My topic will be Jeremy Deller's Battle of Orgreave.
Two questions:
1) Who is the intended audience?
2) Why did the veterans of the actual conflict feel the need to participate in the reenactment?
4 Sources:
1) Grant Kester, Conversation Pieces
2) Claire Bishop, Participation
3) Alice Correia, Interpreting Jeremy Deller's "The Battle of Orgreave" from Visual Culture in Britain
4) Dave Beech, Jeremy Deller: Orgreave, South Yorkshire from Art Monthly
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Grennan and Sperandio
"According to Jacob, the move away from site specificity is a logical step toward a more intimate and meaningful relationship between the artist and his/her audience, a way of shrinking the distance between the traditionally separate poles of production and reception."
An artist making a piece of avant-garde or dialogic art had traditionally used a specific site to promote its message. This created conversation, but it was limited to the site. A prime example of this is the project House that is described in the Kester book. That project ignited conversation, yet the community was not even consulted. The work of Simon Grennan and Christopher Spernadio focuses more on the audience rather than any specific location. Their project in fact, actually utilized the audience in the production of the end result. Thus, the actual artwork was process-oriented. The process was to involve members of a candy-making union to produce a commerical product. By working with these people, the artists facilitated conversation and attempted to build a shared sense of community between all of the people. This creates a better relationship between the artist and the people, and in fact enables the people to become the artists.
An artist making a piece of avant-garde or dialogic art had traditionally used a specific site to promote its message. This created conversation, but it was limited to the site. A prime example of this is the project House that is described in the Kester book. That project ignited conversation, yet the community was not even consulted. The work of Simon Grennan and Christopher Spernadio focuses more on the audience rather than any specific location. Their project in fact, actually utilized the audience in the production of the end result. Thus, the actual artwork was process-oriented. The process was to involve members of a candy-making union to produce a commerical product. By working with these people, the artists facilitated conversation and attempted to build a shared sense of community between all of the people. This creates a better relationship between the artist and the people, and in fact enables the people to become the artists.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Photography and Video
The authors of the article take a staunch stance against video documentaries. In setting up their point, the authors give the example of photography. They state that photos preserve the past. This contrasts the views of Sontag, who believes that photography presents a false reality. Instead, these authors believe that documentaries are the falsifiers of reality. In order to make an appealing product, filmakers manipulate the elements to present a specific view, whereas pictures, in these authors' opinions, show a true image of what is being presented.
http://www.geocities.com/craigsbookclub/birthnation.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/craigsbookclub/birthnation.jpg
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Onondaga Lake Paper Revision
Michael Lefko
October 5, 2007
Superfund-amental Problem
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These words spoken by the great scientist Isaac Newton virtually state that every act has an inevitable byproduct that is fundamentally different from the desired result. In the age of technology, where innovations occur daily and technological advancement is a natural part of daily life, it must be remembered that as a result of new technology, other aspects of society get neglected. Thus, factories and mines that sprung up as part of modern growth and advancement come at the cost of polluting the surrounding environment. Factories spring up along rivers and bodies of water due to their ease of access for boats, and yet also due to the fact that factories emit a lot of unnecessary chemical waste in the creation of their desired products. This waste is subsequently dumped into the rivers and lakes so it theoretically will not harm anyone. Yet, these bodies of water have become severe biohazards. The marine life cannot survive and people cannot use the body of water for recreational activities. To deal with this ecological crisis, a federal program called Superfund was established to clean up polluted sites (Knickerbocker). The Superfund has been steadily decreasing in its effectiveness due to inadequate wording of the law and poor implementation. If Superfund is to be effective as a government action, complete rewording and implementation of the law is necessary.
The primary deficiency is quite clearly dictated; “The law calls for ‘joint and several liability,’ meaning that any party that ever touched the waste-no matter how remote the involvement-can be held liable for the full cost of remediation” (Knickerbocker). Therefore, the EPA, the people in charge of regulating Superfund, usually try and find the biggest, richest corporation to pay the cost. Yet, this corporation uses the loophole in the law to find another party that used the land, even if the party never polluted, and sue them for the cost. Most of the Superfund money does not even go straight to rehabilitating the polluted environment. Instead, most of the money goes to settling legally who has to pay (Knickerbocker). This situation is currently being played out in regards to Onondaga Lake. The company currently being held responsible, Honeywell International had nothing to do with the pollution of the lake; “Honeywell is responsible for the cleanup because in 1999 it merged with Allied Chemical, which owned a plant that the state says dumped the toxins in the years before the plant closed in 1988” (Urbina). Honeywell International did not acquire Allied Chemical until 11 years after the dumping. Yet, they are still responsible for the nearly $450 million dollar cost that will go into cleaning the lake. The nature of the Superfund law goes after the biggest company. In this case, the Allied Chemical plant is closed. Yet, the EPA did not want to treat it as an orphan site, where no company could pay. This leaves Honeywell to foot the bill. For this reason, large companies are reluctant to pay the damage and spend time finding any other party to pay.
