1. Adrian Piper's Funk Lessons

B. In today's society, hip-hop has been infused into white culture a lot more than in the past. Would the same type of experiment today cause the same dialogue?

Are racial issues more likely to be voluntarily discussed if it seems like that is not the primary intent of the experiment? i.e. by easing into it with the funk lessons.

Tres. Sources:
Adrian Piper
from New York Times, Jan. 12, 2002

Adrian Piper: Generali Foundation, Vienna
from Art Monthly no. 259 (September 2002) p. 30-1

Adrian Piper : a retrospective / [exhibition organized by] Maurice Berger ; with contributions by Jean Fisher ... [et al.]

Participation by Claire Bishop

Naming Others: Manufacturing Yourself

Robert Peters and Mushroom Pickers, Ghosts, Frogs and other "Others" designed a project for "Culture in Action," a Chicago based grouping of public art, called Naming Others: Manufacturing Yourself. Culture in Action brought about a reversal of what many considered public art by truly incorporating the audience in the artwork itself by either making them the subject of the art, or having them be the producers of it.

These "issue-specific artworks are a form of artmaking that grows out of the desire of artists to reach audiences in ways that are more direct and unexpected than is possible in a museum or gallery setting." In other words, it took the emphasis off site-specificity and placed it rather on audience-specific concerns. Ironically, Naming Others: Manufacturing Yourself has no site at all. This piece of public art is produced by having the public call a toll-free telephone number in which they can then choose subcategories such as race, sex, gender, occupation, etc. to hear derogatory slang that pertains to each category. The artwork was designed to force local Chicagoans to confront their prejudices by first having them complete a survey by writing down as many slang terms that they have heard pertaining to each subclass that would then be incorporated into the list of slang presented in the telephone number.

Peters decided to do this project because he believed that no matter how unpleasant these terms might be, they are still a large part of the Chicago culture.

"Video and Resistance: Against Documentary" discusses photography and its eventual evolution into film and subsequently, documentaries. According to the reading, photography, although used to help present a history of the past, does not allow for interpretation. It presents a purely unbiased image by showing only reality. Documentaries, however, if produced correctly, can include bias subtly enough to make the viewer still believe that what he or she is viewing is strictly reality. One possible adjustment to the making of documentaries would be to include a disclaimer stating that this is only a "version" of the subject matter, and not the actual event itself.

Sontag has a somewhat different view of photography. In her opinion, photography is used strictly to show traces of history; to only reveal truth. On the other hand, Sontag would agree with this reading in the sense that our society is visually oriented and tends to believe images that they see represent reality. "Video and Resistance: Against Documentary" mentions that documentaries have the power to manipulate viewers' interpretation of the work.

Pierson Trimarchi
7 October 2007

Fund Superfund!

Superfund, though well intentioned, has ironically run out of funds. Today, the government run program designed to clean up areas polluted by industrialization is placing the burden on the taxpayers. Superfund's original philosophy was to make the polluter pay, but that is leaving many sites unattended. Also, finding out who is responsible for the pollution is a time and money consuming process that is bringing little progress. Now, since Congress has not renewed the funds, taxpayers are no longer paying for 18 percent of the program, but a staggering 53 percent (Knickerbocker). This is also due to the fact that Superfund can no longer tax chemical and oil companies because most of the pollution today is not a result of their doing. Although Superfund will undoubtedly continue into the future, a more efficient way to collect the money it requires from those responsible for pollution should be found.

The Superfund cleanup process is complex. It begins with determining which sites require attention by citizens, state agencies, or EPA Regional offices. The EPA is then notified and enters the site into the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), EPA's computerized inventory of potential hazardous substance release sites. The EPA then evaluates whether or not immediate action needs to take place, ranks the site by placing it on a National Priorities List, and orders appropriate plans for the remediation of the site (Superfund | US EPA).

