7. On permanent culture and resilience
Permaculture is a contraction of the phrase 'permanent agriculture’. Originally conceived as a way of practising agriculture that rejected the high input model of industrial agriculture, reliant on oil based fertilisers, pesticides and effort. Focusing instead on creating closed loop systems that generate no waste, support energy descent1, are regenerative and self-sustaining. This was later developed to be a contraction of ‘permanent culture’, recognising the design processes could be applied outside of agriculture and food growing. David Holmgreen developed the idea of the Permaculture Flower, seven domains, or areas, of human activity that are required to create a sustainable culture.
I found this idea of permanent culture quite challenging when I encountered it, especially in relation to my experience of the arts and culture sector in the UK. What would a permanent culture look like? Is that desirable or does it lead us down a road of ossification, rejection of the new or different? The phrase ‘the stone palaces2, of arts and culture in the UK today represent a type of permanence that I find challenging, focusing on institutional longevity. A system that has concentrated rather than distributed resources, power, skills and experience. Finding the balance between honouring and growing craft, which often has its roots in tradition, and the need to allow arts and culture to grow and change and respond and lead, is something that I wrestle with. I believe that everyone has the capacity for creativity and the potential to hone their skills to develop proficiency and artistry. Not everyone will want to, probably only a few people will create things that are widely admired and enjoyed. I have come to understand for myself that appreciating a drawing from someone I love and appreciating a masterpiece are part of a continuum, not a binary, and that there is value and meaning along the whole continuum. It’s not a case of, this wonky drawing by a friend is less good than this piece by Frida Khalo - they are different, and both are valuable and necessary for a healthy culture.
As I started thinking around this idea of permanent culture in relation to my own creative practice, I am finding it useful to reflect on the difference between the ‘temporary culture of built-in obsolescence that is at the core of consumer capitalism3, with its assumption of unlimited resources perpetually driving growth and the ‘yields’ of socially engaged practice. Learning skills in art making, practising collaboration, developing an aesthetic or taste, creating and sharing art, making meaning, imagination, friendship, joy - all of these things, especially when practised within an ethical framework of earth care, people care and future care are renewable. Unpicking the elements of my practice that are shaped by the temporary culture of obsolescence, whilst allowing the evolution of practice and ideas, and welcoming the possibilities provided by new technology and tools, is a thought experiment and practical challenge.
The idea of petro-subjectivity that I encountered in Brett Bloom's book of the same name, provides another way into this challenge, and a different view of the necessity and possibility of a permanent culture. He proposes that fossil fuels are so present in everything that we do that they determine our ‘sense of self and the world that shapes who we are and how we think4’, from the way we use language to the way societies are governed. The challenges of moving away from fossil fuel dependence and towards a liveable future are as much, if not more, cultural and imaginative as technological and scientific. A culture rooted in fossil fuel reliance can never be permanent, or renewing, as it is anchored to a finite, increasingly less accessible, and ultimately destructive resource.
I notice that if I substitute the word permanent for resilient I feel far less challenged by the idea. A resilient culture sounds more palatable than a permanent culture. Semantics aside, the need to de-couple arts and culture practice, indeed all human activities, from a reliance on fossil fuels remains. I don’t for one moment believe that one DYCP on permaculture and arts will enable this, or that permaculture is the only way. I sense that in reducing my practices reliance on fossil fuel systems and structures, I can build my own resilience, and contribute to the resilience of the arts and culture sector and the communities I'm part of. There’s no single, clearly defined path (if only) and there’s no way to get things 100% right, something I struggle with. In this way I start to see how the tools of my practice - applied ethics, care, imagination and collaboration, can become the tools of shaping the form of the practice too.
Notes
1 These articles provide more background to the concept of energy descent What is ‘Energy Descent’? » Transition Culture and The Energy Descent Future - Resilience
2 I haven’t been able to locate where I heard or read this, quite possibly from the Culture Plan B podcast - it was written in block capitals in my notebook.
3 From Introduction to permaculture | Permanent Culture Now
4 From Petro-subjectivity. De-industrialising our sense of Self by Brett Bloom. Breakdown Break Down Press, 2015.
Resources, references and further reading
Permaculture Flower - The seven domains of permaculture action
Putting the 'Permanent Culture' into Permaculture
Culture Plan B podcast - David Jubb in conversation with artists and communities who create culture in the UK outside big institutions.
Comments
Post a Comment