The pull towards embracing the natural world is ever present in the work of Javier Arce. The core theme in this body of work is a specific place: Like other agricultural buildings, the structure is very simple, with a rectangular shape and very small rooms, and built with materials from its surroundings.
It is a dwelling in the simplest sense, not to impress but to provide shelter from the elements and to exist in a constant dialogue with its owner. Like many of the first dwellings that existed in now overpopulated cities, it continues in its idyllic existence until its tranquilty is eventually destroyed by the very civilization that was created to advance it.
Featured in this exhibition are two carefully executed drawings on newsprint: Arbol which depicts the felling of a sequoia tree and Walden Pond depicting a group of trees on the edge of a forest. Both pictures are partially obscured by an abstract drawing, displayed in a landscape format.
This campaign presented the candidate as one from humble beginnings, circumventing the problematic issue of slavery and winning him the election. Here the cabin is a symbol of humility, a structure unburdened by the vanity of adornment. The gateway is here for us to decide if we will walk through. Retry the life experiment in the communal, Woodcut print on paper, wooden door. Detail of Retry the life experiment in the communal, Mechanical pencil on newsprint. Detail of Walden Pond, Sobre el tercer paisaje.
Sobre el Tercer Paisaje, HD single channel video, two letters, 7 min. The Poor Man's Friend. Mechanical pencil on newsprint, 42 x 26 inches, Detail of The Poor Man's Friend. Doblar la Tierra, HD single channel, 5: Mechanical pencil on newsprint diptych , 46 x 59 inches.
Detail of Arbol, Presentation case, daily newspaper, printed manifesto. Unabomber's Manifesto The following is full text of the Unabomber's Manifesto. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering in the Third World to physical suffering as well and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.
The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence: We can't predict any of that.
But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society.
Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system.
Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say.
For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist.
When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.
Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology Also, see paragraphs Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this.
All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization.
By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings possibly more or less repressed and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him or about groups with whom he identifies we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend.
They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate.
We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society.
Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.
Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak women , defeated American Indians , repellent homosexuals , or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.
We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc.
Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.
The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined.
But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.
They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true i. The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior.