Animal Conference

So I went to the breakout session on "Animals" on Friday at 3pm. There were three people talking about different aspects on animals. Marilyn Cooper spoke on her "Talking with Animals," Donovan Schaefer with "Compulsory Affectivity: Affect, Animality, and the Non-human Turn," and lastly, James K. Stanescu with "Animals, Assemblage, and Abstraction: Towards a Dark Ethics."

When listening to Marilyn speak, she discussed how animals are seen as being able to communicate with one another.  The fact that many of us (humans) are fascinated with the ideas and thoughts of different species being able to communicate. She points out that they main way animals are able to communicate are through actions and not necessarily through sounds.  She also pointed out that most, human and nonhuman, communicate through our actions. She gave the example of people who didn't speak the same language, how they are able most of the time able to communicate through motions.

Don Schaefer discussed about Affects and how animals are able to help humans show affects. He discussed how animals affect are able to change the way we see and feel about things. He talked about mainly the Affect, but also mentioned about space, and how we react to the environments we are placed in.

James Stanescu discussed about how "ethics can never be delivered from the outsider." He also said that "humanity is an abstraction, the animal abstracts itself." He talked about how we refuse to accept truths, one being that we love to anthropomorphize  everything. Even when the object is not an animal.

Overall, the conference session that I attended very much connected to the course. The dissertation about how animals communicate, relates back to how humans love to believe in the natural. That there could be a communication system between different species as well as between humans and animals, This draws back to the Timothy Treadwell and how he wanted to believe that he could communicate with the grizzly bears.  Don's dissertation relates to Jakob von Uexkull's book because of his discussion on the animals' space and affect, that perception from the animals' point of view.  Marilyn also briefly within her dissertation, talked about how animals create their own territories, something found in Uexkull's book.  Lastly, James, when being asked a question on Autism, referred back to Temple Grandin, who was briefly mentioned in class as well. He briefly discussed about how she was able to use her autism as a way of communicating with animals.

week 12

I think that Temple Grandin is practical. at She sees the reality of how animals will be slaughtered before being eaten. Within our society, we thrive on killing what we want to eat, we unconsciously see that eating dead animals is a taboo and something that we don't see as healthy. We do see and believe that killing live animals for food is the healthy and "right' way of eating. Also that the real issue is that we aren't taking care of the animals that we "plan to eat" which is why she is advocating that we need to take care of that issue. We need to give them the space that they need to roam around the grass, we need to feed them the correct foods, like grass for cows, and so forth. I'm not so sure if these are some of the tops that she advocates but as far as I know she does advocate for the better and ethical treatment of animals within slaughter houses and places where the animals are kept before being taken to get slaughtered.

I don't see why she's so highly ridiculed because what she is doing makes sense. We want to eat meat, we as a society want to have healthy meats. Back then, as a society and even now, people still hunt wild animals for food, and people are always saying that animals within the wild taste better. My assumption is because they are within their natural habitats and are able to roam and climb and be active. Just like humans, animals need to be active to be healthy, and so when there's that lack the meat and the nutrients probably and most likely aren't as good for our own bodies. So, the way I see it, what she advocates for is the movement. It should be the right way we live, giving animals that ethical treatment, esp. if we're keeping them captive it's the least we can do before we slaughter them.

Taxidermy

Taxidermy, a term that is used to deem a process of recreating an animal by means of using wax, leather, prepared fur and so forth, is something being used more and more within the museum and zoo institutions. I believe that this is changing the way we will learn about animals. There are both good and bad sides.

Taxidermy is great for learning the way that an animal is built. I say this because the whole idea of having taxidermy is to re-create animals and make them look realistic, therefore I believe that you can only do such a thing only with having research about the specific animal. Not only that but it allows people to look and see how large the animal is in comparison to themselves.

Yet, I believe that the downfall to taxidermy is that the person who recreates this animal, recreates it in their favor. Meaning that the animal only looks as the creator perceives the animal. And although the creator of the taxidermy animal has or hasn't done the research about the animal, there is still something very much false about the ideas of this. The animal is stuck in a position that may or may not faithfully represent it. This is also something that has created a whole industry with the fur, the substance that is put into the taxidermy animal. And also, where does the fur come from? I believe it would have to come from live animals , which would mean that animals are being killed still for their fur. Which leads to moral and ethical questions such as "Is making a taxidermy animal damaging the ecological system and promoting animal exploitation and extinction?"

