Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:23:03.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Art, Environment, and Sustainability: Case Studies on the Philippine Art Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

Ryanorlie B. Abeledo  and
Chona Camille E. Vince Cruz
Ryanorlie B. Abeledo*
Affiliation:
School of Design, iACADEMY HV Dela Costa, Makati City, Philippines
Chona Camille E. Vince Cruz*
Affiliation:
Biology Department, De La Salle University, 2401Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila, Philippines.
*
Address correspondence to: Ryanorlie B. Abeledo, School of Design, iACADEMY HV Dela Costa, Makati City, Philippines; (phone) +639189677893; (e-mail) ryanorlie.abeledo@iacademy.edu.ph.
Chona Camille E. Vince Cruz, Biology Department, De La Salle University, 2401Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila, Philippines; (phone) +639989701809; (e-mail) chona.vincecruz@dlsu.edu.ph.
Get access

Abstract

Art is a powerful tool for conveying ideas. It transcends various modes of communication, allowing it to trigger mental, emotional, and physical responses from its target audience. Its effectiveness as a tool for environmental advocacy, however, is limited by the sustainability of the practice and the materials used. Contemporary art practices in the Philippines have found ways to support the campaign for environmental sustainability by using repurposed materials that result in a decreased carbon footprint in the art production process, while conveying environmental themes. This evaluative article presents two case studies tackling the new-found indigenous art practice of the Talaandig tribe in the province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and the contemporary art practice of select assemblage artists from Metro Manila using found objects. This article illustrates how Filipino artists in both the indigenous and contemporary art scenes are supporting the global campaign of environmental conservation in message and action.