It is much easier to find blame, when there is clearly one party at fault. Therefore, new wording of the law should dictate that if the actual company that did the largest amount of polluting is still around then they must pay. While this would establish more orphan sites, the Superfund would also have more money: the money that would not have to be spent on legal fees to track down which polluter has to pay. Similarly, the existing companies such as Honeywell International might actually offer to pay. It would look good for public relations, and they might feel, as part of a community they need to do their part. The current law harms future development because companies do not want to be held responsible for atrocities they did not commit, and be sued solely on the basis that they are the current landowners (Knickerbocker). As a result of much legal wrangling the Superfund has virtually run dry.
Since its inception in 1980 the Superfund has paid for cleanup at polluted sites with costs totaling $1 billion yearly (Knickerbocker). The cleanup goes on, yet without government funding, higher costs are incurred by individuals. Much of the government money could have been used more effectively, yet it does not always go right to its allotted purpose; “Instead, funds have been spent studying and characterizing sites. “Moreover, cleanups that have been completed often provide a level of protection well beyond the risk that is posed” (Meyers and Ferguson). The original intent of Superfund was to clean up virtually every polluted area. Many of these did not need the extensive overhaul that occurred. The law does not distinguish the amount of money and time given to big projects compared to relatively easy places to decontaminate. The wide range of sites that Superfund attempts to restore has stretched itself too thin. Instead, it is proposed that all the highly contaminated sites be located and work to immediately salvage theses ones in order to contain an immediate threaten to human health and the surrounding environment (Meyers and Ferguson).
Even if a site is determined to be hazardous, and even if the polluter is made to pay, progress is often slow. The nature of Superfund is as a subordinate to all federal and state environmental laws (Meyers and Ferguson). Thus the laundry list of environmental laws must be adhered to, only allowing specific things that can or cannot be done to cleanup a polluted site. If attempts are made to pass a new Superfund law that will be effective in cleanups, it must be worded so that the Superfund is superior to other environmental standards; a concept that interestingly enough is not the case already, even though the Environmental Protection Agency is the enforcer of Superfund. While progress is often slow, it is not as if Superfund is completely ineffective. In the case of Onondaga Lake, the Superfund program can be considered a success.
In 1989, New York State sued Allied Chemical for pollution of Onondaga Lake. The long legal battles that have been a staple of Superfund were again evident. Finally, a plan was proposed in 2004 and later adopted in 2006 that Honeywell International, who merged with Allied Chemical, would be responsible for cleaning up the lake (“New York State”). The decontamination plan is extensive, and will restore Onondaga Lake to a usable facility; “A plan that includes dredging sediment from the lake’s bottom, capping an estimated 579 acres of the lake’s bottom, treating water generated during the dredging process to prevent pollution from returning” (“New York State”). An extensive project such as this will not generate results overnight. In the near future, Onondaga Lake might still be extremely polluted. Yet, once the water is cycled through the treatment plant, and the bottom is capped to prevent to water in the bottom of the lake from rising into the water, the pollution will be safely contained.
The Superfund law is largely ineffective. The act of finding a company to clean up Onondaga Lake could be called a success, yet this success has taken nearly twenty years since the initial action was pursued. Like any government directed initiative, Superfund has its advocates and detractors; “‘Monitoring will have to go on indefinitely. Replacement {of the cap and barrier wall} will have to be considered in the future because nothing lasts forever…It’s not clear that any local business would want to build on top of a toxic landfill” (Park). When Superfund can initiate a cleanup of a polluted area, it creates a positive change for the surrounding economy. Nevertheless, more often than not, Superfund has been the source of negative publicity. With billions in funding, barely any sites have been restored. As with the sites that have been completed, even that status comes under controversy. By rewording and enacting more stringent implementation of the law perhaps this struggling system can streamline into an efficient and cost saving venture that properly restores ecological order.
