Paula Gaetano Adi: I want to thank of course every­one for being here again, and Damian for putting this togeth­er. My name is Paula Gaetano Adi and I’m an asso­ciate pro­fes­sor here at RISD in the divi­sion of Experimental and Foundation Studies. And I’m here to intro­duce our next pan­el, that is titled Liberatory Aesthetics for a Just Transition? And it was for­mu­lat­ed as a ques­tion mark rather than an affir­ma­tion, with the hope that we could real­ly insti­gate a much-needed con­ver­sa­tion about the role of aes­thet­ics in shap­ing more social­ly and envi­ron­men­tal­ly just futures, and in par­tic­u­lar the ways in which the Green New Deal could bring us an oppor­tu­ni­ty to rethink and decen­ter the aes­thet­ics and cul­tur­al pro­duc­tion that had emerged out of the dom­i­nant imag­i­nar­ies of white US-centric envi­ron­men­talisms.

So for that, I’m just going to intro­duce our three pan­elists and our respon­dent here. I’m going to do them all, so that I can just be out of stage and allow them to speak.

We have Yuriko Saito, who is join­ing us to speak about the aes­thet­ic expe­ri­ence of every­day life and the many ways in which our dai­ly aes­thet­ic reac­tions form pref­er­ences, judg­ment, design strate­gies, and cours­es of action. Professor Saito is a pro­fes­sor emer­i­tus of his­to­ry, phi­los­o­phy, and social sci­ence here at RISD.

Artist and design­er Anastasiia Raina will intro­duce us to her posthu­man aes­thet­ic and will invite us to spec­u­late and imag­ine just tran­si­tions for our cyber future, or cybor­gian future I’ll say. And Anastasiia is also a RISD per­son. She’s an assis­tant pro­fes­sor in the depart­ment of graph­ic design.

And last­ly it’s a real great joy for me per­son­al­ly to invite Dr. Priscilla Ybarra, from whom I’ve learned every­thing I know about Chicano lit­er­a­ture, I guess. In this pan­el Dr. Ybarra will show us how Latinx cul­tures hold the poten­tial to make vis­i­ble key aspects of the exploita­tion of the Earth and how the main­stream envi­ron­men­tal fails to account for the diverse envi­ron­men­tal ethics at work in com­mu­ni­ties of col­or, includ­ing indige­nous and Latinx peo­ple and schol­ars. Priscilla is an asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of English at the University of North Texas, and she’s the coed­i­tor of Latinx Environmentalisms: Place, Justice, and the Decolonial. And you can read more about every­one’s bio…there’s more details of their bios in the paper that you have there.

And our respon­dent, last­ly, who’s going to give us a nice sum­ma­ry at the end of this pan­el is Nicholas Pevzner, who is a full-time lec­tur­er at the depart­ment of Landscape Architecture in the University of Pennsylvania.

So with that I’m going to intro­duce Yuriko to the stage. Thank you.


Yuriko Saito: Well thank you very much for invit­ing me to this won­der­ful pan­el, out of my retire­ment. And it’s my plea­sure to be here. And one of the dis­ad­van­tages of going after the morn­ing ses­sions is that so many won­der­ful things have been said, so I feel a lit­tle bit… Well, any­way. And also, my talk is on envi­ron­men­tal aes­thet­ics and every­day life, so what I’m going to be talk­ing about is very very mun­dane. So I hope you’ll bear with me.

It is com­mon­ly rec­og­nized that artis­tic strate­gies are effec­tive in pro­mot­ing social, polit­i­cal, and reli­gious agen­das. We only have to think of the pop­u­lar music accom­pa­ny­ing the American civ­il rights move­ment, RISD’s own Shepard Fairey’s Obama poster and Yes we can” cam­paign (by the way, he was one of my first stu­dents here), and the uti­liza­tion of arts and media by Nazi Germany and today’s ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions.

