Monthly Archives: August 2016
Wallace Stegner said that in the beginning the continent stretched away westward without names, that it had no places in it until people named them, and wore the names smooth with use. He went on to say that no place is a place until things that have happened in it are remembered in history, ballads, yarns, legends, or monuments and that fiction serves as well as fact.
Stegner argued against the statement that writers are like a mirror, insisting instead that they are like a lens and that ultimately there is no escaping the fact that fiction is only as good as its maker. The reader sees only with the clarity that the writer is capable of expressing.
I agree with Stegner, but if that is true of writers then artists are like Ali Babba and their artwork the magical phrase that opens the mouth of the cave allowing us to see treasures hidden inside. They are masters of revelation, conjuring memories and emotions, thereby allowing us to re-experience a person, place or time that we’d never be able to recreate or re-experience on our own. The artwork they produce is not just a copy of what they see, but an illumination of how they see it – and how they express it determines how we feel it.
Ansel Adams, when trying to explain what his photographs were about, used the word “equivalent.” The photographic image was an “equivalent” of the feeling the photographer had when he created it, and then became a form of transferrable currency. In other words, what the artist felt, the viewer felt.
The idea of transferable currency is what came to mind when I looked at this painting of Snow Canyon. In an instant I felt a rush of memories. What the artist was able to capture on canvas with paint, I was able to remember and feel by looking at it. This is the currency that artists trade in. Their perception of the nuances of light and color and mood and texture excites the synapses in our minds that release feelings of pleasure like a sweet dessert after a savory meal does to the taste buds.
Not all places have written histories, ballads, or legends but are places none-the-less; they are just either subtle and understated or so common that they are virtually hiding in plain sight. These places are usually well-worn and loved, or unknown and neglected. Many of these places are so pimped out on social media that we’ve grown bored and weary of seeing them and others are so rarely noticed that they might as well not exist at all.
These places are the ones whose rendering is given their due only when an artist gives them the careful and unrushed attention they deserve, and it is often only through their eyes that we truly see the soul of the subject.
Wendell Berry said that if you don’t know where you are, you don’t know who you are. Stegner explains: “He is not talking about the kind of location that can be determined by looking at a map or a street sign. He is talking about the kind of knowing that involves the senses, the memory, the history of a family or tribe. He is talking about the knowledge of place that comes from working in it in all weathers, making a living form it, suffering from its catastrophes, loving its mornings or evenings or hot noons, valuing it for the profound investment of labor and feeling that you, your parents, and grandparents, your all-but-unknown ancestors have put into it. He is talking about the knowing that poets specialize in.”
The awakening to this knowledge of place and identity comes unexpectedly through the senses, surprising reminders of who we are and where are are that plant us and keep us grounded. The momentary sensation of remembering a place and our place in it is what artists like Tracy Taylor stimulate when they capture the essence of the place. We know it when we see it – every time we look at it – even if we were only visitors there.
Teddy Roosevelt and America’s first Forester, Gifford Pinchot, believed that conservation was a cause vital to the United States’ remaining a land of equals. Acting on that belief, they did the unthinkable – they set aside large swaths of the American landscape as public land, designating National Parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges, thus protecting both land and resources from the rich and powerful, the industrialists and capitalists who would “not leave the land as it is, who would only mar it.”
It was anathema to their class and status, both coming from wealthy and privileged Eastern families. The issue wasn’t necessarily class warfare; however; and it wasn’t just a battle for land or money, though those certainly played a part. It was a battle between two different mentalities sprouting from the same root that came to a head over deeply held yet conflicting American principles: the right to property and the right to liberty.
In order to have true liberty, or free-will, one must be on equal footing with everyone else. Inequality diminishes liberty. If one’s right to vote is contingent on owning property and there are laws that say certain groups cannot own property, then those groups are not on equal footing with their fellow countrymen and hence their free-will, or liberty, is hindered. This is an example of unequal treatment under the law in that some are granted privileges while others are excluded from them.
Equality is inherently an issue of access: access to an education, to vote, to own property, to employment, to knowledge and information, to the internet, to medical care, etc. The list goes on and on. Not having access to any of these leaves people in the dark ages.
Unfortunately the principle of property rights has been used as a tool to deny access to others for centuries and its use for those ends is still pursued today. The thing to understand about owning property; however, and this must be emphasized, is that property rights imply the freedom to act. Having title to property amounts to legal proof of ownership; property rights, on the other hand, amount to the owner’s possession of rights to perform certain physical actions on that property (1). In other words, property rights allow or restrict actions depending on whether you are the owner or guest of the property.
When public lands were created and given to the American people, what we got possession of was not the physical land, but the rights to perform certain actions on those lands. We were given access and equal footing with everyone else who was given those rights. It was a radical idea that rivals colonial America’s win against Britain for most unbelievable success story in American history.
