Reclaimed Human Artefacts
1 media/Screen Shot 2022-10-25 at 12.00.23 am-min (1) (1)-min_11zon_thumb.png 2022-10-24T06:18:30-07:00 Sigi Jöttkandt 4115726eb75e75e43252a5cbfc72a780d0304d7d 30986 1 After British forces abandoned Ross Island in India, human structures there have been left to be reclaimed by nature. plain 2022-10-24T06:18:31-07:00 Sigi Jöttkandt 4115726eb75e75e43252a5cbfc72a780d0304d7dThis page is referenced by:
-
1
media/Screen Shot 2022-10-25 at 12.00.23 am-min (1) (1)-min_11zon.png
2022-10-24T06:54:32-07:00
The Destruction of Nature-Culture
3
Seeing the will of the environment.
plain
2022-11-20T22:31:14-08:00
The idea that there is a distinction between anthropocentric 'culture' and its surrounding passive 'nature' is generally false. As humans require external manifestations of culture, the artefacts they create are made from and inherently are natural. Whilst these objects are restructured according to human design, the idea that an ecosystem passively awaits and maintains transformation of form is idealistic. It isn't possible for culture to be separate from nature: nature is the medium through which culture is transmitted. From the air used by humans to project sound waves for speech to the earth used to create buildings, culture is the anthropocentric creation of artefacts from the natural world.
There is a lack of consideration to the will of the ecosystem in its use of creating such objects. The idea that an ecosystem has a passive character does not account for an inherently amorphous structure. Humans may reorganise it, but the environment is able to affect as much as it can be affected. The image of nature redesigning a human structure represents this omnipresent will towards intrinsic and amorphous structure. Nature will reorganise itself as it pleases, even with this false dichotomy of a separation of culture. These objects have always been, and will always remain, natural.
 (1)-min_11zon.png){kind=link}