Micro-Landscapes of the Anthropocene

Critical Reflection: Natalie and Simonn

By Simonn Nyguyen and Natalie Cheung

Arts3050 Critical reflections: Plant Worlds
 
The interconnectivity of our world is alike a plant, ever growing, adapting and supporting the elements around them. Human existence is a space shared and supported by the biological world of nature. Within the world of plants, perceptions play an integral role in their place in society. From mere backdrops of a cityscape to the freshly maintained conscious garden lawn.

The essence of the plant world was explored through creative dissections of close readings, theoretical research, short film making and a photo essay. These tasks have prompted a reimagining of the human space and its shared existence in the world of plants. Through the main concept of plant blindness, our perceptions of plants grew from mere backgrounds to our human world to one in which explores the cyclical symbiotic nature of plants, human, animal all those in-between.


The article ‘Plant Blindness’ by Rosetta Elkin advocates for plant awareness through an empathetic and critical approach. Elkin argues that through the rapid progress of the Anthropocene age, the integral role of plants beyond the role of garden lawn has been forgotten. Thus in the modern age, plant blindness is a concept derived from the inability to envision plants beyond stigmatised and forgotten means. Similarly, ‘Seeing Green’ by Monica Gagliano argues that modern society has inherited plant blindness, categorising the natural world as a competitive and hierarchal order. Yet as Gagliano argues, the natural world is one in which co-exists through each other. In essence there is a “myopia” reinforced by the misuse of language such as survival of the fittest. When viewed through a reimagined lens, we can see that plants form a network of survival with each other, trees protecting ground plants from heavy rains and flowers providing growth and seeding. The idea of plant blindness is explored through creative mediums within Courtney Ryans review of artist Vaughn Bell in “playing with plants”. Bell’s artworks as Ryan conceptualises reconsiders the way in which humans and plants are linked. While plants in the urban sphere have been reduced to nothing but backdrops, Bell’s artworks intertwines this concept by putting humans in portable biospheres encapsulating their head and ‘portable’ lawns planted in discarded shopping trollies. This visualisation of plant blindness as Ryan observes is one that confronts the underbelly of our world. In ‘Flower Tuscany’  by D.H Lawrence, we were provided with a poetic and vivid illustration of the floral world. This text furthered the concept of plant blindness through anti plant blindness in which Lawrence delves into the beauty and historical memories left through the imprint of Tuscany’s natural world. Similarly the close reading of Kew Gardens by Virginia Woolf also provided a vivid world of floral and gardens. This short novel however utilised the envisioned beauty of botanical plant life as a contrast and comparison against the on goings of the human characters. In essence, through the plotless on goings of the human world, Woolf is able to encasptulate the liminalities of human and plant worlds that coexist within each other.

It is through these texts and creatively dissecting through them did we reconsider our space within the world. The issue of plant blindness is inescapable as while even through an awareness of this concept, the conditioned surroundings of the human world pushes forward this hierarchy. Anti-blindness and an appreciation for the coexisting nature of plants is a limited idea as once removed from the vivid world of floral and greenery, blindness reoccurs within the urban sphere of technology and industrialisation.  As such we maintained a strong conscious effort to push forward both a negative and positive reimagining of the plant world. Inspired by the beauty of Kew Gardens and Flower of Tuscany, we utilised concepts of beauty, colours and vivid imagery to establish a sense of self awareness and ‘anti blindness’. However through other theoretical works, the idea of plant blindness is one in which plagues human perceptions through the conditioning of human superiority in the hierarchy of life. As such aspects of the project reminds the audience of their blindness to the plant world once removed from contained  vivid floral gardens and green parks and they enter their mundane urban spheres. In conclusion, the overall concepts push forward was one of balance through an exploration of appreciation and blindness of the plant world. Our perceptions overall have changed through planning and executing this project in which plants have been reconceptualised within our minds to one equal to us. In essence, we thank the plant world and their ability to maintain life even through our blindness.
 
