Branching Out
Whereas research papers can be confined to universities, databases, and academic research, art can branch out in multiple directions and reach more audiences. It is for this reason that I turned to visual arts, not just for their aesthetic value but also for their accessibility. Artists do not provide definite answers–they pose questions. While they can have biases or intentions behind a piece, their ultimate goal is to get viewers thinking about subjects from a different perspective. With wolf reintroduction, a topic with many polarized stances, it’s important to me that viewers can see this subject from multiple viewpoints.
Art can combine different modes of information in an interdisciplinary and engaging way. In his book Deep Affinities: Art and Science, Philip Palmedo explores the long-standing history (Paleolithic to modern day) of human art and science, two endeavors that have helped us to both understand and appreciate our world. Similar to science, art involves translation, converting the perceived world into symbolic form: “schematization,” the reduction of a figure to its essential traits. This concept of “essential traits” brings art close to the nature of science (Palmedo 16-18). By schematizing the abstract historical, sociological and ecological dimensions of wolf reintroduction, I aim to make it more understandable for audiences.
Furthermore, ecological art requires research and collaboration between artists and specialists from other fields. I found Andrew Brown’s book Art & Ecology Now extremely useful for learning about the necessity of collaboration. Brown elaborates that “Often, the artists producing these works do so in collaboration with others, undertaking complex projects with specialists from other disciplines, such as botanists, zoologists, ecologists, geologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, architects, engineers and urban planners, as well as the community members and the environment activists” (7).
Creating this multimodal project was no exception: I had to consult a wide range of viewpoints and specialists, including local Idahoans, Tribal members, professors from different fields, members of the Idaho Wolf Project, CDIL, and a wide audience of peers. Collaboration allowed my project to become more expansive and diverse.
Most importantly, art helps to motivate viewer discourse. Once again, Art & Ecology Now is a great reference for ecological art’s capabilities. Brown further argues that artists “can engage local communities and garner broad support in ways that science alone can rarely do. They can offer tools for reflection, discussion, awareness, and action that lead to new ways of thinking about and of being in the world. And they can bring about real change” (8). In this way, art and multimodality can accomplish what writing or science alone cannot–larger engagement. By reshaping the boundaries of information, perhaps we can find more solutions to environmental problems.
I do not want my project to disappear into an academic echo chamber. Instead, I want it to branch out–like a living being. I see this piece as a catalyst for conversation, a conversion point of various voices, and an accessible springboard for researchers. My aim is for audiences on all sides of wolf reintroduction to access multiple perspectives surrounding the controversy, seeing them side-by-side through an accessible space, and investigating further to find different dimensions to the topic–viewpoints they have not acknowledged before.
The more angles we see, the more we can work together to find solutions and garner an understanding of the complex interconnectivity of our world.