Today, the reality of climate change is undeniable. The world as we know it is changing; yet the public has been slow in its reaction to help mitigate the behavioral and industrial human activities that are largely responsible for the changing climate and environment. Unfortunately, the discussion over climate change is one that is often made controversial through its politicization, or foreign through its dependence on the cold jargon of science. Both of these approaches to persuading the public to change their attitudes is often met with resistance and misunderstandings. However, art has the power to break through barriers and impact people in a more intimate and emotional way compared to politics and science. Ultimately, art focusing on sustainability and climate change has a powerful potential to change hearts and minds, as it is able to appeal to the senses and emotions of a public discouraged with political debate and scientific figures. Art can positively connect with people in a way that builds an emotional attachment to the beauty of the natural world, therefore encouraging the types of behavioral changes and support for sustainability culture and technology that is so desperately needed to combat climate change.
First, it is important to understand the dire need for change in order to prevent further damage caused by climate change sparked by human activity. NASA’s Global Climate Change page provides alarming data that demonstrates the rapid pace of climate change and the extent of its potential damage. The temperature in recent years has risen by 2.12⁰ F, or 1.18⁰ C (NASA 1). Ice sheets are shrinking, causing sea levels to rise at alarming rates, over eight inches in just the last 100 years, according to NASA. The harsh reality of the data points to human societies as the primary culprits for these drastic and dangerous changes. Unfortunately, “the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of its extremely likely (greater than 95% probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia” (NASA 1). Human innovation and activities are sparking massive changes to delicate ecosystems. Given the extreme risks, people’s behavior must change to limit the damage and start to mitigate what has already been affected. With so much research and data out there outlining the clear and very present dangers, why has the public been so reluctant to engage in behavioral change and discussion of the issues in a more meaningful way?
The unfortunate reality regarding the discussion of climate change is that it has become a politically charged one. It has extended beyond a neutral conversation about environmental factors into a highly controversial subject. Sedona Chinn, P. Sol Hart, and Stuart Soroka touch on the increasing politicization of climate change that has polarized the public in their article for Science Communication. The work surveyed news reports regarding climate change from 1985 to 2017, finding a clear trend that framed the climate change dialogue within a political conversation. Media representations of climate change became “increasingly politicized, whereby political actors are increasingly featured and scientific actors less” (Chinn, Hart, & Soroka 127). While this politicization of climate change was occurring, the public was being pulled into two polar opposite sides. Democratic and Republican parties adopted vastly different perspectives and narratives regarding climate change in a way that pit them against each other. Highly politicalized communications about climate change often invoke fear as a primary vehicle for delivering messages. On one side, there is a fear that climate change will soon end the world as we know it. On the other, there is a fear that government elites are manipulating the discussion for their own agenda. No one seems willing to meet in the middle as society continues to rip apart at its seams.
An additional problem with the modern climate change narrative is that many within the public may not be able to connect with the science at the heart of the climate change debate. Charles W. Schmidt of Environmental Health Perspectives explains the disconnect between scientific jargon and public understanding. He argues, “research often delivers statistically nuanced findings that they lay public as well as journalists and other science communicators can find hard to understand” (Schmidt 549). Thus, average people within the public are not being provided scientific communications that they can resonate with. Thus, they tend to feel detached from the science, despite the data that should be so motivating for behavioral changes. Julia Bentz of Climatic Change also touches on the dangers in her article, “Learning About Climate Change In, With, and Through Art. Both in classrooms and in the field of public debate, “teaching about climate change usually takes place in the natural science disciplines and is often limited to explaining the greenhouse effect and discussing the potential consequences of rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and increasing sea levels,” often with the use of complex scientific language and examples (Bentz 1597). This has made successful implementation of public education programs difficult. Data written in complicated scientific jargon is often seen as cold and uninteresting by members of the public. Even more worrying, political actors may pray upon this lack of understanding and scientific communications on climate change “are vulnerable to distortions and misrepresentations that stick in the public mind, especially if they fit ideological biases” (Schmidt 550). Thus, there is a vicious cycle of misinformation and lack of understanding that creates a situation where the public simply is not engaged in the discussion of climate change and the need for sustainability.
