Architect Jean Nouvel’s desert rose design for the Qatar National Museum aimed to embody Qatar’s rising economic superpower and technological advances achieved through the last decade by petroleum and natural gas. He describes the desert rose structure to have an “eternal dimension,” implying that Qatar’s desert minerals will always stand against the test of time, especially after industrialization. But if we think about the concept of the Anthropocene, which is a proposed geological epoch dating from the onset of significant human impact on Earth’s geology and ecosystems that is widely contested, could that conception be true in Nouvel’s description of the desert rose’s symbolic significance? If we are living in a world where humans have had an irreversible impact on the environment, then how can the desert rose be timeless?
To answer this question we must look at where that epoch could’ve theoretically begun. While these proposed commencement dates have been contested, I will be using the Industrial Revolution as the starting point for the inception of the Anthropocene. In that sense, industrialization has caused irreversible damage to the environment. However, author Jason Moore takes issue with the term ‘anthropocene’ because it implies that humanity is a ‘homogeneous acting unit’ when it actually exists in a patterned historical system. Instead, he suggests that the term ‘Capitolocene’ is more appropriate to use in this context since we could trace back humanity’s interference with the environment with that of capitalist motives. If we consider the notion that humanity’s capitalist takeover has altered the Earth’s dynamics forever, then that would mean that Nouvel’s symbolism is inaccurate.
Nouvel presents his symbolism of the desert and the industrial life of Qatar as two contradicting entities He mentions that here: “Symbolically, its architecture evokes the desert, its silent and eternal dimension, but also the spirit of modernity and daring that have come along and shaken up what seemed unshakable. So, it’s the contradictions in that history that I’ve sought to evoke here.” His work contends with Moore’s concept of ‘green arithmetic’, which is the assertion that Moore rejects. It states that the world is divided into two separate categories: Nature and society. Moore argues that separating nature and society into different compartments is “ a peculiar mental artifact of capitalism” which potentially justifies this system, since nature exists outside society then it could be rationalized to degrade and exploit the land for economic reasons. Instead, Nouvel should present humanity as a part of nature since society has shaped the environment given what we know about the Capitolocene.
I think that Nouvel was trying to combine the eras of Qatar as one to invoke reminiscent feelings of the past: the desolated desert of Qatar and the industrialized and economically powerful Qatar. But if we take a closer look at the literature behind the Capitolocene posed by Moore, it would then represent capitalism as overtaking the evocative cultural aspect of Qatar. If the specks of humanity eternally alter the environment, then the desert rose is merely a distant memory of Qatar’s past.
Category: Uncategorized
Categories
Land Ethics
In non-invasive archaeological traditions, it is the archaeologist’s duty to cautiously preserve cultural and natural heritage without adopting destructive excavating technology that alters its landscape. From this perspective, archaeologists are inherently just-either consciously or subconsciously- just towards their landscape, even if they are guided by intuition rather than a strict landscape ethical framework. However, the most important factor in determining whether preservation archaeology embraces land ethic understandings is if its practices conceive of serving environmental and ecological interests as a prerequisite to serving a higher entity, humans. In land ethics, which Leopold had contrasted against the prevailing anthropocentrism of his time, the role of “Homo sapiens (shifts) from conqueror of the land-community to plain . . . citizen” (Leopold, 1949). Humans are merely citizens of a large community where all members- humans, and nonhumans- matter; the boundaries of the community include soils, waters, plants, and animals; or collectively: the land.
Non-invasive archaeology is not solely a practice, but a mindset that intrinsically values the landscape over the ego-centric needs of individuals. Under human-centric archaeological traditions, value resides in a particular kind of aesthetic experience – scenic beauty – and in the resources and services that the landscape provides for human beings. Human interests in amenity and utility are what matter and human beings are the agents who can provide for or deny those interests. The transition to land ethics decentralizes the human agent, and in extreme versions, completely separates the human from the landscape, such as in the wilderness case we discussed in previous classes. However, land ethics, in Leopold’s terms, accords moral standing to all the agents contributing to a landscape to ensure an undisrupted, interdependent relationship between humans and non-human members without disregarding the distinctiveness of each entity. These relationships come in different forms: social (human-human relations), material (human-object relations), and ecological (nonhuman-nonhuman relations), and they are all united by the landscape they occupy. Land ethics establishes the ethical basis that protects a community of land against any human-created threats by protecting the land to which all entities belong.