Flight Maps

One specific thing that really stuck out to me and that I really could relate to was the chapter about greening screen. I really could relate to the fact that many of the things that show up on the TV screen portray false ideas and illustrations of animals and their habitats, what they eat and how they live. I very much get irritated when there are animal cartoons out there with animals having humanistic characteristics. Yet at the same time I understand that it's focus are children and that they need to be entertained. But I never understood why cartoons had to use animals to do the job.

Price mentions that TV nature is not real nature. And I thought about that for awhile, like where she stood and whether or not it was something I could agree upon.

If it's about cartoon and how nature is portrayed through that, then yes. I would agree that its not real and does not uphold the true identity of what nature is. Yet if she means that the Nature and shows like National Geographics aren't real, it's arguable from my perspective. I say this because most of the nature shows have real animals caught in action, and yet some other nature shows narrate what they want the animal to be seen or percieved as doing. Therefore it would not show the "real" animals in the wild.

Zoo Time Baby!

I've been to the zoo a few times already and it's always different each time. When I was younger it seemed fun and very much exciting! But as I returned year after year, it became less and less attractive and fun.

But some areas that have always been the same was the dreaded fear of going into the Bird House.

The first time I was there, I thought it was amazing! It had a funny and very strong smell at one of the entrances (the one with the humming bird exhibit). But as you moved through the building, there where more exhibits of birds, but they were wired in. No glass windows separating us, it was just black wires, small enough so that their legs could possibly move back and forth between them, but not big enough for their bodies to follow.

But that wasn't the reason why I dreaded going there, I mean I loved to see all of the different birds, and the penguins! But right after the penguins exhibit (also the only glassed in exhibit due to it's obvious reasons), there is the open exhibit. I really dreaded to go to this exhibit and still do a bit because of the fact that the birds are able to roam around and do whatever they like! It's a bit scary because they are "free" which is not usual around the zoo. I observed that birds are the only creatures that they allow to be "free" and I suppose it's because to keep them healthy they need room to fly but, it's a little intimidating for me.

I have never really thought about why it frightens me, for the lack of better words, but now that I do have a bit of time to reflect. I suppose it has this impact on my because it gives the animals more control within the area than it would myself. Also, the fact that I know how strong their beaks are and just how large they are would also be contributing factors to they having the advantage over me.

I guess another reason to why I am not as fond of that exhibit, is because I always remember just how low the birds fly around and above my head! It really scares me because the birds are like an arms length! They are huge and their wing-spans are wide as well, so I have valid reasons LOL. not really...haha.

Animals in Film

"This is why the difference of the animal look might mark the boundary between animal and human, but this boundary is also fluid."

This quote really caught my eye. I wasn't as sure as to what it meant because of the context around the sentence. I believe that it was talking about how films can limit the ideas and the truths behind how animals and humans can communicate and respond to one another. When he states that the "boundary is also fluid," I believe that he is addressing the thoughts of how humans and animals through "the eye" can show whether or not an animal is accepting or feeling threatened by the human.

Another line that caught my eye was,

" Whilst animals may contribute to the shaping of the figure of the human, that does not mean that they necessarily negatively define it."

Althought I wasn't too sure what this quote meant, I thought that it meant that the relations expressed throughout movies between human and animal give the audience a suggestive idea of how animals anf humans in "reality" respond to one another or give one another definition. And that although some films may show friendly animals or completely savage-like animals, it is necessary to keep in mind that these are just films.

GRIZZLY MAN & American Transcendentalism

The connection between this man, Timothy Tredwell and the ideas of American Transcendentalism is the unity and the beliefs of both humans and animals being good, and being able to live together in harmony. Timothy believed that he could live in the wild with wild bears and this was evident to be true within the documentary for the most part. His desire to go out and into the wild, is also apart of the American Transcendentalism beliefs.

The documentary is very inspiring and heart breaking. Many people believed him to be stupid and careless. Which to an extent he was because he didn't care about boundaries of the bears and protecting himself with the usage of sprays or those types of things. Yet, to see a human play and be so intimate with an animal that is known to be a "beast" is something that we as humans do want to see. It's the impossible. And for him to cross that boundary and to show us that "hey, they're not so bad after all" is pretty incredible. And there are many people besides Tim that do play and have that type of relationship with bears, but most of the time, these animals are born and raised around humans. Their natural surroundings are shifted, and even so, they sometimes turn on their caretaker.

There are limits to this reality of being able to communicate and play with wild animals. As humans we have an unconscious understanding to stay away from animals. We have an unconscious voice telling us that animals, especially animals like bears, are not to be played with. That we need to arm ourselves and always be cautious around them because we don't know how to talk or see eye to eye with those types of animals.

The ideas of the natural and the humanistic lives living in unity are ideas that will always be limited.