Snæbjörnsdóttir/Wilson ‘<strong>The</strong> Nam<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Th<strong>in</strong>gs’ (video still) from the Installation, between you and me 2009 Snæbjörnsdóttir/Wilson 98
espect <strong>of</strong> the disservice they do to our receptivity to and understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> specifics and particulars, but also because our very messy, <strong>in</strong>consistent and <strong>of</strong>ten contradictory relations to animals tend to provide such a graphic illustration <strong>of</strong> how we bl<strong>in</strong>d and delude ourselves daily with our dependence on symbols, avatars, simulacra and representations, a reflex tendency we’re suggest<strong>in</strong>g should be resisted strongly. <strong>The</strong> equally manifest senses <strong>of</strong> direction, enthusiasm and even urgency generated with<strong>in</strong> animal studies groups <strong>in</strong>ternationally over the last few years have led many to adopt a position <strong>of</strong> moral purpose and to an acceptance <strong>of</strong> greater commonality between human and non-human animals, bound up <strong>in</strong> a broad set <strong>of</strong> sensibilities k<strong>in</strong>dled or shaped <strong>in</strong> some ways by the residual sparks <strong>of</strong> late 20th Century race, gender and sexuality discourses. Much has been written and much read from this basis and a back catalogue <strong>of</strong> theoretical writ<strong>in</strong>g has provided the framework not only <strong>of</strong> thought, but also <strong>of</strong> response and discursive action. <strong>The</strong> irony <strong>in</strong> this is that <strong>in</strong> sanction<strong>in</strong>g a dependency on the same learned and developed faculties, (be<strong>in</strong>g those <strong>of</strong> syntax-based language), the absence <strong>of</strong> which <strong>in</strong> other species has been used traditionally to demonstrate our distance from and superiority to non-human animals, we cont<strong>in</strong>ue to dist<strong>in</strong>guish and separate ourselves from, rather than draw any closer to our subject – and by so do<strong>in</strong>g compromise the possibility <strong>of</strong> an “otherness” <strong>of</strong> understand<strong>in</strong>g that might otherwise accrue around let’s say, “alternative” approaches. Where such approaches are attempted, the results are <strong>of</strong>ten dismissed as be<strong>in</strong>g fanciful – impossible to evaluate on the simple grounds <strong>of</strong> their apparent <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic lack <strong>of</strong> rational accountability. Cit<strong>in</strong>g the artwork <strong>of</strong> our collaborative partnership, this paper exam<strong>in</strong>es the apparent conundrum <strong>of</strong> th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g-without-words, by us<strong>in</strong>g art methodologies to approach a new understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> our relations with other species. It acknowledges relationality as be<strong>in</strong>g pivotal to this project, and <strong>in</strong>deed as a crucial paradigm for the application <strong>of</strong> our <strong>in</strong>tellects to the puzzle <strong>of</strong> and apparent <strong>in</strong>ertia regard<strong>in</strong>g an impend<strong>in</strong>g environmental oblivion. In our recent Practice we’ve aimed to challenge an anthropocentric position <strong>of</strong> elevated apartness. We’ve been endeavor<strong>in</strong>g to f<strong>in</strong>d the means by which it’s possible to approach the position/perspective <strong>of</strong> the other, <strong>in</strong> this <strong>in</strong>stance, a specific non-human animal, <strong>in</strong> order to be able to reflect upon our own position, and by so do<strong>in</strong>g, reappraise someth<strong>in</strong>g much bigger than ourselves and the view our current perspective will allow. We refute that our own (human, Western) way <strong>of</strong> 99 understand<strong>in</strong>g the world is the only practical way, and we are curious about different models for existence and be<strong>in</strong>g, and about question<strong>in</strong>g the capacity <strong>of</strong> l<strong>in</strong>ear th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g to recognize and address a much needed wider understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> how the world works and how we might best coexist with<strong>in</strong> it. In referr<strong>in</strong>g to our work as “relational,” we allude to both human and animal relationality. In some ways this is crucial to why we have chosen so regularly to work with specific human/animal relationships. We are <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> reveal<strong>in</strong>g the complexity that objects, names or ideological constructions disallow, almost by def<strong>in</strong>ition. By presum<strong>in</strong>g that we know little about someth<strong>in</strong>g, or by observ<strong>in</strong>g that collectively, we have a set <strong>of</strong> contradictory responses to it. As artists we contrive first to establish a proximity with that th<strong>in</strong>g, and to those untidy responses. As a consequence, we have also been taken <strong>in</strong>to relational work with <strong>in</strong>stitutions – for <strong>in</strong>stance museums, local government departments, scientific research <strong>in</strong>stitutions etc. - and <strong>in</strong>dividual specialists – zoologists, anthropologists, historians, hunters, pest control <strong>of</strong>ficers, – <strong>in</strong> addition to other nonpr<strong>of</strong>essionals whose specific personal experiences have <strong>in</strong>valuably enriched our enquiry. But <strong>in</strong> choos<strong>in</strong>g the k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> relationship that precludes syntactic language that is with a nonhuman animal, we are extend<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>vitation to “relate” whilst simultaneously rel<strong>in</strong>quish<strong>in</strong>g a degree <strong>of</strong> control to the other <strong>in</strong> question. Such was the case with the work Three Attempts, where an honest series <strong>of</strong> attempts were made to engage with seals there on the marg<strong>in</strong>s <strong>of</strong> land and sea. This encounter was filmed on the northern coast <strong>of</strong> Iceland. <strong>The</strong> word “attempt” here is significant because for this artwork it is the endeavor and the tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> time to undertake this practice that is important, without us necessarily demand<strong>in</strong>g a specific result. When film<strong>in</strong>g for Three Attempts, we <strong>in</strong>terviewed a young farmer, Knútur Óskarsson, whose farm abutted the estuary. Besides cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g to manage a depleted farm bus<strong>in</strong>ess, he also runs a youth hostel and services for tourists. <strong>The</strong>re is a seal colony on the marg<strong>in</strong>s <strong>of</strong> his farm, and some years ago it was a valuable resource <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> provid<strong>in</strong>g meat and sk<strong>in</strong>. Today the seals have another, more <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic value as a tourist resource. Óskarsson has not, however, capitalized on this resource directly; for <strong>in</strong>stance by charg<strong>in</strong>g a fee. Instead he sees it as his role to <strong>in</strong>form visitors about the seal as an animal whose importance is critical to the nature <strong>of</strong> this area. It can be observed, but has to be left to take care <strong>of</strong> itself. For the tourists he has <strong>in</strong>stalled a gate and a fenced <strong>of</strong>f path <strong>of</strong> about 500 metres lead<strong>in</strong>g to the
Change language