searching for a voice of love in an ecology of blame

(a problematic statement of transmutable intent)

A close friend and fellow artist was recently asked about her feelings towards the current eco-art movement which among other things aims to engage audiences with the current ecological crisis we are experiencing and attempt to resolve such issues through creative activism and artful intervention…

In answer to your question I do not see myself as an eco-artist, I am simply me, creating work as I am part of the environment. I collaborate with it as a source of inspiration, sometimes to connect with and sometimes to aid a deeper appreciation of it. But my work is much broader and most of my working hours at the moment are spent as a Learning Facilitator for adults with Autism. This is part of my art too. It’s a different form and I use this time to help them to enjoy and see that they are part of the environment. So I am not an eco-artist, I just work with many aspects of the environment because it inspires me, reconnects me and is important to me. I do not want to save the world for I do not know if it is broken, nor if such a massive responsibility should be placed upon my shoulders. I do what I can and I enjoy what I do out of love for creativity.” Francesca Owen[i]

Since completing and during our MA in Art & Environment at University College Falmouth in 2012 we have continually questioned how such political motivations forwarded by the course and the excessive focus on crisis may have undermined any spontaneous creative expression we previously benefitted from and enjoyed. We both chose the course because of our love for Nature as the source of our inspiration, hoping to further cultivate this creative link, rather than through any interest in the abuses which are presently being acted out upon the world. For many the relationship between art, in its many forms, and the environment is one integral to human creativity rather than a contemporary response to crisis. It may similarly be argued that such ministrations of putting the world to rights are beyond the realm of human influence and indeed unhealthy to any sense of wellbeing necessary for such aims, and further that focusing attention on such issues merely serves to exasperate and aggravate them rather than resolving them in any way.

table top arrangement (bideford black wool ball, pink carnations, paper and stones; p ward 2013) table top arrangement (bideford black wool ball, pink carnations, paper and stones; p ward 2013)

For many years my own art practice has been strongly motivated by environmentalism (having been brought up with a deep respect for the natural world it is an obvious response to try to protect what is essential to my being through my work). However, continued participation and involvement with other similarly engaged artists and groups has brought to light an underlying frustration and discontent with such forms of creative activism and propaganda, coming as it frequently does from an ill-informed position, from political antagonism and a fearfully romantic perception of the human condition. The work produced is often and typically intellectually and conceptually distanced from any emotional or spiritual communication that I believe is the essence of ‘good’ art, as well as energetically divorced from the community in which it is employed. Thankfully my own practice is animated more by integrity to personal experience and reflection than a need for identification with any peer group and so has gradually allowed evolution towards one inspired by our intrinsic creativity as sentient beings within the cosmos. The following statements attempt to redefine my evolving practice, albeit within the limitations of this contemporary linguistic form (rather than through the preferred potency offered by poetic license to express such matters).

As an artist in an age of ecological understanding I see my respons-ability[ii] to explore and express my own nature in relation with Nature. It is not my place to judge this relationship or manipulate any response to it but to simply present what I am privileged enough to observe. Seeing Nature as an energetic interdependent evolving totality within which a plethora of transient entities act with and upon one another implies an inclusivity of intention and becoming. Such inclusivity may often be undermined by a pervading human predilection for arrogance and domination, exhibited and employed by capitalist corporations and didactic fundamentalism alike – whether in the name of profit and technological progress or environmental rescue. Such inclusivity may be similarly undermined through the desire to make definitive an academic movement or concept, rather than allowing that movement to do just that – move and flow and evolve in response to a constantly changing world. To believe that our actions as artists may ‘save the world’ (from our own and others’ actions) or change it for the ‘better’ (or at least in our own favour) is merely another way of ‘playing God’ – an attitude that arguably has led to the seemingly complex condition we presently face. 

As an individual I do not always necessarily respond solely or consciously to any apparent ecological crisis but tend more to make tentative and aesthetic investigations of the world in which I live, a world that inspires every waking and dreaming moment of my life, through decisions based on intuition and personal need rather than rational thought and duty to some abstract ideal. Hopefully such intimate expression may communicate the sensory depth of my relationship within Nature, striking a resonant chord of recognition with others, human or otherwise. To celebrate and honour the wonder and beauty of Nature through investigations of our own nature maybe has more power and integrity than any political response that an individual or group may wish to pursue. The principle of Ecology, by its own nature and embodied within the process of art, includes both and all as valid expressions of Nature but most importantly expresses a sense of how actions may affect (individuals within) the dynamic of any immanent environment. 

