based on the differences in treatment of the individual images, there is a divide in two: good & evil. the colors are both of the natural world but one tree is dead and its birds blackened, the other has color and vibrance and, well, life. we see the thoughtfulness of note-taking on the side of the good, and the hunter with no notes at all. and i particularly like the duality of the dashed lines, both pointed at birds but carrying very different forces along their path (the force of observation vs the force of bullets). conservation is a word i'm familiar with. My grandmother has shared with me her passion of wildlife and has shown me what it takes to preserve an ecology. as a full-time volunteer for the wildlife rehabilitation of missouri's native animals, she observes this wildlife and our surroundings and lives alongside nature (left), and when danger comes to this natural world (right) she restores it by taking care of wounded animals and/or resulting abandoned young. This being my background, is the understanding I have of this image (good versus evil), and furthermore I understand conservation as including both these worlds, mediating them in a way. So on that, at first I was confused by why "conservation" was between them (I would have figured if it had to choose sides, it would be good), but it makes sense with my previous knowledge on the topic.
This postcard showed me a point I was trying to get at earlier-- even if we share some of the same ideas based on this postcard, different people from different backgrounds will come up with new ways to interpret something that are not necessarily right or wrong. Maybe it especially rings true just due to the nature of this topic or how we've applied systems to our postcards, but anyway...
Yes! I definitely think there's a sense of good and bad-- even though people on opposing 'sides' will interpret it differently, I think that the nature of the environment (healthy tree vs dead tree) shows one side as being good or evil. I guess my intent of the postcard was to show the importance of conversation in the way you see it-- preserving ecology as opposed to killing it for no purpose other than a hobby. (Commenting on the idea that the death of the animals can effect us as well, as birds are often indicators of the health of the environment. By killing them, we can no longer gather this information, something you picked up on with the notes.)
However, both you and Tyler seemed to pick up on the idea of conservation being a part of both things (hunters also being aware of endangered animals), something I didn't consider. When making the postcard I got so frustrated trying to find the 'right' text to use, that when I settled with "conservation" I was curious as to how it'd be interpreted.
3 comments:
based on the differences in treatment of the individual images, there is a divide in two: good & evil. the colors are both of the natural world but one tree is dead and its birds blackened, the other has color and vibrance and, well, life. we see the thoughtfulness of note-taking on the side of the good, and the hunter with no notes at all. and i particularly like the duality of the dashed lines, both pointed at birds but carrying very different forces along their path (the force of observation vs the force of bullets). conservation is a word i'm familiar with. My grandmother has shared with me her passion of wildlife and has shown me what it takes to preserve an ecology. as a full-time volunteer for the wildlife rehabilitation of missouri's native animals, she observes this wildlife and our surroundings and lives alongside nature (left), and when danger comes to this natural world (right) she restores it by taking care of wounded animals and/or resulting abandoned young. This being my background, is the understanding I have of this image (good versus evil), and furthermore I understand conservation as including both these worlds, mediating them in a way. So on that, at first I was confused by why "conservation" was between them (I would have figured if it had to choose sides, it would be good), but it makes sense with my previous knowledge on the topic.
This postcard showed me a point I was trying to get at earlier-- even if we share some of the same ideas based on this postcard, different people from different backgrounds will come up with new ways to interpret something that are not necessarily right or wrong. Maybe it especially rings true just due to the nature of this topic or how we've applied systems to our postcards, but anyway...
Yes! I definitely think there's a sense of good and bad-- even though people on opposing 'sides' will interpret it differently, I think that the nature of the environment (healthy tree vs dead tree) shows one side as being good or evil. I guess my intent of the postcard was to show the importance of conversation in the way you see it-- preserving ecology as opposed to killing it for no purpose other than a hobby. (Commenting on the idea that the death of the animals can effect us as well, as birds are often indicators of the health of the environment. By killing them, we can no longer gather this information, something you picked up on with the notes.)
However, both you and Tyler seemed to pick up on the idea of conservation being a part of both things (hunters also being aware of endangered animals), something I didn't consider. When making the postcard I got so frustrated trying to find the 'right' text to use, that when I settled with "conservation" I was curious as to how it'd be interpreted.
Haha, conservation, not conversation.
Post a Comment