Interestingly, art may be the answer to help bridge these gaps. Art has long been a powerful tool for promoting social change, as it takes a different approach in inciting the senses and emotions of those who it touches. Bentz argues that art has the “potential to transform society, as well as its capacity to support agency and inspire feelings of hope, responsibility, and care has been known for a long time and esthetic practices can contribute to deep emotional learning” (1601). Art allows for more positive emotional connection to the material being examined in a way that is less intrusive and fearful. Therefore, art has potential to help spread awareness in a less controversial way about the damage that is plaguing the planet. Alina Tugend discusses the potential for art to expand outreach regarding environmental activism beyond the political debate in her article for the New York Times, “Can Art Help Save the Planet?” Today, art highlighting sustainability, both in “the works of old masters and exhibits built with high-tech innovations, designed to inspire artistic appreciation and a desire to respond to environmental challenges” (Tugend 1). Art brings attention to climate change without the typical pitfalls of political or scientific discussions. Art highlighting climate change issues works to depoliticize the discussion about sustainability and conservation. Essentially, it brings “people together outside political affiliation and into a different environment that allows for more empathy” (Tugend 1). Vitaliy Soloviy of Sustainable Times also discusses the less invasive approach art has the potential to energize within modern pop culture. In his article, “When Science is Not Enough, Could Arts Save the Planet?” Soloviy explores how art has the potential to reach people that may be more closed off to a more political approach to promoting change. Art focusing on climate change works to encourage a “reconsideration of our relations with the Earth beyond national and political interests” (Soloviy 1). It is a recontextualization of the debate that moves it away from the problems of politicization and detachment.
Subsequently, art works to engage the senses in a more intimate way, tugging at people’s emotions in a way that scientific literature or discussion often fails to. In this sense, art can be a powerful way to humanize otherwise cold science. Here, Soloviy explains that “when art and science unite, it’s much easier to create integrative narratives that can speak to a wide range of audience members” (1). The basic messages of climate change science can be more widely understood in a more engaging way, as the public uses more of its senses and emotions to tap into the changing reality. There is more room for creative thinking and interpretation within the public’s receiving of scientific environmental data. Bentz echoes this point, claiming that “climate engagement using creative, artistic practices has the potential to go beyond science communication and help people to overcome perceived psychological distance” (1). The detachment of cold, boring scientific communications is eradicated with a more visually and emotionally stimulating use of creative expression as the vehicle for informing the public about the reality of climate change.
In recent years, exhibits focusing on themes related to climate change help bring the conversation into people’s minds in a different, much more visceral way. Tugend provides the example of Dr. Karl Kusserow’s “Natures’ Nation: American Art and Environment Show” in 2019. Tugend explains that the purpose the exhibition “is to view famous and lesser-known art through ecological glasses: how the environment is represented in images and how humans’ place in the world is depicted” (1). One of the most compelling pairings of the show was a key famous work glorifying the beauty of nature and a more recent one highlighting how that beauty is in dire danger. There is a compelling contradiction drawn visually through art that forces the public to realize the natural wonders they cherish so much are in grave danger. Albert Bierstadt’s “Bridal Veil Falls, Yosemite” from the nineteenth century is hung right next to Valerie Hegarty’s 2007 “Fallen Bierstadt,” which “shows the same painting askew, burned and ripped” (Tugend 1). The two images, shown below, aim to get the public emotionally invested. They first see the beautiful image of Yosemite in its pristine form. The second image uses very visceral visual elements to show how that beauty is being destroyed right before their eyes.
(Tugend 1)
Core themes of sustainability can be successfully communicated through art in a way that makes it more relatable to the public. Within the framework of art, these themes are still powerful—but without the type of fear mongering seen in political manipulation. Essentially, art helps make the debate on climate change less fearful and more positive. Art can “transform emotions, creating hope, responsibility, care, and solidarity” (Benz 1603). In this sense, art helps spread a type of sustainability culture, where sustainable principles are embedded in the fabric of our cultural experience through the art. For example, artist and MIT graduate Neri Oxman uses art to help communicate otherwise complex and detached principles of sustainability in a more emotional way. She builds high-tech immersive art installations for audiences who are transformed through the power of experience. “Oxman’s work is deeply rooted in a philosophy that turns away from treating matter as a resource to be consumed and wasted towards a treatment of it as a biological resource that can be transformed, contributing to the further unfolding of life in a multitude of ways” (Soloviy 1). Her art aims to establish new emotional connections between the public and the environment that permeate through political bias and a type of arrogant perspective placing human society above the rest of the planet. It is about connecting humanity with the environment in a balanced state of harmony.
Education through art is an excellent way to reach a wide swath of the public that may otherwise be discouraged by an approach laden with the complexities of scientific jargon. Bentz highlights how art can help make climate change education more meaningful to both young and old. She believes that “the arts and humanities can play a critical role in engaging young people and adults with new perspectives on climate change” (Bentz 1604). In a study conducted in 2019, Bentz introduced climate change into the arts education of several high school classrooms (Bentz 1607). 11th grade students were asked to create an art project touching on climate change after analyzing other existing artworks on the topic of sustainability. This created a more positive and creative approach to learning about climate change and expressing the need for sustainability with the student’s friends and families that was less political and invasive. Bentz reports a much more significant understanding of climate change factors and a recontextualization of how the students even approached the subject of sustainability, seeing it more from a creative perspective than one of fear or detachment that is often a factor in traditional education on climate change. Unfortunately, Bentz also highlights how more strategic climate education has largely left out including art as a primary vehicle for learning. She touches on how “climate change is rarely integrated into the curricula of arts, music, literature, and philosophy” (Bentz 1596). Thus, Bentz recommends integrating climate change into art, allowing for environmental discussions to take place within arts education and performance. It is time that arts education embraces climate change issues while the climate change debate embraces art in a mutually beneficial relationship to spread awareness in a way that also increases positive attachment and solidarity with environmental issues.
