Tag Archives: Discovery2

Discovery #2

Posted on by
Reply
(Škarnulytė Sirenomelia) Frame@4:36

For my discovery I want to highlight the short film Sirenomelia by Emilija Škarnulytė. The post-apocalyptic setting emphasizes how nature, and the mermaid as its symbol, endures beyond human collapse, turning the abandoned man-made facility into proof that humanity is gone but the natural world continues to adapt and survive.

In the short film, the man-made building is a decommissioned NATO submarine base above the Arctic Circle that seems abandoned by humans on land, but underwater there is plenty of marine biology thriving. According to the photo above from the film, the facility proves that it is decaying because the equipment on both decks have some rusting beginning to occur and not to mention there is no upkeep on the cleanliness of their flooring. Notice the lack of human appearance? That’s on purpose to decenter humans and focus on how resilient nature is that it has outlasted them in this post apocalyptic world. Again referring to the film still, the mere-being is swimming along the surface of the water, meaning that they aren’t shy of their appearance and no human can push back against their species.Throughout the film, no humans appear, which we aren’t used to. Have you noticed that even nature documentaries that are supposed to focus on wildlife still have human influence because they manipulate the camera and what they want to show, with an occasional shot of a filmographer trying not to interact with the approaching wildlife to “maintain” authenticity of the animals behavior. Sirenomelia has introduced us to a new perspective of viewing species which is allowing the mere-being to be autonomous about what they want shown and controlling their own narrative. Something that is truly unique and adds to the post apocalyptic sense of the world.

The quiet power being depicted by the mere-being and the shots of aquatic flora sets the tone for how deceiving it can be assuming everything will end once humans die off, but instead they flourish without limitations. Referring to the film still again, while recognizing how evident it is to point out the mere-being in the water swimming. We have to acknowledge the sentiment behind this simple action, it’s their habitat now. Despite it being a decaying submarine base, nature will evolve and will continue to outlive humans, who are insistent on destroying their habitat for personal gain. Adapting is their power of persevering through all the man-made inventions on their land and in their water.

The mere-being is the symbol of nature and how it will always persevere because that’s what they’ve done for millions of years. Their evolution won’t stop and as long as the postapocalyptic world continues to exist, they will too. The mere-being is living proof that outliving humans pushes us off that pedestal thinking the world revolves around us, but rather really focuses on the incredible evolution of nature and how when their world changes so do they. Throughout the film, there is a quietness that can seem eerie to us, humans, but it’s natural for the mere-being and other marine biology living there. It’s an emphasis on how taking humans out the equation can bring calmness and balance to nature. It’s a noisy world when humans are involved and with the proof of this film it shows how great the world will continue to thrive with humans being extinct. 

Sirenomelia has executed the idea of humans being temporary but nature is adaptable. Their lens is a wake up call that humans aren’t at the top of the food chain and a new order has been instilled, which is that nature will always succeed us.  

Works Cited:

Škarnulytė, Emilija. “Sirenomelia.” YouTube, 2 Aug. 2017, youtu.be/foH0QGuC3kY?si=aO7_SCVfklfcKI1c. Accessed 16 Nov. 2025. 

Managing Behavior, Not Nature 

Posted on by
Reply


Environmental problems are often treated as issues that can be solved with new technology or better policies. Governments create climate plans, engineers design renewable energy systems, and scientists collect data to understand change. Yet even with all this knowledge, progress remains slow. In “The Emergence of the Environmental Humanities”, Emmett and Nye argue that the problem is not what we know about the environment, but how we act on that knowledge. When humans talk about “managing” the environment, the word usually means control. Having control in this sense means having something humans can plan, regulate and fix. However after reading this text, Emmet and Nye turn the attention away from managing nature itself and toward managing the systems of ideas and actions that shape how people live within it. Emmett and Nye redefine environmental “management” as the management of human action; through the claim that “we do not manage the environment, only the behaviors that affect its structure and processes,” the text shifts action from ecosystems to culture, arguing that environmental failure is a problem of values, behaviors and institutions. 

