any form of justification for continued landscape morphing.

Sources:

Balee, William. The Research Program of Historical Ecology (2006).

Randall, Asa. Classroom lecture March (2013).

The Lack of Idealism in New Conservation

Recently, Dr. Michelle Marvier came to talk at the university about her viewpoint on conservation.  She advocated that human-interest should be a higher factor of motivation to gain much needed supporters that aren’t already in the shrinking “tent of conservation” (Marvier “New Conservation is True Conservation”). This concept was termed “New Conservation” in opposition to “Old Conservation” which argues that the intrinsic value of nature should be the main reason for conservation. Although Dr. Marvier made a compelling argument, it simply seemed overly optimistic to the point of being improbable to me.

She expects that corporations will jump on the bandwagon of conservation to get benefits to themselves in the form of good public relations and somewhat better resources and this will all help in the long run of conservation. This makes sense in the way that corporations do indeed have a great effect on its surroundings and people so they may exert some influence; however, what happens after they decide to slightly reduce their consumption? Corporations that merely become environmentally-friendly are still corporations with the mindset of eventually expanding and increasing profits. There is little incentive for them to become truly eco-friendly because their goal is not to conserve nature.

In addition, although I agree that the issue of corporations must be somehow addressed, for a few do have a “huge impact on land conversion, mining, energy extraction, and consumer choices”, I also think the risks of doing so must be taken into account (Kareiva and Marvier “What is Conservation Science?”). In the attempt to gain support from corporations, the credibility of the conservation movement and its affiliated nonprofit organizations may be damaged. Dr. Marvier is fully aware she has much opposition to her ideas; this could be a clear indicator that if she somehow succeeds with including corporations in the conservation tent, she may as well lose the supporters who had occupied the tent in the first place.

Tv Nguyen

An issue that I think must be resolved regarding the Anthropocene is properly defining the starting point of it. I was quite displeased with Dr. Ellis’s input at the end of the class discussion that it doesn’t really matter when the Anthropocene started since people should focus more on fixing it. Indeed solving the issue at hand is critical; however, I think if we are to use the term “Anthropocene” there should be a clear definition of what it is and when it started in order to minimize confusion. Simply by formalizing a definition that would be acknowledged by most, further time and effort wouldn’t be spent on speculating and instead be used for finding solutions. Dr. Ellis even made a point of comparing ‘the’ Anthropocene vs. ‘an’ Anthropocene which was already a play on proper word usage. I agreed with him about the morality issue he implicated with this in that people can choose the future of the Anthropocene; yet it was still ironic how he was particular on words used about the Anthropocene but not so much on the term Anthropocene itself (Ellis and Trachtenberg 2014). Even though it is currently regarded by most as an informal term, Dr. Ellis could have disagreed with this usage and instead stressed of how formalization is needed. I find it important to define its starting point since we have already gone through the trouble to name an epoch after humans activity and an informal term raises too much confusion. I think the typical questions that come to the mind of someone first hearing of the Anthropocene is firstly “What is it?”, “When did it start?” then upon hearing the uncertain answer probably “Why haven’t we been able to date it?”. Although setting the time to an exact date may not seem crucial to geologists since most epochs do not have a specific date, people today have the technology to date such things and to be more precise. Anyways, those past epochs were marked by events and our uncertainty of when they happened is the reason of the uncertainty of dating and the Anthropocene not only concerns geologists but is multi-disciplinary. Our mark on the earth is different than those of the many species that long inhabited the planet before us, and with our capabilities to decipher and record history we have an obligation to set the record straight for future generations.

Tv Nguyen