The landscape is a matter of relationships; it is always a plural concept that involves complex networks of relationships. Land-either natural or cultural-cannot be perceived as a lifeless entity because landscapes are living in the sense that it embraces all forms of life. In this context, archaeologists conceptualize landscape as a meaningful environment that must be protected by non-destructive methods. An ethical landscape practice must concern itself with landscape justice to serve the greater community’s justice (humans, animals, objects, soil, air, and generally the land). The principle of landscape justice points to an equitable entitlement to circumstances of living that are characterized by good landscape relationships. It is important to maintain such relations by refraining from introducing any external threats no matter how insignificantly it affects the community’s members. Al-Zubarah’s case, which I mentioned in my previous blogs, gives a great example to how an ethical landscape is practiced as non-invasive technology is favored to conduct safe conservation actions that respect the land of al-Zubarah.
Leopold, A., Schwartz, C. W., Bradley, N. L., Leopold, A. C., & Leopold, E. B. (2007). The land ethic. In A Sand County Almanac (pp. 201–226). essay, Land Ethic Press; The Aldo Leopold Foundation.
Architect Jean Nouvel chose the desert rose as the layout for the Qatar National Museum building because it symbolizes the “silent and eternal dimension, but also the spirit of modernity and daring that have come along and shaken up what seemed unshakeable”. Here we can ask ourselves why he opted to use a naturally occurring sediment in the desert instead of a camel or an oryx that is indigenous to Qatar, as a symbol of the Qatari culture. The silence and eternal factor that pertains to the desert rose acts as a stark contrast to the reality of Qatari life, a rambunctious and busy city life that is colored with skyscrapers. In addition, the structural make-up of the desert rose, rising from the ground, reasserts a stable, timeless, and sentimental factor that an indigenous animal cannot evoke.
I want to focus on the second part of his claim about the spirit of modernity that shook the traditional Qatari paradigm. We know that Nouvel intended to design the museum to signify the contrast between heritage and modernity that comes with the Qatari culture. Specifically, he asserts that “in the aftermath of the Second World War, was the amazing discovery of oil, followed twenty years later by the discovery of another treasure: gas. The desert peninsula of Qatar and its people suddenly saw enormous, dazzling change and the country turned into a real crossroads, alluring and open, and attracting visitors from far and wide.”, we can see that Nouvel correlates the modernity shook the seemingly silent and eternal desert with the discovery of oil and gas. Here we need to look at the important, symbolic role of oil and gas in Qatari culture. It signifies Qatar’s economic power because it gave Qatar the tools for prosperity. Much like “After Oil”, research published about the transitions of fossil fuels, postulates that the discovery of oil has allowed for the modernization of society and its dimension is dependent on the continuous use of oil.
The desert rose structure reminds us of our continuous dependency on oil, and in a way, could be looked at as an appreciative monument for it. Without it, Qatar would not enjoy the economic prosperity that Nouvel mentioned. But this petro-fuelled progress comes at a cost: the dissolution of not only ecological and biological species but also our own culture and heritage, an eco-bio-cultural extinction event. So, how could a structure that appreciates a petro-fuelled society act as a heritage symbol? The modern and cultural symbolism of the museum does not serve as a contrast, but in reality, a contradiction. The presence of oil hinders the timelessness aspect of the structure as oil is becoming scarcer by the day and overtakes the historical culture and dissolves it into a culture that is dependant on energy. Another contradiction with the structure of the museum arises: its claim to be “extremely energy efficient”, having received a four-star sustainability rating from the Global Sustainability Assessment System. The disks act as a barrier from the sun, reducing the need to use any extra cooling mechanisms. But being sustainable does not stop the reinforcement of the usage of energy. So what happens when oil stops becoming sustainable? does the desert rose lose its symbolic meaning in Qatar’s contemporary context?
“Let us not … flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us.” (Kunkel)
Benjamin Kunkel in his article ‘the Capitalocene’ anticipates that human beings have entered a new epoch – the capitalocene – denoted as the current period on Earth where industrial human activity has begun to have a significant negative impact on the planet’s ecology. We have established ourselves into being the most significant yet detrimental force fighting not alongside but against Mother Nature on the ecological battlefield because of our capitalistic nature that accompanies severe ecological repercussions. However, rather than generalising ‘human beings’ in this category, I believe ‘men’ have played a pivotal role in coercing the planet into an exploitative dimension since the mass industrialisation period which saw the introduction of capitalism.
Kunkel in his article sheds light onto the concept of eco marxism which deems capitalism to be the root cause of social injustice within the planet’s ecological crisis. As per Kunkel, “intellectual achievement of eco marxism was to adumbrate a holistic account of the way human beings simultaneously make natural history and their own social history; the political promise was to assert the ideal of a future society that would both abolish social class and preserve the environment”. (Kunkel) I would like to portray this concept through the lens of women of the working class as well as Mother Nature herself. Working class women are victims of mass exploitation within the capitalist system, and suffer a greater impact of this than upper class women, accentuating the division between the upper and working class. Additionally, the masculine/mechanical nature of the capitalocene predominantly being established by men, unsurprisingly deems women as the ‘weaker’ sex. The capitalism invoked gender division of labour within society obliges women to perform not only unpaid physical and emotional labour
at home, but also labour in the workplace which exploits them through menial wages.
The Force of Nature II art installation effectively illustrates Mother Nature’s struggle to safeguard the planet from this mass means of exploitation carried out by men and their mechanical nature against her and women in the collective society. The sculpture which can perhaps be portraying Mother Nature herself appears to be rapidly hurling the planet around in an attempt to maintain the Earth’s rotation and conditions. This can perhaps have a connection to the Marxist notion of unpaid labour women have to face in capitalist society. Although they are heavily exploited, their labour is a means of keeping society stable. Similarly, Mother Nature is exploited without receiving anything in exchange for her labour. She appears to be exerting all of her strength and vigour into saving the planet, but our extent of industrialization is deeming it difficult for her. The feminine nature of our ecosystems can be contrasted with the technological and masculine nature of capitalism. The fact that women are viewed as the inferior entity within society establishes the argument proposed by eco marxists and feminists that just like women, our ecosystems have also been vanquished within the capitalist society. Hence, even the universally deemed and accepted term ‘Mother Nature’, which on the surface espouses power, strength and life-giving force; actually reduces women and nature to a singular common denominator — a mother, pushing women and nature back into a solely reproductive and passive role. (Bari)
Sources:
Bari, Mavra. “Manipulating Mother Nature: The gendered antagonism of geoengineering |
Heinrich Böll Stiftung.” Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 30 January 2020,
https://www.boell.de/en/2020/01/30/manipulating-mother-nature-gendered-antagonism-
geoengineering. Accessed 30 September 2022.
Kunkel, Benjamin. “The Capitalocene.”
Categories
My case study will be looking at Qatar in a more Eco-Marxist perspective, Qatar’s had exposure to oil as an energy source, leading to more labor implementations resulting as well as the increased sense of capitalism. However, with this industrialization also comes an increased level of environmental pollution, as more factories are present to better Qatar’s economy. Qatar tends to prioritize their need to better the environment, which is why new forms of agriculture are embedded into Qatar’s culture. Henceforth, Qatar is now familiar with planting more trees in Education City, parks and deserted Sites. Alongside being a more independent country, Qatar strives to have local produce through farms such as “Baladna” which is the main source of dairy and food produce currently. With this produce farm being a highly demanded market, enters the term “capitolence” which Kunkel introduced in his text. Capitalism will naturally exist always and will always be present unless humans no longer exist, which is why as humans we are used to hearing about capitalism. Additionally, like the complexity of the ecosystem there is also a complexity of the labor system, add them both together and it creates an even more problematic system. Which in turn would define the environmental system as a more capitolecene than an Anthropocene. This is seen in Qatar as mentioned due to the desire to continue growing the economy, having a more green environment, as well as a clean green political mindset.
Other than environmental economic aspects being taken care of by leading authorities, the people of qatar have also engaged in numerous projects willingly in order to become a part of the environmental change. For example, in December of 2019 Qatar tried out a new initiative to plant one million trees all around Qatar. Students like myself voluntarily became a part of this journey. Successfully the country was able to reach the desired outcome of trees planted. This initiative works against the idea of the capitalocene, as this was not an initiative for labor workers to perform but have Qatar’s population take part in enhancing our environment. This in turn almost creates a new sense of life in Qatar, motivating its people to take part rather than create forced labor into migrant workers. This is also aiding Moores claim that what brings together climate, food, work and finance is the fact that capitalism is a common factor within all of these areas. It proves that we live in a capitalist society and that production and power is ever reliant on causing ecological problems. This issue of capitalism in Qatar within the environmental sector should be fixed in order to solve this social, economic and environmental issue. The country can do so by creating more people based initiatives, decreasing labor hours and promoting ways to society that will better their uses/ storage of their products, all of which will decrease the demand of labor.