October 5, 2007
Superfund-amental Problem
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These words spoken by the great scientist Isaac Newton virtually state that every act has an inevitable byproduct that is fundamentally different from the desired result. In the age of technology, where innovations occur daily and technological advancement is a natural part of daily life, it must be remembered that as a result of new technology, other aspects of society get neglected. Thus, factories and mines that sprung up as part of modern growth and advancement come at the cost of polluting the surrounding environment. Factories spring up along rivers and bodies of water due to their ease of access for boats, and yet also due to the fact that factories emit a lot of unnecessary chemical waste in the creation of their desired products. This waste is subsequently dumped into the rivers and lakes so it theoretically will not harm anyone. Yet, these bodies of water have become severe biohazards. The marine life cannot survive and people cannot use the body of water for recreational activities. To deal with this ecological crisis, a federal program called Superfund was established to clean up polluted sites (Knickerbocker). The Superfund has been steadily decreasing in its effectiveness due to inadequate wording of the law and poor implementation. If Superfund is to be effective as a government action, complete rewording and implementation of the law is necessary.
The primary deficiency is quite clearly dictated; “The law calls for ‘joint and several liability,’ meaning that any party that ever touched the waste-no matter how remote the involvement-can be held liable for the full cost of remediation” (Knickerbocker). Therefore, the EPA, the people in charge of regulating Superfund, usually try and find the biggest, richest corporation to pay the cost. Yet, this corporation uses the loophole in the law to find another party that used the land, even if the party never polluted, and sue them for the cost. Most of the Superfund money does not even go straight to rehabilitating the polluted environment. Instead, most of the money goes to settling legally who has to pay (Knickerbocker). This situation is currently being played out in regards to Onondaga Lake. The company currently being held responsible, Honeywell International had nothing to do with the pollution of the lake; “Honeywell is responsible for the cleanup because in 1999 it merged with Allied Chemical, which owned a plant that the state says dumped the toxins in the years before the plant closed in 1988” (Urbina). Honeywell International did not acquire Allied Chemical until 11 years after the dumping. Yet, they are still responsible for the nearly $450 million dollar cost that will go into cleaning the lake. The nature of the Superfund law goes after the biggest company. In this case, the Allied Chemical plant is closed. Yet, the EPA did not want to treat it as an orphan site, where no company could pay. This leaves Honeywell to foot the bill. For this reason, large companies are reluctant to pay the damage and spend time finding any other party to pay.
It is much easier to find blame, when there is clearly one party at fault. Therefore, new wording of the law should dictate that if the actual company that did the largest amount of polluting is still around then they must pay. While this would establish more orphan sites, the Superfund would also have more money: the money that would not have to be spent on legal fees to track down which polluter has to pay. Similarly, the existing companies such as Honeywell International might actually offer to pay. It would look good for public relations, and they might feel, as part of a community they need to do their part. The current law harms future development because companies do not want to be held responsible for atrocities they did not commit, and be sued solely on the basis that they are the current landowners (Knickerbocker). As a result of much legal wrangling the Superfund has virtually run dry.
Since its inception in 1980 the Superfund has paid for cleanup at polluted sites with costs totaling $1 billion yearly (Knickerbocker). The cleanup goes on, yet without government funding, higher costs are incurred by individuals. Much of the government money could have been used more effectively, yet it does not always go right to its allotted purpose; “Instead, funds have been spent studying and characterizing sites. “Moreover, cleanups that have been completed often provide a level of protection well beyond the risk that is posed” (Meyers and Ferguson). The original intent of Superfund was to clean up virtually every polluted area. Many of these did not need the extensive overhaul that occurred. The law does not distinguish the amount of money and time given to big projects compared to relatively easy places to decontaminate. The wide range of sites that Superfund attempts to restore has stretched itself too thin. Instead, it is proposed that all the highly contaminated sites be located and work to immediately salvage theses ones in order to contain an immediate threaten to human health and the surrounding environment (Meyers and Ferguson).
Even if a site is determined to be hazardous, and even if the polluter is made to pay, progress is often slow. The nature of Superfund is as a subordinate to all federal and state environmental laws (Meyers and Ferguson). Thus the laundry list of environmental laws must be adhered to, only allowing specific things that can or cannot be done to cleanup a polluted site. If attempts are made to pass a new Superfund law that will be effective in cleanups, it must be worded so that the Superfund is superior to other environmental standards; a concept that interestingly enough is not the case already, even though the Environmental Protection Agency is the enforcer of Superfund. While progress is often slow, it is not as if Superfund is completely ineffective. In the case of Onondaga Lake, the Superfund program can be considered a success.