What is less rec­og­nized is that many deci­sions and actions we make in our dai­ly life are also guid­ed by aes­thet­ic pref­er­ences and judg­ments. In the United States today unfor­tu­nate­ly, the pop­u­lar aes­thet­ic taste seems to work against the ideals of sus­tain­abil­i­ty and jus­tice pro­posed by the Green New Deal. Green objects and prac­tices are often reject­ed for aes­thet­ic rea­sons. The prime exam­ple is wind tur­bines. And we talked about this a cou­ple times already.

Take Cape Wind Project, which was nev­er real­ized. The talk giv­en at RISD by the head of this project, and my sub­se­quent research, con­firmed that the pub­lic out­cry over this pro­pos­al was pri­mar­i­ly aes­thet­ic. Wind tur­bines in the ocean are con­sid­ered to be an ugly eye­sore that destroys a pris­tine nat­ur­al beau­ty. The pow­er of the aes­thet­ic to make or break a project is sur­pris­ing­ly strong. However this ini­tial bad news also sug­gests good news. That is, this pow­er of aes­thet­ics can be har­nessed to sup­port the envi­ron­men­tal goals out­lined in a Green New Deal. Indeed I believe it is imper­a­tive that an aes­thet­ic par­a­digm change accom­pa­ny the Green New Deal ini­tia­tives so that sup­port­ing and prac­tic­ing sus­tain­abil­i­ty and jus­tice can be aes­thet­i­cal­ly enjoy­able rather than deny­ing plea­sure. The aes­thet­ic appeal of objects and prac­tices is more like­ly to encour­age us to pro­mote, pro­tect, and care for them than if we do so pure­ly out of a sense of duty.

As point­ed out by David Orr, We are moved to act more often, more con­sis­tent­ly, and more pro­found­ly by the expe­ri­ence of beau­ty in all of its forms than by intel­lec­tu­al argu­ments, abstract appeals to duty, or even by fear.

Because of the Green New Deal’s obvi­ous ref­er­ence to the orig­i­nal New Deal, as reflect­ed in the posters, I want to exam­ine the aes­thet­ic impli­ca­tions of some of its lega­cies. One of the best-known pro­grams of the orig­i­nal New Deal is the See America First cam­paign that was designed to pro­mote tourism of the American nation­al parks. True to the orig­i­nal pur­pose of nation­al parks to pro­tect sub­lime and mistakenly-regarded as untouched wilder­ness, these posters high­light the grandiose land­scapes of the West to char­ac­ter­ize what is dis­tinc­tive of this nation.

This American sub­lime was fur­ther enhanced by anoth­er well-known tourist des­ti­na­tion of the New Deal, Hoover Dam, which was also ref­er­enced before. Not only was it a tech­no­log­i­cal won­der but also a carefully-crafted land­scape to com­pel a max­i­mum dra­mat­ic affect. The vis­i­tors were awestruck by the tan­gi­ble evi­dence of human con­trol over nature, which helped instill a sense of opti­mism, as illus­trat­ed by Charles Sheeler.

This dis­tinct­ly American land­scape aes­thet­ic was thus cre­at­ed by focus­ing on the dra­mat­ic and the extra­or­di­nary, often places away from our every­day envi­ron­ment. In com­par­i­son, the gen­er­al pop­u­lace remained indif­fer­ent to less-dramatic land­scapes such as prairies, wet­lands, and our back­yards, mak­ing them vul­ner­a­ble to exploita­tion and devel­op­ment. Aldo Leopold’s land eth­ic and aes­thet­ic are thus con­cerned with the fate of those vul­ner­a­ble lands.

There are those who are wait­ing to be herd­ed in droves through scenic” places; who find moun­tains ground if they be prop­er moun­tains with water­falls, cliffs, and lakes. To such the Kansas plains are tedious.

The weeds in a city lot con­vey the same per­son as the red­woods.
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (1949) [slide]

The lega­cy of this scenic aes­thet­ic still remains, as it is eas­i­er to gain pub­lic sup­port and fund­ing for pro­tect­ing awesome-looking species and land­scapes com­pared to oth­er non­de­script species and land­scapes.

In addi­tion to cre­at­ing this quin­tes­sen­tial American land­scape, the aes­thet­ic of places away from our every­day envi­ron­ment, the orig­i­nal New Deal was also respon­si­ble for estab­lish­ing a land­scape aes­thet­ic clos­er to home. The green turf became a sig­na­ture fea­ture for var­i­ous pub­lic works projects such as urban parks and play­grounds, which also pro­vid­ed the aes­thet­ic norm for domes­tic land­scapes.

Accordingly, in the 1930s, many arti­cles appeared to advise home­own­ers how to pro­duce and main­tain a perfectly-smooth green car­pet with no weeds or brown spots. Furthermore, this task was often asso­ci­at­ed with civic duty and work eth­ic.

Today we know the heavy envi­ron­men­tal cost incurred by main­tain­ing a lawn, par­tic­u­lar­ly because this aes­thet­ic ide­al was adopt­ed with­out con­sid­er­ing the spe­cif­ic geo­graph­i­cal, cul­tur­al, and cli­mat­ic con­text.

We also need to be aware of anoth­er lega­cy of the orig­i­nal New Deal era pro­mot­ed by indus­tri­al pro­duc­tion as a way of cre­at­ing more jobs. In 1932, Bernard London, a real estate bro­ker, penned an influ­en­tial essay extolling planned obso­les­cence titled, Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence.” He pro­posed that the gov­ern­ment man­date a rel­a­tive­ly short lifes­pan for all man­u­fac­tured prod­ucts, and the con­sumers return the prod­uct at the end of its life to be dis­posed of, regard­less of its con­di­tion, and gain cred­it toward pur­chas­ing a new prod­uct. Promoting more indus­try pro­duc­tion is nec­es­sary for the econ­o­my and job cre­ation because, accord­ing to him, the prob­lem under­ly­ing the Depression is that People…are using every­thing that they own longer than was their cus­tom before the depres­sion, there­by dis­obey­ing the law of obso­les­cence.

I don’t know where the law comes from.

I find it rather fas­ci­nat­ing that he char­ac­ter­izes obso­les­cence as an aes­thet­ic mat­ter, fore­telling the con­tem­po­rary notion of fast fash­ion. When he describes how peo­ple used to replace old arti­cles with new for rea­sons of fash­ion and up-to-dateness because fur­ni­ture and cloth­ing and oth­er com­modi­ties should have a span of life, just as humans have. When you used for their allot­ted time, they should be retired, and replaced by fresh mer­chan­dise.

I could­n’t help think­ing about peo­ple, too.

For today’s fast fash­ion, new­ness is a desir­able qual­i­ty in two ways. One sense of new­ness refers to being up-to-date and fash­ion­able, as men­tioned by London. Today’s fren­zied pur­suit of the most fash­ion­able and up-to-date is well-documented, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the appar­el indus­try and high-tech indus­try. Today’s new style is sure to be replaced by anoth­er trendy style tomor­row, cre­at­ing a host of prob­lems includ­ing resource deple­tion, envi­ron­men­tal harm, and human rights vio­la­tions where fast fash­ion items are man­u­fac­tured and even­tu­al­ly dumped. Although artificially-manipulated by the indus­try, this fast fash­ion taste in favor of the fash­ion­able or trendy is a pow­er­ful aes­thet­ic per­suad­er to direct con­sumers’ pur­chas­ing deci­sions.

The oth­er sense of new­ness fast fash­ion pur­sues priv­i­leges objects that are free of inevitable aging effect due to wear and tear and dam­age. This aes­thet­ic desider­a­tum encour­ages con­sumers to dis­card old objects in per­fect work­ing con­di­tion in favor of the brand new ones, except for items like well-seasoned jeans and tools. Furthermore, this aes­thet­ic obso­les­cence is exac­er­bat­ed by the dif­fi­cul­ty, even the impos­si­bil­i­ty, of repair. Unrepairability of many prod­ucts today regards no longer func­tion­al­i­ty but also the smooth, uni­form, and slick sur­face appear­ance that does not tol­er­ate scratch­es and dents.

Even when repair is pos­si­ble the pre­ferred mode is invis­i­ble repair that hides the signs of dam­age and repair. Those of you who are at RISD know the won­der­ful exhib­it at RISD Museum last year on the notion of repair, which fea­tured both vis­i­ble repair and invis­i­ble repair. It was won­der­ful. There is a book­let to go with that. It’s called Manual, a RISD muse­um pub­li­ca­tion. And I real­ly encour­age you to take a look at it.

Another aes­thet­ic con­se­quence of pro­mot­ing indi­vid­ual indus­tri­al pro­duc­tion under the orig­i­nal New Deal era regards clothes dry­ers. First invent­ed in 1938 by J. Ross Moore in North Dakota, of all places, to address the prob­lem of dry­ing laun­dry out­side in win­ter there, it was soon pro­mot­ed by GE as a means of free­ing house­wives from the time-consuming and weather-dependent drudgery of hang­ing laun­dry out­side and sup­port­ing them to join the work­force out­side of home. Outdoor laun­dry hang­ing soon became asso­ci­at­ed with pover­ty. Today it is esti­mat­ed that 80% of American house­holds own a dry­er, con­sid­ered to be the sec­ond most energy-consuming home appli­ance next to the refrig­er­a­tor. What con­cerns me is that as of ten years ago, 300,000 home­own­ers’ asso­ci­a­tions in the United states pro­hib­it­ed laun­dry hang­ing, because it is con­sid­ered an unsight­ly eye­sore. So an aes­thet­ic rea­son.

So these are the bad news regard­ing the aes­thet­ic impli­ca­tions of the orig­i­nal New Deal pro­gram and the long-lasting lega­cy of that era. The ques­tion then is how the Green New Deal can and should address this bad news. In light of the rather sur­pris­ing pow­er of aes­thet­ics, I don’t think we should dis­miss its role in guid­ing our deci­sions and actions. Instead, we should har­ness its pow­er to help shape the future out­lined by the Green New Deal. It is true that aes­thet­ic mat­ters are the prime can­di­date for peo­ple’s right to exer­cise indi­vid­ual lib­er­ty. We can not, and should not, leg­is­late aes­thet­ic taste. However, the fact is that aes­thet­ics has been oper­at­ing as hid­den per­suaders effec­tive­ly. And, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein point out, There is…no way of avoid­ing nudg­ing in some direc­tion, and whether intend­ed or not, these nudges will affect what peo­ple choose.

Fortunately we don’t have to start from scratch when try­ing to shift the aes­thet­ic par­a­digm to align with sus­tain­abil­i­ty ini­tia­tives. There have been promis­ing grass­roots move­ments as well as art projects already, and these bottom-up ini­tia­tives should be sup­port­ed and devel­oped even more. One of the pre­dom­i­nant themes embraced by the con­ven­tion­al aes­thet­ic implied by the orig­i­nal New Deal and its era is uni­for­mi­ty. And actu­al­ly, lis­ten­ing to Daniel’s pre­sen­ta­tion about com­fort this morn­ing, it struck me that the notion of com­fort by air con­di­tion­ing and so on—that’s also sort of aim­ing for con­sis­ten­cy and uni­for­mi­ty of the tem­per­a­ture and so on.

For one, this uni­for­mi­ty guides the mono­cul­ture aes­thet­ic of green lawns. In response, wild­flower gar­dens, com­mu­ni­ty gar­dens, and edi­ble estates pro­lif­er­at­ing today chal­lenge this aes­thet­ic desider­a­tum by cel­e­brat­ing the cacoph­o­ny of var­i­ous sen­so­ry qual­i­ties pro­vid­ed by diverse plants. These gar­dens are also live­ly and viva­cious due to the vis­its from birds and but­ter­flies as well as com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers, passers­by, and neigh­bors, who become engaged in con­ver­sa­tions and care­tak­ing. In light of their land­scape aes­thet­ic, the con­ven­tion­al mono­cul­ture of green lawns starts appear­ing eeri­ly ster­ile and devoid of life.