Categories
Blog post 1
With Qatar’s recent developments in its capital and economic factor and after facing various obstacles the country has faced after the blockade from the neighboring countries and seeking its independence, Qatar decided that expanding capitalism and local produce would be one of the best options to rely on themselves. Looking into a text that shares the same concepts with Qatar’s current situation is the article “The Rise of Cheap Nature” by Jason Moore. This text focuses on introducing what cheap nature is in our world and it’s simply everything revolving around food, labor-power, raw materials and energy, as the text also emphasizes on increasing level of labor productivity and capitalism which is exactly what Qatar is going through for the past few years as a way to be more stable and independent. A question that this article made me raise about Qatar’s current citation is whether the damage that is caused towards the environment as a whole by cheap nature is being treated or payed attention too or not especially in a country like Qatar who has high level of pollution and prioritizes or pays more attention to capitalism in comparison to environmental issues that should be looked at.
The issue is not about whether Qatar is addressing or aware of these issues but the real problem is whether they are doing enough and coming up with solutions to balance out the damage caused. A possible solution to start with that could help and minimize the damage is that Qatar should come up with stricter laws and rules to implement on anything that revolves around cheap nature in order to regulate and minimize the damage done and as the article says the shifts that occur in the environment due to high productivity labor need taken into consideration and look at it form different views. It’s clear that Qatar’s focal point in the beginning was to expand and improve its capitalism as much as they can in order to profit from it and fulfill the needs of the society, although over time the high levels of pollution and its effect started showing more and harming the biodiversity system. Especially with Qatar’s well known weather due to its location where the temperature level is very high most of the time during the years which makes it even more difficult and complicated to deal with the ongoing environmental crisis and climate change. An example to look at is Baladna which is the largest local producer company in Qatar where it’s a part of Qatar’s plan on expanding it’s capitalism and labor, and most importantly stop relying on other countries to import any sort of products. In further research I would like to study the different approaches and techniques that Baldana and other similar companies use in order to minimize any harm to the environment and what is the government role in this situation.
To some extent in contemporary environmental philosophies, nonhuman natural entities are granted moral standing independent of human-centric interests. Human-created ‘objects’ or ‘things’ are overlooked in environmental ethics because of their mere ontological relationship with humans. Consider the character of archaeological artifacts. Artifacts are conceived and designed to meet the demands of human need and purpose, thus, they are fundamentally anthropocentric as their meanings derive from the concerns of human agents, either as individual personas or as social institutions. Ethical considerations of non-living considerations cannot go beyond the constraints of human function. In this sense, they are only seen as valuable for their cultural and historical significance. Al-Zubarah fort, as my case study, consistently undergoes site preservation, research, and community engagement to continue its human legacy as part of UNESCO world heritage. The Al-Zubarah’s importance for Qatari history demands a careful archaeological excavation to restore and protect parts of Qatar that flourished long ago. It is clear that preserving culture lies at the center of Qatar’s artifact archaeological efforts, and not because of its intrinsic values independent of cultural interests.
Jane Bennett, in her book Vibrant Matter, is challenging her readers to abandon their human-centric worldview, specifically where we conceive of there being inanimate matter (in my case, artifacts) and animated life (us) (a binary view that she posits is the dominant way of approaching our world), and asks us to understand things as complex “vibrant” (a term that she uses throughout her book) materials constantly interacting with one another in not fully determinate ways. By believing that matter has vitality and life no matter how lifeless it may appear to be, we promote more responsible, ethical human engagement with our world and ensure the long-term survival of the planet. This is Bennett’s theory of vital materialism. All physical materials have their own unique agentic capacity, trajectories, interactions, and potentialities outside of, and distinct from, human agency. Although this is a hard concept to grasp, as Bennett suggests, she points to the fact that all inanimate objects change over time. The only reason why Al-Zubarah requires preservation is to protect its coral walls against long-term erosion which shows that al-zubarah will not always stay in its original form. Quite simply, things act and groups of things act together because of their vibrant characteristic which renders them agency and intrinsic value beyond anthropocentric conceptions.