 This statement gets rid of the idea that people can control nature as if it is something that’s separate and reframes the idea that if we want to see change it must be as a collective whole. The language reveals exactly how they reframe the idea of environmental control. The sentence begins with “We do not manage the environment”. This phrase challenges the cultural assumption that ecosystems can be organized and controlled like human systems. The word “manage” usually implies authority and predictability, as if nature is an object that can be adjusted or improved. By denying that we can “manage the environment” it means that we must shift our responsibilities from controlling ecosystems to understanding ourselves. We as humans are able to control our behaviors, consumption and culture that can shape our environmental outcomes.

The language in the next part of the phrase, “only the behaviors that affect…” brings the focus from the external world to human action. The word “only” is super restrictive and it draws a line around what can actually be changed meaning what is manageable. Emmet and Nye suggest that it’s not the planet itself but the social, political, and cultural forces that shape it. The word “behaviors” stands for patterns of consumption, policy decisions and different social norms. This phrasing reframes environmental work as an ethical and cultural practice rather than a technical one and to see sustainability not as a matter of better machines but as a matter of better habits. Finally, the phrase ends with “… structure and processes” and this reintroduces the scientific side. It describes the natural systems such as climate and ecosystems that have a response with human activity. Emmet and Nye’s language shows how the environmental humanities work alongside science. Science teaches us how the environmental systems function, while the humanities interpret and influence the behaviors that determine whether those systems thrive or collapse. This pairing of human behavior and environmental systems shows that the two are inseparable. The phrase “structure and processes” sounds scientific, but when placed after “behaviors,” it reminds us that every scientific system reflects human influence. This is exactly what the environmental humanities seeks to prove and that is that no ecosystem is isolated from our culture.

This shift from control to behavior is clearly shown in this reading with the examples of failed top-down projects such as the eco-city near Shanghai and the Huangbaiyu “ecovillage. Both cities were designed with advanced technology and good intentions, yet neither one was successful because the planners ignored the local voices. The designs overlooked what daily life looked like. They ignored farmers’ routines, affordability and cultural ideas. These cities revealed that sustainability cannot be imposed on anyone and instead it depends on understanding how people live and what they value. This reflects the quote and how technical process means very little if human behavior, trust and participation are not a part of the plan. 

Throughout the reading, Emmet and Nye state that knowledge alone is never enough. They cite Tom Griffiths, who said that “Scientists often argue for the need to overcome deficits of knowledge, but rarely ask why we do not act upon what we already know. Most of the constraints working against environmental change are cultural.” This reinforces Emmett and Nye’s claim that the greatest barriers to sustainability are not technical but human. It connects directly to the quote by showing that knowing how ecosystems work does little unless people change their behaviors, policies, and sense of responsibility. By turning the focus to behavior it emphasizes the role of meaning, ethics and communication which is the core of humanities. In the end, the quote “We do not manage the environment, only the behaviors that affect its structure and processes” becomes more than a simple observation. It’s a redefinition of responsibility. It forced me to stop looking at nature as an object and start recognizing the connection between human actions and environmental change. It also teaches readers that addressing climate change or extinction is not about controlling nature but about transforming our culture.

Ocean as a Seperate Identity from Human intercation

Posted on by
Reply

Writing the name as “Ocean” is not a way of a human individual giving the Ocean an identity, as we have no individual rights to name the natural world. It is a way of showing recognition to what has always been present. Roordan reorganizes our thinking in regards to human ownership, what we conceive to be within our own domain of influence and what is actually out of our control. “Ocean” is the world and environment.

