Trump doesn't want them spoiling his golf in Scotland. And this New Zealand farmer also objects to the aesthetics. And this group of Scots didn't want them because they spoiled the view. We need to have a conversation about aesthetics.
What's it going to be: landscapes that appear pristine to the eye, with oil pipes running underneath? Or wind farms, with their stark reminder that we have chosen certain ways of life?
Once this position is exposed, the “argument” against wind farms falls back on the “harm to birds” argument. Yet new wind spires are extremely good at not hitting any birds at all. And the jury is still out on whether the blade ones really do the damage some have claimed.
I'm afraid every position we take in the hyperobject global warming is bound to be hypocritical. So I'm happy to be thought of as a hypocrite. I'd rather be a hypocrite than a cynic.
3 comments:
Wind farms are beautiful.
Also - I thought this Darwinian installation piece might interest you: http://www.angelovermeulen.net/?page_id=115
I've always found the anti-wind argument based on aesthetics to be absurd on it's face. Have they ever seen a windmill? As utilitarian structures go their aesthetic qualities are extraordinary. It's hard to beat them actually.
I remember Duchamp's comment when viewing the smooth twisting curve of a plane propeller with Leger and Brancusi. Duchamp said, with wonder that "Painting is finished. Who can do better than that propeller?"
Plus, these people are silent when it comes to mountain top removal. We'll litterally bomb a magestic lanscape for coal but people get upset about a windmill that is practically a work of public scuplture.
Post a Comment