Additionally, art can work to increase the public’s confidence in sustainability activism. Oftentimes, people get into a negative mode of thinking, that so far into the abyss, it is impossible to change the course of our future and so environmental activism fails to accomplish much. However, art can work to highlight the successful work that has been done in conservation in a way that encourages a more positive thinking about environmental activism itself. Another show in 2019, “Hudson Rises'' successfully demonstrated how climate activism can save some of our most cherished natural environments. Tugend describes how the show memorialized the 1960s and 70s conservation efforts of activists working to save parts of the Hudson River from a plan to build a powerplant that would “have irrevocably damaged the region’s stunning landscape and sensitive ecosystems” (Greenfield 1). “Hudson Rises'' opened with beautiful nineteenth century works of the Hudson River and the Hudson Valley. As visitors meandered through the exhibit, they found them evolving from glorifying the Hudson to the efforts to protect it. The exhibit incorporates material from the successful campaign, including yellow political buttons and even a song from Pete Seeger that serves as a “mournful ode to the polluted river” (Tugend 1). At the end of the exhibit are plans for future technologies working in conservation efforts to “reclaim the Hudson River in response to climate change, showcasing projects already underway, such as reef like structures, known as ‘living breakwaters’ that can decrease the impact of waves, and help restore the shoreline” (Tugend 1). Such shows work to encourage activism, showing the public that their efforts are not in vain.
Moreover, modern art can be a way for people to learn more about sustainability technologies as they become more of a commonplace in our daily lives. Rather than only learning about technologies from dry, and hard-to-understand scientific perspectives, art can serve as a way to introduce new sustainable technologies to the public without feeling so foreign or uncertain. This is a type of reframing technology with an artistic lens. Subsequently, “creativity, inspiration, and positive stories are powerful means to explore practical solutions for addressing climate change” (Bentz 1601). Art can make futuristic technologies feel tangible, helping the transition from fossil fuel dependence. Jane Calvert and Pablo Schyfter also add to this in their article for Social Studies of Science. Art can be a powerful vehicle for introducing new technologies to the public, as it makes them seem less foreign and scary. Also, by incorporating the public’s desire for aesthetic forms, new sustainable technologies can actually be designed in a way that incorporates artistic elements. This makes them more visually appealing and thus easier to include within the fabric of society as we know it. Here, Calvert and Schyfter argue that “science is understood not as self-sufficient or complete, but as transformed and enhanced through its engagement with art” (199). If the public enjoys seeing it as they go about their day, they are more likely to embrace the new technologies that may work to save us from the path of destruction we have been on now for decades.
Overall, art has incredible potential to help make the discussion about climate change more relatable and less polarizing. Art can work to engage people’s senses and emotions in a way that reframes climate change and sustainability as positive subjects to embrace, rather than polarizing elements to tear us apart. At a time where we desperately need more effective strategies to encourage activism and behavioral changes, art has the potential to invigorate a united public towards a more progressive and sustainable future.
Works Cited
Bentz, Julia. “Learning About Climate Change In, With, and Through Art.” Climatic Change. Vol. 162. (2020): 1595-1612.
Calvert, Jane & Schyfter, Pablo. “What Can Science and Technology Studies Learn from Art and Design? Reflections on Synthetic Aesthetics.” Social Studies of Science. Vol 47. No 2. (2016): 195-215.
Chinn, Sedona, Hart, P. Sol, & Soroka, Stuart. “Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017.” Science Communication. Vol 42. No 1. (2020):112-129.
Greenfield, Nicole. “Making Art and Environmental Activism One and the Same.” National Resources Defense Council. 5 Oct 2018. Web. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/making-art-and-environmental-activism-one-and-same
NASA. “Climate Change: How Do We Know?” Global Climate Change. 2021. Web. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Schmidt, Charles W. “Communication Gap: The Disconnect Between What Scientists Say and What the Public Hears.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 117. No 12. (2009): 548-551.
Soloviy, Vitaliy. “When Science is Not Enough, Could Arts Save the Planet?” Sustainability Times. 30 Oct 2018. Web. https://www.sustainability-times.com/expert-opinions/when-science-is-not-enough-could-arts-save-the-planet/
Tugend, Alina. “Can Art Help Save the Planet?” New York Times. 12 Mar 2019. Web. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/arts/art-climate-change.html
Comments