In the piece, Roordan explains to the audience the ideology behind the word “Ocean” being capitalized as one would a “country or continent.” Roordan’s comparison shows us that instead of viewing the Ocean as a “thing” – an object for humans to use – we recognize it for the geographical individuality and statehood sovereignty it possesses. The idea of nationhood in itself is a man made conception only established in a modern age. Calling a state by its individual and capitalized name shows recognition of ownership to that nation, a sign that we as a separate nation respect your right to rule and interact with your nation as you see fit. Capitaling Ocean is the beginning of an evolution in human relationship with the Ocean and the rights it contains over itself, not the rights we believe are assigned to it. 

Lack of capitalization “infantilizes” the Ocean in a way. To us, we see it as a resource for our needs, which then becomes exploited by a race of humans, which then needs conservation by those same races of humans. The Ocean does not need us to govern its tides. The Ocean does not need us to tell it how to care for its creatures and environment. The Ocean has never needed human influence in how it governs. It has total control on the regulation of its waves, its currents, its foam. For all of documented History, the Ocean is responsible for the carrying of knowledge. It has brought creatures across the globe to new lands, stretching biodiversity and evolution across the Earth. It has carried messages from one country to another. It has exchanged goods, people, technology, all for the benefit of humanity. Ocean decides where it moves. Ocean decides who leaves and who stays within its waters. Ocean is an individual, with its own systems, rules. It is a nation that for too long has been denied the respect it deserves from humans in regards to its name. Rooted in our written language is the disregard for Ocean vocabulary, viewing it as ours instead of itself. Even as I write this, the autocorrect wishes to “correct” Ocean to “ocean.” We have been ignorant and naive for far too long. We have deprived a nation from its title, the respect it deserves from those who expect so much from it. We have been taught incorrectly from a young age that the ocean is not a state, but a vast horizon, one that without human exploration, poses no insight to our kind. Yet – why should it reveal its secrets to us? What has the human race ever given this nation in return? 

In the political world, Nations exchange values with each other. Whether this be knowledge, economics, or policy, someone is winning in the barter. And what does the Ocean get? Nothing. We have never given the Ocean anything. We see it as being something within human confluence, therefore iot deserves no proper respect. We take and take, expecting its gifts to keep on giving. And yet – it is still here. It has always been here and it will be here long after humans have left this planet. The first step in correcting the damage we have done to its identity is paying proper respect to its name, its individualism, its Statehood. We are not the ones placing a name on it. We are recognizing it for the domain it has always been. Taking this small step will repair our relationship and lack of understanding we have come to be so comfortable with in regards to the Ocean. 

Roordan is responsible for reshaping how the readers see the Ocean and our relationship with it as a whole. This small correction to our everyday language positively impacts human connection with the Ocean and shows how we are able to give it the recognition and authority it has always withheld. Ocean identity is a part of the world, a massive nation that impacts us all. No matter how we try to shape the viewpoint as the Ocean being ours, something for human domination, Ocean will always come out on top. The Ocean is sovereign, the Ocean is a Nation, and we are at the will of how it shall dictate over us. 

Discovery #2

Posted on by
Reply

https://blog.vonwong.com/mermaidplastic

When first seeing the mermaid depicted in the center of the piece, along with it is a simultaneously visual ambiguity and a sense of wonder. On the one hand, the figure evokes ancient myth about a mermaid. But, the mermaid has also become lost in an artificial landscape made up of plastic bottles as waves, merging the mythical beauty of the ocean and the pollution that is inescapable today in the ocean. The details, colors and artistry invite viewers in closer, not only is there the twist of the deformed plastic, and glimmers of blue and green, the visual imaging creates a sea fantasy and displacement, however it is made of plastic. It raises the questions, is the mermaid only marooned in this landscape, or is it a challenge to the viewers ignorant, complacent body, and signifies the truth of ecological annihilation. The space itself, is a thoughtful, staged space distinct and separate from the public beach, or wild ocean landscape; it is distorted and blurs the lines of the beach, and open water, inviting all to remember pollution is not just a faraway, public issue, it arrives right into our most intimate, personal and private places. Looking Carefully at this image, we can see how the modern mermaid functions as a powerful icon for environmental crisis in the context of certain private spaces–both on land and in the sea that are also polluted. Yet, the polluted places can become a source of activism, change, and challenging the concept of a relationship to nature.