Obviously, I am not trying to alter non-invasive archaeological processes carried out in The Al-Zubarah but I am presenting the site as an intrinsically valuable object that requires preservation not because it serves cultural purposes, but just because it as a respected entity on its own. In Chapter 1, “The Force of Things,” Bennett develops the concept of thing-power. Thing-power is the agency of material objects to act and impact other materials, thereby producing effects in the world. Under such conditions, we stress on the agency of inanimate objects because they are able of interacting with its surrounding.
Oftentimes, with art pieces that are placed purposefully in nature, one has the question of why? Why place your (often very expensive) works in the unpredictable home of nature and the outdoor environment when you could place it in a controlled, pristine, state of the art museum? Surely museums would be easier for people to visit, rather than in possibly harsh terrains and conditions. It’s here where the similarities between Jason deCaires Taylor and Richard Serra’s art installations lie—actively choosing to use nature as the mantle and space that their art made a home in.
Jason deCaires Taylor arguably chose a space that serves as a direct opposite of Richard Serra, in that he chose water as the home of his underwater sculptures rather than the desert. These self described underwater art museums “…are essentially artificial reefs, formed of carefully manufactured sculptures installed at various locations around the world. Each sculpture is created using non-toxic, pH neutral marine grade cement, free from harmful pollutants, becoming an integral part of the local ecosystem.”[1] Richard Serra’s choice of the Brouq Nature Reserve in Qatar for his steel monuments is notably not as easily accessible as Taylor’s is, as Taylor chose the areas he did to draw tourists “…away from the delicate ecosystems and fragile corals of existing reefs, where divers may do more harm than good…”[2] Both artists, however, saw an opportunity to use natural materials to complement the natural environment rather than cause damage to it—in Serra’s case, he didn’t alter the topography of the desert at all to make sure his monuments were on the same even ground. He worked with the space he was given to give the illusion of the monuments being the same height, when in fact two are technically taller than the others.[3]
Back to the original question of why they, artists, would do this, I turn to Una Chaudhuri’s interspecies diplomacy thesis; though she uses human and animal interaction as the backdrop of her essay, I believe that Chaudhuri’s ideas surrounding humans viewing themselves on equal footing with nature rather than one being praised over the other.[4] I believe that this can be readily applied to natural space as well as animal species. People make meaning from art, so it stands to therefore reason that if nature (rather than a typical museum) lies as the space for which the art interacts with, then people will then be able to derive new meaning from nature that they hadn’t before.
The question then becomes will this new meaning create any form of conscious awareness of humanity’s almost parasitic relationship with nature, continuously taking and not giving, and inspire any form of further change? Does the artist intent matter as well? Serra did not really consider any social or political narratives to apply to his art; he simply shapes his art around the natural space, whereas Taylor is deeply concerned with the politics surrounding climate change and marine preservation[5]. Furthermore, while the art pieces themselves are made from materials that don’t damage the environment they’re in, the same cannot be said for the humans that visit them.
With Chaudhuri’s thesis in mind, arguably there would be no need for artists to use their work to somehow make or force humans to see the beauty of the natural landscape. However, with today’s current climate, it may be a necessity. If humans cannot bring themselves to stop seeing themselves as above nature, and that nature is there for us to take from with no thought as to how that might cause damage in the long run, then we’re doomed. Maybe using art as a medium to get humanity involved with their natural space and environment is a good way of forming some form of collective awareness that spreads and grows. Only time will tell if Serra’s piece, or Taylor’s, or any other natural artwork will truly impact the way humanity interacts with natural space.
Bibliography
Chaudhuri, Una. “Interspecies Diplomacy in Anthropocenic Waters: Performing an
ocean-oriented ontology.” In The Stage Lives of Animals, pp. 214-227. Routledge, 2016.
Niarchos, Nicolas. “Richard Serra in the Qatari Desert,” June 18, 2017.
“Overview.” Underwater Sculpture by Jason deCaires Taylor. Accessed November 2020.
[1] “Overview,” Underwater Sculpture by Jason deCaires Taylor, accessed November 2020, https://www.underwatersculpture.com/about/overview/.
[2] “Overview,” Underwater Sculpture.
[3] Nicolas Niarchos, “Richard Serra in the Qatari Desert,” June 18, 2017, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/richard-serra-in-the-qatari-desert.
[4] Una Chaudhuri, “Interspecies Diplomacy in Anthropocenic Waters: Performing an ocean-oriented ontology,” In The Stage Lives of Animals, Routledge, 2016. 214-227.
[5] Nicolas Niarchos, “Richard Serra in the Qatari Desert.”
Categories
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
