[This dis­cus­sion is the con­clu­sion of a series of talks: Environmental Aesthetics and Everyday Life; Beyond Biocentricity in Design & Pedagogy; and Latinx Environmentalisms: Place, Justice, and the Decolonial]

Paula Gaetano Adi: So I’m going to invite Nick to actu­al­ly start a con­ver­sa­tion instead of doing it myself, and then we’re going to open up to the public.

Nicholas Pevzner: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you Damian and [inaudi­ble] for bring­ing us all togeth­er. Thank you very much Paula. And thank you all three for incred­i­ble, thought-provoking presentation.

So, I have just a cou­ple of thoughts that I had about the top­ic of aes­thet­ics, and this provo­ca­tion that the pan­el intro­duc­tion lays out I think is a crit­i­cal one for for today. 

So Yuriko, in your Everyday Aesthetics book, you note that the way that we expose the nar­row­ness of the kind of typ­i­cal aes­thet­ics is by adopt­ing a mul­ti­cul­tur­al glob­al view­point, and that shows off the nar­row­ness of then what is the dom­i­nant mode. And this in many ways is sim­i­lar to the con­ver­sa­tion that’s been hap­pen­ing in sci­ence fic­tion with the kind of mar­gin­al­iza­tion of non-white imag­i­nar­ies. And so I think it’s fan­tas­tic to hear Priscilla’s exam­ples of Chicano and gen­er­al­ly non-white futurisms and imag­i­nar­ies and this ques­tion of what is the future, what is the present, what is the past I think is essential.

And it’s sim­i­lar with aes­thet­ic agen­das that you know, to see the kind of Western con­sumerist white bias of nor­ma­tive aes­thet­ics we need to pro­vide alter­na­tives, and so I think this pan­el does that by expos­ing the wide range that could be possible.

So, in Yuriko’s book we have a cou­ple of oth­er exam­ples of every­day aes­thet­ics. You write that things could be drea­ry, plain-looking, non­de­script, even dis­gust­ing. And that’s a coun­ter­point to the kind of aes­theti­ciza­tion and roman­ti­za­tion that we typ­i­cal­ly think of when we think of aesthetics.

To me this brings to mind anoth­er sci-fi writer, Octavia Butler, who in her dystopi­an Parable series describes a kind of dirty aes­thet­ic. For the work­ing poor in her dystopi­an future, being dirty is a way of not get­ting robbed. It’s a way of not get­ting beat up at school. So kids get dirty before they go out­side the wire. So per­haps cer­tain­ly it’s Butler’s expe­ri­ence as a per­son of col­or in a pre­dom­i­nant­ly white male space that informs her think­ing on aes­thet­ics here.

And so we have also a sim­i­lar exam­ple from Daniel Barber this morn­ing, who offers us this idea of dis­com­fort and how we start to design with­in dis­com­fort, which is fantastic.

But maybe I can just offer a cou­ple of oth­er aes­thet­ic agen­das that are not nec­es­sar­i­ly work­ing in our favor. So, eco­mod­ernism and tech­noutopia draws on a very deep pool of aes­thet­ic ref­er­ences. 60s avant garde imagery. The Bucky Fuller domes. Some of the beloved work even of firms like Archigram cer­tain­ly feed into a kind of eco­mod­ernism and technoutopia.

And then we can think about cli­mate bar­barism, as Naomi Klein talks about. And in cli­mate bar­barism Dissent mag­a­zine recent­ly had this dis­cus­sion of how the cli­mate denial­ism can very quick­ly turn to eco­fas­cism. So in that case what is the aes­thet­ic at play? Maybe it’s…you know, the Mad Max series cer­tain­ly comes to mind. But a very clear vision of an aes­thet­ic future world in which fear pre­dom­i­nates and that robs peo­ple of their rights in a dif­fer­ent way.

So the ques­tion here of what does a lib­er­a­to­ry aes­thet­ic exten­si­bil­i­ty entail is a crit­i­cal one. As an inoc­u­la­tion agent against eco­fas­cism and cli­mate bar­barism, can we start to devel­op a coher­ent vision of maybe an empath­ic, a human­is­tic, a coop­er­a­tive aes­thet­ic and prac­tice? Or even an aes­thet­ic for the cul­ti­va­tion of multi-species jus­tice, to quote Donna Haraway. And cer­tain­ly we see that res­onat­ing for cer­tain groups of peo­ple. Think of Extinction Rebellion, real­ly gal­va­niz­ing a moment that is not based on human­is­tic val­ues but actu­al­ly a cri­sis of eco­log­i­cal col­lapse and the Sixth Extinction.

So so far these are all pret­ty dark aes­thet­ics. But this pan­el is sup­posed to be about joy­ful, lib­er­a­to­ry aes­thet­ics. So what do we need to devel­op in order to advance that con­ver­sa­tion? What kind of non-white, non-Anglo, decolo­nial aes­thet­ics and imag­i­nar­ies are need­ed today for this polit­i­cal moment?

So we heard from Yuriko the idea of bro­ken world think­ing. We heard from Anastasiia the idea of nature as col­lab­o­ra­tor in a post-human or a multi-species inspi­ra­tion and maybe even a copro­duc­tion. And from Priscilla you know, the val­ue of these qual­i­ties of sim­plic­i­ty, reci­procity, not nec­es­sar­i­ly com­fort, as a dif­fer­ent mode of being.

So, maybe just to posit a few oth­ers, can we have an envi­ron­men­tal jus­tice aes­thet­ic, and what would that even look like? Is there a Green New Deal Coalition aes­thet­ic? I mean for now I think the Sunrise Movement cer­tain­ly has a clear aes­thet­ic agen­da, and that is worth rec­og­niz­ing, just the pow­er of design in the coher­ence of the imagery that Sunrise has been able to galvanize.

But so if the tech­no­log­i­cal sub­lime is not it, it’s unbear­able mod­ernism. And if it’s not small is beau­ti­ful, then what is the kind aes­thet­ic to strive for? Is there such a thing as a low-carbon aes­thet­ic that we can start to cul­ti­vate? That one’s tricky, because a lot of the qual­i­ties of low-carbon economies and built envi­ron­ments are not visu­al. As Daniel remind­ed us, the tech­nol­o­gy that pro­duces the com­fort is hid­den from view. So how do we start to sig­ni­fy this? Is it an aes­thet­ic ques­tion? Can we get beyond solar pan­els on the roof?

Maybe here this idea of nature as col­lab­o­ra­tor is use­ful. Coproduction not just with indi­vid­ual non-human agents, but with entire ecosys­tems and with tech­no­log­i­cal forces and mech­a­nisms. So, maybe what I’m envi­sion­ing is a deep­er car­bon lit­er­a­cy that works with nat­ur­al process­es, that works with car­bon sinks and draw­down mech­a­nisms, that cul­ti­vates a cer­tain kind of neg­a­tive emis­sions prac­tice. Maybe this starts to mean the cel­e­bra­tion of car­bon sinks, of the pro­duc­tion of soils, the cre­ation of car­bon forests close to home. Maybe the imag­in­ing of the mate­r­i­al sup­ply chains in our every­day products.

Surely this comes up with renew­able ener­gy in the land­scape, which is undoubt­ed­ly a major piece of a Green New Deal, some­thing I wrote about a lit­tle bit in my arti­cle for Landscape Architecture Magazine. Aesthetics is cer­tain­ly a part of that. And in fact, Dirk Simmons, a land­scape archi­tect from the Netherlands is even more direct. He says that aes­thet­ics is the bat­tle­field on which the renew­able ener­gy tran­si­tion will be won or lost, whether we can scale up in time or not.

And so with that, I guess I should stop talk­ing and ask the pan­el you know, what is the aes­thet­ic agen­da that for you—that you think is most crit­i­cal to build for advanc­ing and sus­tain­ing a Green New Deal? Or maybe the aes­thet­ic agen­da that it’s most crit­i­cal to unbuild first.

Yuriko Saito: I guess I’ll go first. I mean you rat­tled off the so many things and I don’t know how much I can respond. But from my work in aes­thet­ics as a phi­los­o­phy dis­ci­pline, of one of the things that I have been sort of fight­ing against is the mod­el of aes­thet­ic expe­ri­ence, aes­thet­ic appre­ci­a­tion, is always from the point of view of a spec­ta­tor. And the object of aes­thet­ic expe­ri­ence is the object of gaze. And so there is no sort of— And if I do name-dropping, Immanuel Kant in the 18th cen­tu­ry, who is real­ly the father of mod­ern aes­thet­ic the­o­ry, he defined aes­thet­ics as a dis­in­ter­est­ed plea­sure. So that means that we have to get rid of all kinds of you know, inter­est in the exis­tence of the object. And I think that that real­ly did a dis­ser­vice to the dis­ci­pline of aesthetics.

So that goes into sort of like book­ing at an aes­thet­ic val­ue of the objects only in terms of the for­mal struc­ture and things of that sort, and get rid of moral con­sid­er­a­tion, envi­ron­men­tal con­sid­er­a­tion, polit­i­cal impli­ca­tions, and so on. And you know—I mean that’s extreme­ly prob­lem­at­ic.