The mermaid depiction both subverts its viewers’ expectations, and employs the aesthetic language of the genre of myth in order to make an explicit commentary about our own complicity in environmental harm. By organizing the plastics so that it appears as though one is viewing the ocean, the artist not only presents the viewer with the staggering amount of waste, but intentionally makes the “waves” seem enticing – even beautiful – from a distance. Upon closer inspection, however, the truth is inescapable: this is not water, it is the pollution that threatens marine life. The mermaid’s iridescent tail, which was created to move gracefully in rhythm with the synthetic ‘waives’, serves as a visual focal point to describe nature’s relationship with the human world’s careless consumption. Instead of simple depicting the mermaid as another victim, her stance between the act of swimming and reaching conveys resistance and hope amidst peril.

In, Emelia Škarnulytė’s short film “Sirenomelia,” relates to the image because it serves as a call for reclamation. When a magic figure such as the mermaid occupies sites of conflict, whether a legacy of an active military base or garbage in a sea, she urges us to think about ways to engage in the traumatic past and creates possibilities for the future. The sea covered in plastic becomes not just a representation of our collective, failure, but an invitation to find energy and material for activism and creative revisioning. In both circumstances, as the mermaid rewrites the narrative of loss and hopelessness, she balances room to locate adaptation, resilience, and not simply belief, but opportunities for renewal even in the most abandoned and hurtful spaces.

The setting of the image is critical. The intimacy of an interior private space collapses the perceived distance between environmental destruction and “safe” culture (or consumer) space; it implicates everyone, including the viewer, into the environmental crisis. Unlike more public, environmental awareness campaigns the situate litter in remote parts of nature, the image insists that the living room, as a place and living routine, is both part of the problem and the solution. The mermaid, as an outsider and intermediary, produces a public witness to private waste. As an activist presence, the mermaid reframes individual responsibility to include activism that starts at home.

Further examination of the visual details reveals further depth. Even though the plastic bottles are commonplace, polluting out oceans, and responsible for much of the cultural mythology, they are all, in new formations, ordered in a particular fashion that creates an unsettling beauty. This is the same capacity of art itself– to display unsettling truths in a manner that can affect viewers emotionally and intellectually. The image of the mermaid uses that capacity to persuade viewers to explore how they relate to the environment and also how they relate to cultural mythology.

Additionally, mermaids have been a part of a larger trend in environmental activism. Recently, in contemporary art, and in activist campaigns, mermaids have made a comeback to link, especially, young audiences (visually or literally) to the ocean crisis regarding plastics debris, rising sea levels, and species at risk. So the image you share indicates a movement seeking to make myth a relevant and relatable vehicle for eco-centrism. The presenting of the mermaid in a polluted, restricted context emphasizes the nuance of the mermaid’s positioning, as she represents both disruption from human interaction and a motivation to address environmental injustice.

This piece not only laments a relationship lost with nature through these artistic decisions but also encourages viewers to re-conceptualize places that are polluted into sites of activism and change. The mermaid- a figure of both beauty and warning in mythology- becomes an advocate for change suggesting to viewers that they must act not only from a place of fear but also from a place of hope. When viewed from the perspective of myth, plastic pollution is daunting, yet feels less overwhelming. This myth becomes a call to action to reimagine the boundaries between destruction and renewal, especially in the private and daily spaces that we often overlook.

In summary, the contemporary mermaid, as seen in this image, goes beyond merely a passive symbol and instead compels engagement. By careful analysis of each formal and thematic element, we come to a reading in which the mermaid’s polluted, private environments can inspire activism and allow us to imaginatively re-create a different relationship to the environment. This reading turns the image into only a critique, but a call to action, and an argument that even the most polluted worlds can be a catalyst for change.