table top arrangement (bideford black wool ball, pink carnations and stone; p ward 2013) table top arrangement (bideford black wool ball, pink carnations and stone; p ward 2013)

When I seek to understand my own nature as a human being, to find peace within myself, to find balance and health and happiness and harmony, I often do not like or am unable to easily accept what I see. Evidently humans are, among other things, warmongers, abusers and murderers; we can be violent, cruel, impatient, insecure and greedy as well as peace-bringers, menders, carers and nurturers, able to be brave and selfless and to appreciate beauty and to create culture with humour and joy.  There is life and death, sickness and health and every subtle hue, tone and colour in between. We make mistakes. Without a comprehensive acceptance and assimilation of such diversity into my conscious being I may not be able to function effectively within the dynamic and constantly changing world. This is not to say that we should adopt or enact all and every behaviour but that we might evaluate and accept our potential and susceptibility to do so.

“It is never too late to give up your prejudices” Henry David Thoreau

Traditional shamans and healers often do not share the new age romantic vision of an ideal world sometime in the past, of a garden from which our kind has been cast and upon which the ministrations of many contemporary psychologists are based, but upon a world where all entities, animate and inanimate, artificial and natural, ethereal and corporeal, act according to their own (evolving and transient) nature. They are not looking for something or someone to blame for our suffering, but more a way to accept and assimilate change into the flow of life. If art may do anything within society it could maybe encourage fluidity of perception and being, to question any pervading, persistent and stultifying status quo and to celebrate and encourage a deep and residing respect for the world of which we are an integral but essentially transient part.[iii]

Yet within a world of cynicism, of over-analysis and lack of faith, and despite the prevalence of such ageless wisdom, where is the simple voice of love upon which all healing and sound human behaviour rests – where is acceptance and understanding? Where is joy and compassion? Where is the sharing and celebration of our sublime and miraculous existence? If art, in whatever form, does not exult and uphold the spirit of life at its very core then what place does it have in this world? What use does it have to society other than to subdue and undermine the sanctity of experience? It is so often easier to point the finger – to blame and despise whatever or whoever for our dis-ease, for our inner and outer dissatisfaction and frustration with existence – than to embrace its wholeness – its dirt and grime and lack of symmetry, its sadness, disparity and dirge, its resonant beauty and power – and our humble place within it and to speak with a voice of love for all…

black sheep wool shadow (bideford black dyed wool ball; p ward 2013)  black sheep wool shadow (bideford black dyed wool ball; p ward 2013)

P Ward 2013


[ii] “If the aesthetic is seen in contrast to the anaesthetic – or numbness, it can be understood more correctly as ‘enlivened being’. Reclaiming the aesthetic in this way enables us to understand the link between the aesthetic and responsibility: response-ability not as a moral imperative, but as the ability to respond.” (Shelley Sacks, UN Summit on Culture and Development, Stockholm 1998) from


4 Comments on “searching for a voice of love in an ecology of blame”

  1. carolyn black says:

    Hi Peter, this is a very interesting reflection on our relationship with ‘Nature’ and I certainly relate to many of the issues you raise. I wonder have you ever contemplated the ideas and propositions made by

    “Today, the human impact on our planet can hardly be underestimated. Climate change, synthetic biology, mass urbanization – ‘We were here’ echoes all over. Although many people have tried to improve our relationship with nature, few have asked the elementary question ‘what is nature?’.” Koert van Mensvoort

    It’s a challenging question – what is nature?



  2. pw130524 says:

    Thanks for your thoughts and links Carolyn.

    re: – some scary and fun propositions! The balance of technology/intervention/nature is so utterly ambiguous at times – on one hand it is a celebration of our dexterity and on another a travesty to any sanctified view of the world…

    ‘Some speak of a return to nature; I wonder where they could have been.’ Frederick Somner

    And the question ‘what is nature?’ is as you say ‘challenging’ and fraught with contradictions and more often than not hypocrisy. I actually wonder whether we (or our language/thought forms) are too embroiled in its midst to objectively comment or even fully understand – hence my current rather hands-off approach (yet another contradiction otherwise I wouldn’t be commenting at all!? aaaargh!!??) …

    There is an old Taoist saying that comes to mind when I’m writing – ‘Those who know do not speak’ – guess I don’t know much then!?!

    I have just been for a wonderful walk in the shallow surf – now that makes sense!

    Best wishes

    Pete 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s