So I think that from my sort of aca­d­e­m­ic dis­ci­pline point of view, one of the things that I want to empha­size is that aes­thet­ic expe­ri­ence is some­thing that you live with, and that you have a vest­ed inter­est in. So it’s not just a spec­ta­tor, or a vis­i­tor, look­ing at and mak­ing a judg­ment. And one of the exam­ples of how this plays out is like, Detroit. Okay, so all kinds of you know, the urban decay. And so there’s a per­ver­sion of…you prob­a­bly are famil­iar with the notion of ruin porn? Ruin tourism? And so what is that?

And also New Orleans, that’s anoth­er sort of exam­ple of a ruined city with all kinds of nat­ur­al dis­as­ters and eco­nom­ic dev­as­ta­tion. So, what should New Orleans do? And I read one book on…I can’t remem­ber the name of the book. But any­way. It has to do with what you do with ruinous urban decay. And well, the com­mu­ni­ty peo­ple who live there, they don’t want to cleanse it and to build it you know, sort of new struc­tures. Because they want to hang on to some of the rem­nants of his­to­ry, which could be dark. But they are the sort of stake­hold­ers. And so the aes­thet­ic judgment…we think that well, it’s dirty, it’s messy, it’s [indis­tinct], it’s decay­ing, so we have to clean it up.

Well, I think that’s where I think every­body in this pan­el talked about how that’s one very lim­it­ed per­spec­tive. And that we have to lis­ten to var­i­ous oth­er ways of look­ing at things. So aes­thet­ic judg­ment is no exception.

So that’s one thing. And I had a cou­ple of things but I— Go ahead.

Anastasiia Raina: Something that you men­tioned about… Being born during—well, a few months after Chernobyl… Something, eco­tourism or ruin tourism is preva­lent in Ukraine and espe­cial­ly with the recent Chernobyl show some­thing that we’re…there is a resurgen—interest in that spe­cif­ic ter­ri­to­ry. But alter­na­tive­ly I want­ed to men­tion there’s anoth­er movie that’s called Babushkas of Chernobyl. And that is a won­der­ful depic­tion of women who refuse leav­ing the ter­ri­to­ry, and cre­at­ing a sort of fem­i­nist utopia of their own as a way of recon­struct­ing a spe­cif­ic area because they can­not pos­si­bly imag­ine mov­ing away from a place where they were born, got mar­ried, had chil­dren. Which leads to anoth­er notion of would we think about third natures or cre­at­ing third natures, where we are devel­op­ing tech­nolo­gies and devel­op­ing new ways of try­ing to rec­on­cil­i­ate our sort of…the ruin that we had cre­at­ed. So that would be I guess one way of expe­ri­enc­ing aesthetics.

Going back to design, in gen­er­al some­thing that—designers are very opti­mistic peo­ple. And usu­al­ly design think­ing, which com­bines this opti­mism and solu­tion­ism, plus bio­mimicry cre­ates a real­ly strange com­bi­na­tion. As design­ers we always think of our­selves as some­one who can solve prob­lems when a project is being dis­played as some­thing that needs solv­ing. I think mov­ing away from the solu­tion­ist aes­thet­ics or solu­tion­ist way of think­ing about design is one way of becom­ing real and per­haps decen­ter­ing our way of think­ing that we can actu­al­ly solve issues that don’t real­ly have any solu­tions. So that would be my sec­ond point.

And then of course, one of the pit­falls of spec­u­la­tive thinking—so mov­ing away from solu­tion­ism but end­ing up in spec­u­la­tive thinking—is that no mat­ter how much we love it and no mat­ter how much we enjoy spend­ing time think­ing about all the dif­fer­ent futures, still try­ing to find ways how that could actu­al­ly be imple­ment­ed in prac­tice and to make things…sort of mov­ing away from just spec­u­la­tion but—implementation of some of those solu­tions into real design prac­tice beyond acad­e­mia. And that would main­ly begin with edu­ca­tion, and sort of reedu­ca­tion of clients and indus­try. I think that would be a real­ly impor­tant part in sort of beginning.