Countering the aes­thet­ics of uni­for­mi­ty can be extend­ed to farm pro­duce as well. In response to the fact that one third of fresh pro­duce in the United States was thrown away for aes­thet­ic rea­sons, some super­mar­kets are sell­ing them by fea­tur­ing their unique aes­thet­ic char­ac­ter­is­tics. The right side, by the way, that’s from a French super­mar­ket chain. But the left one is American, Pittsburgh-based I think.

The norm of uni­for­mi­ty also under­lies the indus­tri­al pro­duc­tion because the prod­ucts at the end of the assem­bly line must be con­sis­tent and per­fect. What some thinkers call pro­duc­tion­ist bias” dis­cour­ages con­sid­er­a­tion of the life of the object after pro­duc­tion that con­tin­ues to evolve with the inevitable aging process, break­age, and inter­ac­tion with the user.

An alter­na­tive, bro­ken world think­ing” is pro­posed to high­light ero­sion, break­down, and decay, rather than nov­el­ty, growth, and progress as the pri­ma­ry focus. While ero­sion, break­down, and decay all have a neg­a­tive con­no­ta­tion, the new aes­thet­ic par­a­digm can turn them into a spring­board for cre­ative, imag­i­na­tive, and aes­thet­i­cal­ly appeal­ing solu­tions that embrace diver­si­ty and imper­fec­tion.

In this regard, con­sid­er var­i­ous grass­roots ini­tia­tives that pro­mote the prac­tice of repair. Repair Cafe, estab­lished in the Netherlands in 2009, is slow­ly but sure­ly spread­ing in the United States with ninety-eight loca­tions now. To date, twen­ty states have passed right-to-repair leg­is­la­tion to counter the indus­try prac­tice of mak­ing repair dif­fi­cult or some­times impos­si­ble and forc­ing con­sumers to pur­chase new prod­ucts.

What is note­wor­thy from the aes­thet­ic point of view is that today’s repair activists pro­mote vis­i­ble repair, chal­leng­ing the con­ven­tion­al aes­thet­ic that favors objects that are in mint con­di­tion or hide the signs of repair.

Often inspired by the Japanese tra­di­tion of kintsu­gi (repair by gold), and boro (tat­tered clothes), not only can vis­i­ble repair have its own aes­thet­ic appeal but also it cul­ti­vates an aes­thet­ic that cel­e­brates our active engage­ment with the mate­r­i­al world.

Activists in sup­port of out­door laun­dry hang­ing, spear­head­ed by Project Laundry List’s right to dry ini­tia­tive helped pass leg­is­la­tion ban­ning pro­hi­bi­tion of out­door laun­dry hang­ing in nine­teen states to date. The argu­ments in sup­port of out­door laun­dry hang­ing include not only the envi­ron­men­tal ben­e­fit, but also the var­i­ous aes­thet­ic appeals such as the fra­grance of dry clothes and the joy, rather than the drudgery, of sen­so­ry engage­ment with the sun­shine, wind, and fresh air.

Thus, aes­thet­ics has a crit­i­cal role to play in sup­port­ing Green New Deal’s envi­ron­men­tal ini­tia­tives. We can learn from the orig­i­nal New Deal that the aes­thet­ic par­a­digm result­ing from its polit­i­cal eco­nom­ic ini­tia­tives has had sig­nif­i­cant pow­er to shape peo­ple’s every­day life. It there­fore behooves all of us as cit­i­zens and con­sumers to raise aware­ness about the role aes­thet­ics plays in our every­day deci­sions and actions, and to cul­ti­vate both aes­thet­ic lit­er­a­cy and vig­i­lance.

Finally, and most impor­tant, the artists and design­ers have both the oppor­tu­ni­ty and respon­si­bil­i­ty to invite cit­i­zens to embrace and cel­e­brate the new aes­thet­ic par­a­digm that sup­ports diver­si­ty and imper­fec­tion. Thank you.

Further Reference

Climate Futures II event page


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.