In 1989, New York State sued Allied Chemical for pollution of Onondaga Lake. The long legal battles that have been a staple of Superfund were again evident. Finally, a plan was proposed in 2004 and later adopted in 2006 that Honeywell International, who merged with Allied Chemical, would be responsible for cleaning up the lake (“New York State”). The decontamination plan is extensive, and will restore Onondaga Lake to a usable facility; “A plan that includes dredging sediment from the lake’s bottom, capping an estimated 579 acres of the lake’s bottom, treating water generated during the dredging process to prevent pollution from returning” (“New York State”). An extensive project such as this will not generate results overnight. In the near future, Onondaga Lake might still be extremely polluted. Yet, once the water is cycled through the treatment plant, and the bottom is capped to prevent to water in the bottom of the lake from rising into the water, the pollution will be safely contained.
The Superfund law is largely ineffective. The act of finding a company to clean up Onondaga Lake could be called a success, yet this success has taken nearly twenty years since the initial action was pursued. Like any government directed initiative, Superfund has its advocates and detractors; “‘Monitoring will have to go on indefinitely. Replacement {of the cap and barrier wall} will have to be considered in the future because nothing lasts forever…It’s not clear that any local business would want to build on top of a toxic landfill” (Park). When Superfund can initiate a cleanup of a polluted area, it creates a positive change for the surrounding economy. Nevertheless, more often than not, Superfund has been the source of negative publicity. With billions in funding, barely any sites have been restored. As with the sites that have been completed, even that status comes under controversy. By rewording and enacting more stringent implementation of the law perhaps this struggling system can streamline into an efficient and cost saving venture that properly restores ecological order.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Narrative Summary: Superfund
For every natural progression, there is always inevitable negative factors that occur as a byproduct of the result. The technological advancements such as factories and mines that are used to further modern society's advancement comes at the cost of polluting the surrounding ecological systems.
A federal program called Superfund has paid for the cleanup of many of these toxic sites. Yet, the fund is bankrupt and the number of sites that have been cleaned up has constantly declined for the last three years.
Superfund began in 1980 as a result of a protest in western New York. The existing problem with Onondaga Lake illustrates that much still needs to be done with New York, not to mention the other 1000 plus sites around the United States.
The original idea of Superfund was to make the polluter pay. There are a number of things that are intrinsically wrong with that philosophy. The wording of the law calls for "joint and several liability" meaning that any party to have an affiliation with the site can be sued to made pay, which is exactly what is happening. Superfund targets the chief polluter, ususally a big deep-pocketed corporation. Then, the deep pockets of the corporation enable it to track down any other companies that had been on the site. The major corporation then sues the little company causing a logjam in court, and no one paying for cleanup of a site.
The law needs to be overhauled, and be more specific in its methodology of prosecuting firms that contributed to the waste. It is a tricky problem because it would have to be passed by Congress. Not only would this take forever, but the corporate interests that dictate congressional policy would most likely not even pass a new Superfund bill.
ARTICLE ABOUT THE ATTEMPTED CLEAN-UP OF ONONDAGA LAKE
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e9e8f8b7ba40311064945bf172b3e60ebd84554dc1bc66d8e64e614108bcac054&fmt=H
A federal program called Superfund has paid for the cleanup of many of these toxic sites. Yet, the fund is bankrupt and the number of sites that have been cleaned up has constantly declined for the last three years.
Superfund began in 1980 as a result of a protest in western New York. The existing problem with Onondaga Lake illustrates that much still needs to be done with New York, not to mention the other 1000 plus sites around the United States.
The original idea of Superfund was to make the polluter pay. There are a number of things that are intrinsically wrong with that philosophy. The wording of the law calls for "joint and several liability" meaning that any party to have an affiliation with the site can be sued to made pay, which is exactly what is happening. Superfund targets the chief polluter, ususally a big deep-pocketed corporation. Then, the deep pockets of the corporation enable it to track down any other companies that had been on the site. The major corporation then sues the little company causing a logjam in court, and no one paying for cleanup of a site.
The law needs to be overhauled, and be more specific in its methodology of prosecuting firms that contributed to the waste. It is a tricky problem because it would have to be passed by Congress. Not only would this take forever, but the corporate interests that dictate congressional policy would most likely not even pass a new Superfund bill.
ARTICLE ABOUT THE ATTEMPTED CLEAN-UP OF ONONDAGA LAKE
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e9e8f8b7ba40311064945bf172b3e60ebd84554dc1bc66d8e64e614108bcac054&fmt=H
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