Priscilla Solis Ybarra: I think one of the things that real­ly com­pelled me in my work in the con­text of work­ing on envi­ron­men­tal issues, which can often be very daunt­ing, and some peo­ple might think that we’re dwelling on cat­a­stro­phe and cri­sis all the time. But one of the things that I find real­ly inspir­ing is look­ing at com­mu­ni­ties that have been endur­ing, and adapt­ing, and thriv­ing, or as Gerald Vizenor puts it enact­ing sur­vivance in the face of racial cap­i­tal, night. We had a whole beau­ti­ful pan­el bring­ing atten­tion to racial cap­i­tal­ism, and I com­plete­ly agree that that needs to be the cen­ter of the work that we’re doing.

So if we ask the ques­tion that you’re ask­ing, Nick, about aes­thet­ics and cen­ter­ing racial cap­i­tal­ism, you know this might seem repet­i­tive giv­en the talk I just gave, but look­ing to com­mu­ni­ties that have done this. Challenging the tem­po­ral­i­ty. Saying this is not some­thing that we are rein­vent­ing, that we’re invent­ing from scratch right now, but there are com­mu­ni­ties that we can look to that exist, have joy­ful thriv­ing exis­tences, adapt­ing, and have been doing it for a real­ly long time—what are their aes­thet­ics like? Like what can they teach us? And I just look at a very small sliv­er of that, even though it feels to me like a huge field, right. Latinx imag­i­nar­ies, there’s so much work to be done there but we have you know, African American imag­i­nar­ies, indige­nous imag­i­nar­ies. So many com­mu­ni­ties that can show us.

Now, a caveat for that you know, we don’t want to be extrac­tive about that. Like go vis­it those com­mu­ni­ties and say, Okay. I see how you did it. Let me take this back and com­mod­i­fy this and use it for every­one, right. With envi­ron­men­tal issues it’s too easy to slip into kind of a uni­ver­sal­iz­ing like”, okay we’re we’re fac­ing this big chal­lenge togeth­er, we’re gonna work all togeth­er. But the thing that got us to this place is because we weren’t work­ing togeth­er, so we need to be respect­ful of these bound­aries still and not be extrac­tive of these cul­tures but cer­tain­ly ampli­fy the space that we give to them so that they can have more resources to do what they’re doing. And that’s what the lit­er­al decol­o­niz­ing of lands is about, right. So I would say that’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly direct­ly address­ing the ques­tion about aes­thet­ics but def­i­nite­ly decol­o­niz­ing lands will show us what’s possible.

Adi: So we can take a cou­ple of ques­tions from the audience.

Audience 1: Hi. That was a real­ly awe­some pan­el. So, Anastasiia I real­ly appre­ci­at­ed the com­men­tary about the prob­lems with solu­tion­ist aes­thet­ics. And I also appre­ci­at­ed Yuriko, what you men­tioned about the sort of spectator-centricity of how we often approach aes­thet­ics and the sort of appre­hen­sion of nature. But a chal­lenge that I have in think­ing about those real­ly impor­tant prob­lems with regard to the Green New Deal is so much of the iconog­ra­phy, and so many of the ways that we aes­theti­cize a tran­si­tion, is con­tin­gent on a very—is very solu­tion­ist and is very ocu­lar­ce­ntric. The sort of flat imagery like we saw in Kai’s pre­sen­ta­tion of solar pan­els just across the green, and sort of the repro­duc­tion of those New Deal aes­thet­ics but with renew­able ener­gy instead. That seems to be the go-to in how we aes­theti­cize a renew­able ener­gy tran­si­tion. And frankly even in cli­mate jus­tice spaces, where there are brown peo­ple and there’s ges­tur­ing to oth­er kinds of imag­i­nar­ies there’s still the cen­tral­i­ty of this fetishized tech­nol­o­gy occu­py­ing a fetishized sense of nature, like the kinds we saw in Yuriko’s pre­sen­ta­tion. And so I for the life of me can­not begin to think about what does an aes­theti­ciza­tion of a Green New Deal look like that does not fall into those pit­falls of ocu­lar­ce­ntrism, that do not fall in the pit­falls of that solu­tion­ist think­ing, and that sort move us toward a broad­er appre­hen­sion of what we think of as nature in try­ing to trou­ble the prob­lem­at­ics you call atten­tion to. So I’d appre­ci­ate if you guys could speak to that broad provo­ca­tion. Thank you.