Environmental Practice 18: 260–266 (2016)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 260 - 266
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allwood, J., Cullen, J., Carruth, M., Cooper, D., McBrien, M., Milford, R., Moynihan, M., and Patel, A.. 2012. Sustainable Materials: With Both Eyes Open. UIT Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 384pp.Google Scholar
Arquette, M., Cole, M., Cook, K., LaFrance, B., Peters, M., Ransom, J., Sargent, E., Smoke, V., and Stairs, A.. 2002. Holistic Risk-Based Environmental Decision-Making: A Native Perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(Suppl 2):259–264.Google Scholar
Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C.. 2000. Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1251–1262.Google Scholar
Bishop, G. 2014. Investigating a Personalised Site-Specific Approach to Performance: Selected Origins, Possible Influences and Practical Implications (unpublished PhD dissertation). Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 132pp.Google Scholar
Bradley, J., Waliczek, T., and Zajicek, J.. 1999. Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Attitude of High School Students. The Journal of Environmental Education 30(3):17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, B., Cunliffe, R., and Hudak, A.. 2001. Linking the Conservation of Culture and Nature: A Case Study of Sacred Forests in Zimbabwe. Human Ecology 29(2):187–218.Google Scholar
Camic, P. 2010. From Trashed to Treasured: A Grounded Theory Analysis of the Found Object. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 4(2):81.Google Scholar
Carlson, A., and Lintott, S.. 2008. Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 472pp.Google Scholar
Crowther, P. 1995. The Postmodern Sublime: Installation and Assemblage Art. In. The Contemporary Sublime: Sensibilities of Transcendence and Shock. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY, 9–17.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, M., and Öberg, G.. 2001. Questioning to Learn and Learning to Question: Structure and Function of Problem-Based Learning Scenarios in Environmental Science Education. Higher Education 41(3):263–282.Google Scholar
Denes, A. 1993. Notes on Eco-Logic: Environmental Artwork, Visual Philosophy and Global Perspective. Leonardo 26(5):387–395.Google Scholar
Derksen, L., and Gartrell, J.. 1993. The Social Context of Recycling. American Sociological Review 58(3):434–442.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1987. The Truth in Painting. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 402pp.Google Scholar
Doran, J., and Zeiss, M.. 2000. Soil Health and Sustainability: Managing the Biotic Component of Soil Quality. Applied Soil Ecology 15(1):3–11.Google Scholar
Franchetti, M., and Apul, D.. 2012. Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation, and Case Studies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 270pp.Google Scholar
Fransson, N., and Gärling, T.. 1999. Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, Measurement Methods, and Research Findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(4):369–382.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M, and Vartak, V.. 1975. Sacred Groves of India – A Plea for Continued Conservation. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 72(2):314–320.Google Scholar
Gamage, A., and Hyde, R.. 2012. A Model Based on Biomimicry to Enhance Ecologically Sustainable Design. Architectural Science Review 55(3):224–235.Google Scholar
Gilkey, L. 1993. Nature, Reality, and the Sacred: The Nexus of Science and Religion. Augsburg Fortress Publishing, Minneapolis, MN, 280pp.Google Scholar
Hayden, J., Comstock, E., and Comstock, B.. 1976. The Clinical Toxicology of Solvent Abuse. Clinical Toxicology 9(2):169–184.Google Scholar
Hollis, J., and Cameron, I.. 1990. Andy Goldsworthy: A Collaboration with Nature. Abrams, New York, NY, 120pp.Google Scholar
Iversen, M. 2004. Readymade, Found Object, Photograph. Art Journal 63(2):44–57.Google Scholar
Jones, A. 1994. Postmodernism and the En-gendering of Marcel Duchamp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 340pp.Google Scholar
Kim, T., and Di Salvo, C.. 2010. Speculative Visualization: A New Rhetoric for Communicating Public Concerns. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society (DRS) International Conference: Design and Complexity, 134pp.Google Scholar
Laliberté, N., and Mogelon, A.. 1972. Collage, Montage, Assemblage: History and Contemporary Techniques. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY, 340pp.Google Scholar
Larsen, H., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., and Hertwich, E.. 2013. Investigating the Carbon Footprint of a University – The case of NTNU. Journal of Cleaner Production 48:39–47.Google Scholar
Li, T.M. 2003. Locating Indigenous Environmental Knowledge in Indonesia. In. Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, A. Bicker, R. Ellen and P. Parkes, eds., Routledge, London, UK, 120147.Google Scholar
Mercer, J., Dominey-Howes, D., Kelman, I., and Lloyd, K.. 2007. The Potential for Combining Indigenous and Western Knowledge in Reducing Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards in Small Island Developing States. Environmental Hazards 7(4):245–256.Google Scholar
Milton, K. 2003. Loving Nature: Towards an Ecology of Emotion. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 196pp.Google Scholar
Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P., and Kislalioglu, M.. 2004. Combining Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-management. Ecology and Society 9(3):2.Google Scholar
Nils-Udo, Besacier, H. 2002. Nils-Udo: Art in Nature. Flammarion, Paris, France, 192pp.Google Scholar
Paredes, O. 2015. Indigenous vs. Native: Negotiating the Place of Lumads in the Bangsamoro Homeland. Asian Ethnicity 16(2):166–185.Google Scholar
Peralta, G., and Fontanos, P.. 2006. E-waste Issues and Measures in the Philippines. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 8(1):34–39.Google Scholar
Suzuki, D. 2007. The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature, Updated and Expanded. Greystone Books Ltd., Vancouver, BC, Canada, 358pp.Google Scholar
Theisen, O. 2008. Blood and Soil? Resource Scarcity and Internal Armed Conflict Revisited. Journal of Peace Research 45(6):801–818.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., and Barton, M.. 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14(2):149–157.Google Scholar
Tseng, M., and Lin, Y.. 2009. Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL to Develop a Cause and Effect Model of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Metro Manila. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 158(1–4):519–533.Google Scholar
Turner, R., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., and Georgiou, S.. 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics 46(3):493–510.Google Scholar
Vince Cruz, C.C.E., Espedido, F.A.V., and Abeledo, R.B.. 2014. Shaping Minds to Action: An Evaluation of the Environmental Influences of Primary School Students in an Urbanizing Community. Environment, Development and Sustainability 17(3):641–652.Google Scholar
Waldman, D. 1992. Collage, Assemblage, and the Found Object. Harry N. Abrams, New York, NY, 336pp.Google Scholar
Walker, S. 2012. Sustainable by Design: Explorations in Theory and Practice. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 256pp.Google Scholar
Weidema, B., Thrane, M., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J., and Løkke, S.. 2008. Carbon Footprint. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(1):3–6.Google Scholar
Whiteley, G. 2010. Junk: Art and the Politics of Trash. IB Tauris, UK, 192pp.Google Scholar
Winters, H., Isquith, I., and Goll, M.. 1975. A Study of the Ecological Succession in Biodeterioration of a Vinyl Acrylic Paint Film. Developments in Industrial Microbiology 17:167–171.Google Scholar
Zurbrugg, C. 2002. Urban Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries of Asia How to Cope with the Garbage Crisis. In Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Urban Solid Waste Management Review Session, Durban, South Africa, 1–13.Google Scholar