 

This page has paths:

This page has replies:

  1. Natalie and Simon’s reflection on the concept of “plant-blindness” inspired me when the mentioned the “myopia” of language used to describe the plant world as competitive and survivalist. Their use of “myopic” – literally short-sighted – made me think of Polyphemus from Homer’s Odyssey, who is one-eyed and then blinded. This made me think of plant blindness in relation to not being able to perceive depth – and in this sense we could consider how we limit natural spaces by “bubble-wrapping” them as Natalie and Simon mentioned. It seems in the Anthropocene we are not only plant blind in terms of recognising plants and understanding their importance, but also in the space we provide for them. Their interest analogy to making nature wallpaper moves nature from the third to second dimension, and this can be linked to what happens in zoos, where the idea of an animal’s indigenous habitat is squashed to fit into a closed environment, and in some cases the trauma this causes the animals is visible, such as in the polar bear hotel in China. It would be interesting to explore this depth-blindness, or “cycloptic vision”, and opposingly, plant-depth awareness, further.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/12/chinese-hotel-with-polar-bear-enclosure-opens-to-outrage

  2. “The interconnectivity of our world” write Simonn Nyguyen and Natalie Cheung “is alike a plant, ever growing, adapting and supporting the elements around them.” Not only are plants and animals not so different, but plants and worlds appear to operate similarly. While this is certainly insightful, in a way this is the default perspective. Humans often mistake flora for the world, and vice versa. Worlds are made of grass, trees, flowers, and bushes, and it is us, human and nonhuman animals, separate from the world, which traverse it. Nyguyen and Cheung recognise that even if we can intellectually undo this ideological separation of plants, animals and worlds, plant blindness remains “inescapable as […] even through an awareness of this concept, the conditioned surroundings of the human world pushes forward this hierarchy.” Simply knowing this to be true sometimes is not enough to change our perspectives.

    Over the past few years I have had an interesting relationship with plants, as have many of the people close to me. Three years ago I decided to go vegan after I had committed to vegetarianism a year before that. This signalled a radical shift in my perspective of the world, my relationship to the commodity status of nonhuman animals, and my consumptive habits. My omnivorous diet became intellectually dishonest since any justification I could muster to defend meat-eating became incoherent and unconvincing. I stopped acting like nonhuman animals existed to be exploited and slaughtered for my own gustatory pleasure; even if I never truly believed this to be the case. But like the fetishist says: “I know very well, but all the same.”

    Among the vegans I know there is a clear split in the way they evaluate the lifestyle. Some see veganism as doing something good, others see it as the absence of doing something bad. The latter perspective recognises that veganism could not by itself change the world: one cannot overthrow an exploitative system by simply changing their consumptive behaviours (i.e. undermining capitalism with an oxymoronic eco-capitalism). In this case, veganism becomes a molecular refusal. A form of disengagement.

    However, it is clear that while my veganism assumes that while animals are not meant to be eaten, it also suggests plants somehow are. An argument for this perspective could be easily sustained: for example, you could say that the consumption of fruits serve an evolutionary purpose to spread a plant’s seeds—thus, the plant supposedly wants to be eaten. Though these arguments can often appear overly convenient and continue to propagate this notion of “plant blindness.” While there are many bad-faith arguments levied against veganism from omnivores—e.g. “how do you know plants do not feel pain?”—many vegans end up agreeing with these epistemological uncertainties. These people become convinced and pushed towards diets like those followed in Jainism: vegan plus no root or underground vegetables (onions, garlic, etc.) as to not kill entire plants or harm microorganisms. However, it is impossible to not leave a mark on this world, whether positive or negative, creative or destructive. Even if every footstep taken on a walk kills an ecosystem beneath your feet, what can you do armed with this knowledge? Sometimes the fetishist’s “I know very well, but all the same” appears like the only viable option.

This page references: