“I’ve had a cough ever since I got here,” says Dillman, who serves as the director of exhibitions and programming at Pittsburgh Center for Arts and Media (PCAM). “My allergies were really bad here this year, to the point where I started taking medicine, and I haven’t taken medicine in years.”
7 comments:
I find it interesting to hear people talk about Pittsburgh still being a dirty city, when what I hear more often is that it is way better than what it used to be. It is really quite remarkable how the city has transformed over the past 40 years. Not that I was here then, but I know the smog and air pollution in 60s-70s was almost unbearable, making the state of Pittsburgh’s air quality today seem pristine. It does not make much sense to me to host an art show like this one based off of these ideas in a town like Pittsburgh that has already done so much to counteract their dirty city, and is still actively making strides to correct the issues of their past. Not that shows like this do not have a place or merit. I think that it is always important to keep talking about the impacts of pollution on our daily lives, but maybe there is a better way to approach it or maybe a better environment to put on this kind of show.
I agree with Cooper about not necessarily seeing the point that Tina Dillman makes about how dirty Pittsburgh is. It might be because I am from near NYC, which is a pretty dirty place but I feel as though Pittsburgh is relatively clean - there are no smog days like in LA or other things such as this that I’ve noticed in excess compared to other cities I’ve been to/lived in. I really love that this show exists and is actually fulfilling a mission being accessible. I am sick of theatres and art talking about being accessible and not doing things like this show and making the show free. I understand there are financial barriers to doing this but I think if you set out for a certain mission you should try to follow through. It is also nice to see that in addition to the free exhibition there are free workshops. It is really great reading about the themes of this exhibition and depicting the effects of pollution through art. It is also great seeing the collaborative nature that is happening in the creation of some of the art pieces. Overall a really cool read and definitely something I want to check out in the coming weeks.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in the comments above. I think Pittsburgh air is really nice and moderately fresh. Well, I’m saying this as a person from Hong Kong, where we are deemed a concrete forest and our air is so polluted that it’s always really high. It is undeniable that climate change and global warming are important topics to discuss. Art is a powerful tool that can evoke motivation in the audience and make people change their attitudes and behaviors towards global warming. But I’m just not convinced on how this exhibit stems from Pittsburgh. Sure downtown might be more polluted and dirtier, but it’s definitely better than other cities in the States, like New York. Compared to what Susan’s described Pittsburgh's condition in the 50s, how window sills are covered in black soot, the city has definitely actively changed its pollution. Nonetheless, they did important expressive work for the world and the collaboration between artists is admirable.
I didn’t really realize until I started reading this article that it was about an art exhibition in Pittsburgh—I just assumed it was in another big city, like these things that I see often are. I think it’s incredibly important and powerful that this exhibition is happening here, in a city with such a significant past of industry and air pollution. Like the writer, I also noticed myself having weird, untimely allergy problems when I moved here in August (I usually only get it in April with pollen), and think it’s disgusting when the entire city smells like sulfur on some days. Pittsburgh needs art like this. I think it’s really neat that the theme of the exhibition came about AFTER the curator met with the chosen artists, as if they worked together to develop it. It’s wonderful that the entrance fee was nixed for the exhibiting artists, since (as the article states), these people are already spending so much on creating their important art already. I LOVE the fact that there’s FREE workshops on how to create sustainable art, led by the artists shown in the exhibition themselves!
I think the process of creation for this exhibition is a pretty direct effect of the pressing environmental crisis that we have found ourselves currently in. The curator of the event discovered the theme of the events after looking at the artwork that these artists have been creating and finding that all the artists had a common theme of commentary on the current environmental situation. It is interesting to hear about the author’s commentary on the state of the city of Pittsburgh because considering it’s history when I came I didn’t think it was all that dirty for a city. However comparatively to living in more rural areas (I’m generalizing here based on my past experiences) I would say that is a pretty dramatic shift. I’m not quite sure if I follow her logic of her allergies being worst in this area comparatively because I had always thought that had less to do with the quality of the air and more about the allergens themselves but I could very well be wrong. Either way I think the exhibit itself has a very important message and it is great that they were able to eliminate the entry fee to make it more accessible to anyone who wishes to see it.
This concept is interesting, if a bit unoriginal. I can not help but feel a bit defensive about Pittsburgh’s air quality; in the grand scheme of dirty cities, Pittsburgh is not doing so poorly. Furthermore, the city of Pittsburgh is actively working to improve its recycling process and make its public transportation more environmentally friendly. There are citibikes and bike paths everywhere, and you can get just about anywhere on a bus. The city is even implementing eco-friendly buses. I hate the idea of presenting Pittsburgh as a disgusting, destructive place when it is in reality a city that is looking forward and trying to implement change. I hope that somewhere in this exhibition, there are some elements of hope and some sort of reflection of a community that cares. From the article, it sounds like the gallery is being curated by someone who hates Pittsburgh and wants the world to know.
This concept is interesting, if a bit unoriginal. I can not help but feel a bit defensive about Pittsburgh’s air quality; in the grand scheme of dirty cities, Pittsburgh is not doing so poorly. Furthermore, the city of Pittsburgh is actively working to improve its recycling process and make its public transportation more environmentally friendly. There are citibikes and bike paths everywhere, and you can get just about anywhere on a bus. The city is even implementing eco-friendly buses. I hate the idea of presenting Pittsburgh as a disgusting, destructive place when it is in reality a city that is looking forward and trying to implement change. I hope that somewhere in this exhibition, there are some elements of hope and some sort of reflection of a community that cares. From the article, it sounds like the gallery is being curated by someone who hates Pittsburgh and wants the world to know.
Post a Comment