Tabula Rasa
Nature per se, untouched by human hand and brain, is just a heap of greenish garbage, populated by numerous varieties of unfriendly creatures. The green things just stand there, doing nothing but filling the void between the cities, inhabited by beasts that will either feed on your flesh or flee before you in a display of severe social incompetence.
The natural surroundings are per definition unpaved, which means that transportation is undertaken under aggravating circumstances and, since nature lacks places of special interest, is meaningless. You could pretty well abide at one place, the trees, shrubbery, rocks etc. will be almost identical wherever you go. Its like Gertrude Steins damning judgment on Oakland: there isn't any there there.
In fact, nature will most likely kill you; by fangs and claws, by poison, by disagreeable weather conditions or simply by sheer boredom. Unplumbed nature isn´t just lacking interest, it´s also very uncomfortable.
Pinx.
If, then, pure nature is so dreadful, why does it suddenly become so much more appealing with David Attenborough kneeling in front of it, describing it in a hushed voice?
The simple answer is: culture. This proposed antithesis of nature makes nature bearable. The very position of the camera, the angle, the cropping of the scenery – indeed, the very concept of “scenery” – brings meaning to the green void and “meaning” is what's been lacking in our first futile attempt on The Big Green Thing. The very focusing of attention, to a certain degree the attention itself, brings hierarchies to the bland porridge of visual detritus. Hierarchy means that you´re able to differ between things of little interest and things of even less interest, thus introducing, finally, a “there”, eloquently underlined by the prose of the kneeling Sir David.
Logos
Hence we conclude that this nondescript mix of foliage and elks becomes fairly acceptable once you can fit it into a system; when you can name parts thereof and begin forming myths and knowledge around it (discerning myth from knowledge is best left to another discussion). We assign, anthropomorphically inclined as we are, moral standards to nature, call a creature not only “lion”, but also give it a royal title and invent high notions about its courage and nobility. Never mind that the actual lion is a flatulent killer with bad breath. Should the Arc capsize, who would you save: the lion or the hyena? Your answer is a good measure of your disneyfication.
It all starts with a name. "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”. Rather, in the beginning was a load of crap, and then some more or less simian forefather/mother invented Logos, thereby categorizing the crap load, ipso facto making it interesting. Whether this invention was Divinely inspired or just a result of the evolution of our brains is beyond me, but it is an essential part of our origination as a sentient species. Assigning meaning, i.e. applying cultural vision, makes the world go round (without cultural assumptions the world literally won't go round, we'll just have a sun bobbing up and down) (yes, scientific theories are cultural assumptions too).
- The World
- The Picture
- Tabula Rasa
- Pinx.
- Logos
Culture, The Fig Leaf Layer Layer
Necessity is the mother of invention, but culture was begat by a penis sheath and a silly hat.
- Undercover
- Under a Hat