Saito: Well, I don’t have the answer to that, I think it’s a won­der­ful ques­tion. I do agree that the Green New Deal, the posters you know, every­thing asso­ci­at­ed with that sort of real­ly bor­rows the vocab­u­lary from the orig­i­nal New Deal. And it is def­i­nite­ly ocu­lar­ce­ntric, which is real­ly a prob­lem with the soci­ety at large. I mean, not just the envi­ron­men­tal issue but I mean we are so vision-oriented, more than ever. So I don’t know how to over­come that, but I think one of the things which would be real­ly impor­tant is sort of body engage­ment? So we do things. So we do gar­den­ing. Or we do a laun­dry hang­ing. I mean, it does­n’t have that sort of pow­er of like imme­di­ate sort of visu­al effect. But I think that in my work in every­day aes­thet­ics I’m try­ing to get away from that ocu­lar­ce­ntric, vision-oriented, spectator-centric aes­thet­ics to focus more on what we can expe­ri­ence as a sort of a body, engag­ing in cer­tain activities. 

And cook­ing is one anoth­er exam­ple, you know. Cooking is not sim­ply a tool to pro­duce some result, but the process, the activ­i­ty of cook­ing itself has a real joy­ful moment. I mean it can be real­ly hard, and you know, requires a lot of skills and so on. 

And the same thing with repair. What would be the dif­fer­ence if I want to mend this jack­et and I just take it to the tai­lor and then I pick it up, and I paid her. I don’t have any engage­ment with this object. But if I learn how to do the mend­ing I can go— I mean, I know how to sew. But those peo­ple who don’t know, they can go to the Care Cafe or a place like that, and then learn the skills. And then I start mend­ing my jack­et. Then it’s sort of cre­ates a joy­ful expe­ri­ence. There’s a sense of accom­plish­ment. And so this is no longer an object, a dis­pos­able object that I can just toss when this is no longer in style. This is about twen­ty years old, by the way. 

So, I think that it’s a great ques­tion. And I think that there is a sort of poten­tial for active­ly engag­ing in cer­tain activ­i­ties… It does­n’t mat­ter, but I think repair would be a good exam­ple that has gone out of—you know…not out of style. But I mean, we used to do that. People used to do that all the time. But peo­ple don’t do that part­ly because many things are not repairable. And many things just…you know, do not have the skills. And so there’s a kind— I’m not roman­ti­ciz­ing good old days, but there is cer­tain wis­dom that we can gain from that. 

Raina: So in terms of solu­tion­ism… Continuing on the activ­i­ty part of things, as soon as you begin to engage with mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary stud­ies and when you engage with sci­en­tists and peo­ple out­side of your own dis­ci­pline, you very quick­ly under­stand that as a design­er you know noth­ing? And solu­tion­ism and desire to solve design prob­lems really—like, the sense of humil­i­ty when you’re fac­ing some­one who has an entire­ly dif­fer­ent set of ref­er­ences of knowl­edges. Knowledge I think is a huge part of under­stand­ing that we real­ly do not have any answers to the wicked prob­lems that we’re deal­ing with today. So that’s one thing. 

And in terms of aes­thet­ics, visu­als are extreme­ly pow­er­ful and per­haps it’s very easy to move away like oh, if a visu­al is act­ing in one way then per­haps we need to move away into…perhaps even the anti-aesthetic. But I think some­thing that per­haps crit­i­cal design, critical…being crit­i­cal about tech­nol­o­gy and specif­i­cal­ly James Bridle’s New Aesthetic does real­ly well is being able to visu­al­ize the under­ly­ing sys­tems that are invis­i­ble to us, and per­haps that’s some­thing that we could also employ in talk­ing about just transitions. 

Adi: By the way, Anastasiia was the design­er of all the posters for the sym­po­sium, so I have to acknowl­edge that. 

Audience 2: Just real quick. I real­ly appre­ci­ate the stuff about repair. And one of the things we do here in Providence is the day after Thanksgiving, we give away win­ter coats. We call it the Buy Nothing Day Winter Coat Exchange. And I like to think of it as a good mod­el for how we might want to start to think about trans­for­ma­tion. So, if you know any­thing about it and care to com­ment otherwise.

[pan­elists look at each oth­er for sev­er­al seconds]

Audience 3: Hi, thanks for your pan­el. I just want­ed to make one com­ment about the theme of invis­i­bil­i­ty that’s been com­ing up. Something that I’ve been work­ing on is try­ing to reframe that as invis­i­blized rather than invis­i­ble. So, sit­u­at­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty and agency with­in that. My work is on dis­as­ter, in all its forms. And I think that a lot of times, we fail to inter­rupt these cycles because there are forces that are inter­est­ed in invis­i­b­liz­ing in order to main­tain pow­er and accu­mu­la­tion. So I just want­ed to put that idea of invis­i­b­lized rather than invis­i­ble out there. 

Adi: Alright, I think we have to close, right, it’s time? But I want to thank every­one for stay­ing and I want to thank our pan­elist Nick for this won­der­ful pan­el. 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.