The Superfund program is responsible for cleaning the nation’s most polluted toxic sites. Since the beginning of the program, more than 45,000 hazardous sites have been identified with 1,500 of them classified as Superfund sites (Take Action - U.S. PIRG). One of the sites requiring serious attention is right here in Central New York. Onondaga Lake has been one of the most polluted lakes in the United States since the Industrial Revolution. During the late 19th and early 20th century, as industrialization grew, so did the amount of pollution being dumped into Onondaga Lake. By 1940, the lake was considered unsafe for recreational swimming, and by 1970, fishing was no longer allowed on the lake (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Without the money required to seriously alter this pattern of pollution in the mucky lake, Superfund’s efforts will be futile.

In 1884, the Solvay Process Company placed a factory on the western shore of Onondaga Lake. The disposal of the factory’s cooling water severely effected the chemical and physical properties of the lake. These discharges “increased water temperatures, upset the natural process of stratification that typically occurs in lakes, and served to increase phosphorus levels in the lake” (Landers 64). For every 2.2 pounds of product that the Solvay Process Company produced, 2.2 pounds of calcium chloride and 1.1 pounds of sodium chloride were created (Landers 64). These ionic wastes have since built up and now extend about 2,000 feet into the lake and 4,000 feet along the shoreline (Landers 65). In 1979, the company, now known as Linden Chemicals, started generating new wastes, equally or more hazardous than before. These wastes included: mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chlorinated benzenes; all of which are toxic, or carcinogenic to humans and fish (Landers 65). Shouldn’t the release of such harmful wastes into a lake surrounded by a well populated city be considered neglectful, or even criminal?

With such chemical companies clearly responsible for pollution, why is Superfund no longer forcing them to shoulder most of the blame and pay for the remediation? The unfortunate wording of the law calls for “joint and several liability,” meaning that all polluters, no matter how remote their involvement, can be held accountable for the complete cost of repair (Knickerbocker). Thus, the EPA tends to spend most of its money on lawyers, consultants, private investigators, and administrative overheads to search for and investigate companies that may or may not be liable for the pollution. By doing so, none of the money is going towards the actual cleanup of severely polluted sites like Onondaga Lake.

In 1995, the “polluter pays” fees expired. Since then, “appropriations for critical cleanup actions have declined by 32%, creating persistent funding shortfalls that threaten the cleanup capabilities of the Superfund program. Since 2003, funding shortfalls have ranged from $100 to $300 million per year” (Take Action - U.S. PIRG). Superfund’s progress has been slowed due to this lack of funding. In fact, since 2003

the Bush EPA has cleaned an average of 40 sites per year, compared to an average of 87 sites per year in the late 1990s. In addition, the number of sites not receiving any cleanup money continues to rise, contributing to a general cleanup slowdown that increases total cleanup costs and unnecessarily threatens human health.

Take Action - U.S. PIRG

One possible solution until more funding can be given is for the EPA to only take action against the companies most responsible for the pollution and have them pay for the majority of the remediation. This would call for the elimination of joint and several liability. By doing so, money will not be wasted while trying to hunt down all of those who may be only remotely responsible for the pollution of the lake. That way, the “polluter pays” ideology will be reinstated, but not with the money and time consuming method used prior to 1995. Superfund also has the authority to make companies who are responsible for the pollution of the lake clean it up themselves, thus reducing some of the cost of the burdensome cleanup process. By cost effectively finding the companies most responsible, Superfund will be able to use the majority of its dwindling funds to actually clean up sites and develop even more cost efficient cleanup methods.

new site

Superfund

Superfund, although well intentioned, has ironically run out of funds. Today, the government run program designed to clean up areas polluted by industrialization is placing the burden on the taxpayers. Superfund's original philosophy was to make the polluter pay, but that is leaving many sites unattended. Also, finding out who is responsible for the pollution is a time and money consuming process that is bringing little progress. Now, since Congress has not renewed the funds, taxpayers are no longer paying for 18% of the program, but a staggering 53%. This is also due to the fact that Superfund can no longer tax chemical and oil companies because most of the pollution today is not a result of their doing. Although Superfund will undoubtedly continue into the future, a new source for the money it requires must be found.

Superfund information