But success can be short lived. The same forces working against Roosevelt and Pinchot are alive and well today. The same mentality is trying to take our property rights away, be it to the states, industry, or private citizens. The people pushing this agenda are not only trying to take public lands, they are trying to wrestle away our possession of property rights, and thus access and freedom to perform physical actions on those lands. If they succeed we will lose more than the ability to hunt and fish, to hike and bike, to backpack and kayak; we will cease to be a nation of equals and this is why:
Not everyone will have access to the pristine, natural beauty found on public lands. Places outside the noise and clatter of cities with clean air and water; places of spiritual significance, solitude and space will belong only to those who have access to them. Our ability to escape to cool and quiet alpine air to heal from an angry and violent world or to walk in the footsteps of past generations in places unchanged for hundreds of years will be gone or off limits, open only to those with the money and property rights to be there.
It’s not a partisan issue, though it is the GOP pushing this agenda. If you don’t like the presidential candidates, remember what Teddy Roosevelt was able to do and imagine the opposite. Remember also that 80 percent of Congress is up for re-election. They control the purse strings that can fund or starve management of our lands, as well as the pen to pass laws that undermine or enhance our access to them.
Holding lands in trust for future generations was a great moral issue 100 years ago and it’s still a great moral issue today. Right now, even if we do not own a house, we have property rights to land that grants us access to engage in a host of physical activities where we can feel as at home in them as anyone else.
Most of our public lands exist in the West, and the West has always been synonymous with freedom – freedom to enter what the Irish officer in the British Army, William F. Butler described in 1872:
“The great ocean itself does not present more infinite variety than does this prairie-ocean of which we speak. In winter, a dazzling surface of purest snow; in early summer, a vast expanse of grass and pale pink roses, in autumn too often a wild sea of raging fire.
No ocean or water in the world can vie with its gorgeous sunsets, no solitude can equal the loneliness of a night-shadowed prairie; one feels the stillness, and hears the silence, the wail of the prowling wolf makes the voice of solitude audible, the stars look down through infinite silence upon a silence almost as intense. One saw here the world as it had taken shape and form from the hands of the creator.”
So long as the public keeps vigilant watch over the land, deep pockets of the powerful will not prevail. But keeping watch entails more than using the land for recreation, it presupposes a duty to act as sentries and guardians ready to sound the alarm when under attack. It would be a mistake to assume that our public lands and our access to them will always be there. Nothing in politics is written in stone. In this arena, those who care the most, win.
(1) Foundation for Economic Education, Gary Pecquet. Private Property and Government under the Constitution.
The internet is a-buzz with Clint Eastwood quotes from a recent Esquire Magazine interview. The most quotable quote comes from his declaration that he would vote for Donald Trump and defends Trump’s rhetoric by saying, “Just fucking get over it. We’re living in a pussy generation.”
He blames political correctness, but what he is really putting down is those who dare request that people act like decent human beings. Everyone who derides “political correctness” really just hates that they can’t say whatever they want without consequences, without guilt, and without being labeled for what they really are.
Clint Eastwood coming out and saying this is disappointing but not surprising. What is sad is all the Christian conservatives sharing his quote to validate how they feel.
I recently saw a post saying that there was no room for Christians in the Democratic party because of its stance on abortion. I would argue that the Republican Party is in an awkward position to be throwing stones and have seen no evidence that they have the moral high ground.
When Christians (and no it’s not all of them) promote demeaning and disrespecting people, they betray their faith. And when they justify it by standing behind Clint Eastwood and decrying political correctness, they just look like hypocrites who cherry-pick Bible verses.
When someone puts you down and then makes it about you not having thick skin, or puts your beliefs and values down and then says, but it wasn’t personal; what they are really doing is justifying their own mean behavior because you call them on it.
What Eastwood and those like him don’t seem to understand is that political correctness is just another way of saying, “Treat others how you like to be treated.” Jesus said, “Out of the mouth the heart speaks.” It’s interesting that so many of his followers either conveniently forget this or brazenly champion the opposite. This is an example of why so many are turned off by religion.
We should definitely look for moral leaders to lead this country, but people running for office are human and they are not perfect; therefore, we have to choose who we think the best candidate is based on our own values and beliefs. But lets not go around saying that one party has the moral high ground, or one candidate is evil while our very own is no better.
Clint Eastwood may have grown up in a generation where racism was more accepted, but we have progressed since then and I would argue for the better. Only someone in a group not discriminated against would suggest that going back to a time where demeaning and disrespecting other groups and classes of people without recrimination would be better than striving to be our better selves. Being politically incorrect is not preferable to treating people with common decency and respect.
We all have a right to express ourselves, but just because we have the right to say something doesn’t mean it’s right to say it. We all inherently know this when it happens to us.
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/03/clint-eastwood-donald-trump-racism-esquire-interviewhttps