![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rynlingSolarpunk Is Not About Pretty Aesthetics. It's About the End of Capitalism
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5aym/solarpunk-is-not-about-pretty-aesthetics-its-about-the-end-of-capitalism
Many solarpunks agree that the “punk” element becomes clear when they go past the movement’s visuals and into the nitty gritty. Solarpunk is radical in that it imagines a society where people and the planet are prioritized over the individual and profit. Of course utopian visions of the future aren’t new and art and technology have long drawn from nature: Just take the example of Belgian architect Luc Schuiten, whose drawings and buildings often employ biomimicry, where the form and function of organic elements influence design. The movement gained traction in progressive circles on early 2010s Tumblr, but as its popularity has bloomed over the past 10 years, early Solarpunks fear capitalist co-option. Flynn calls it “fake Solarpunk urbanism,” luxury condos with a green roof that price out existing communities and might end up doing more environmental damage.
This is a surprisingly lengthy article with a lot of interesting links, and it's worth checking out solely for the beautiful embedded video.
I think the emphasis on "radical" change might be misguided, though. My concern, as always, is the way anti-capitalist movements are described in the language of capitalism. Like, we have to be active! And go out and do things! And harness our energy as our best and most productive selves! I think this (neoliberal tbh) emphasis on individual agency and power strays a bit too far into the territory of ecofacism, which holds that people who don't have the skills or resources to survive catastrophe deserve to die.
For me, the appeal of solarpunk is that you don't have to do shit. You don't have to work. You don't have to make money. You don't have to buy things. You don't have to participate in "community improvement" projects. Maybe stay at home and some weed and play some video games. Leave work early, turn off your phone, and draw your silly comics and write your silly stories. Sit out on your front porch and have a drink with your neighbors. Grass and flowers will grow in the cracks of the concrete without your help. All you have to do is literally nothing.
One of the reasons I enjoy living in Philadelphia is that it's a very compact but very green city. And the great thing is that it's not green because of city planning or district gardening budgets, but rather the exact opposite. The city just lets plants grow, and nobody who lives here does anything to stop them. The Amish set up farmer's markets in the public parks on the weekends, and this is technically illegal without a license, but nobody stops them. People sell fruits and vegetables out of the backs of U-Haul trucks on street corners during the weekdays, and this is definitely illegal, but nobody cares. Nobody chases away urban outdoorspeople from the larger public parks, so they plant gardens. Everything is covered in folk art, from Isaiah Zagar's broken glass murals to the work of street artists whose tags are elaborate illustrations of Studio Ghibli characters. This aesthetic exists because nobody did anything to "fix" it, and it's admittedly a little ghetto sometimes, but it makes Philadelphia a comfortable and interesting place to live.
But I also think a cleaner solarpunk aesthetic would make much more sense for a place like New York, where "just letting things break" would result in most of Manhattan Island flooding in less than 24 hours. I mean, the sea level is rising. The flooding is going to happen eventually. But that doesn't mean you can't have stylish vertical gardens while the city is still above water, or that they're necessarily bad. People have to eat, and people have to live somewhere, so your rent might as well pay for community deck gardens and solar panels.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5aym/solarpunk-is-not-about-pretty-aesthetics-its-about-the-end-of-capitalism
Many solarpunks agree that the “punk” element becomes clear when they go past the movement’s visuals and into the nitty gritty. Solarpunk is radical in that it imagines a society where people and the planet are prioritized over the individual and profit. Of course utopian visions of the future aren’t new and art and technology have long drawn from nature: Just take the example of Belgian architect Luc Schuiten, whose drawings and buildings often employ biomimicry, where the form and function of organic elements influence design. The movement gained traction in progressive circles on early 2010s Tumblr, but as its popularity has bloomed over the past 10 years, early Solarpunks fear capitalist co-option. Flynn calls it “fake Solarpunk urbanism,” luxury condos with a green roof that price out existing communities and might end up doing more environmental damage.
This is a surprisingly lengthy article with a lot of interesting links, and it's worth checking out solely for the beautiful embedded video.
I think the emphasis on "radical" change might be misguided, though. My concern, as always, is the way anti-capitalist movements are described in the language of capitalism. Like, we have to be active! And go out and do things! And harness our energy as our best and most productive selves! I think this (neoliberal tbh) emphasis on individual agency and power strays a bit too far into the territory of ecofacism, which holds that people who don't have the skills or resources to survive catastrophe deserve to die.
For me, the appeal of solarpunk is that you don't have to do shit. You don't have to work. You don't have to make money. You don't have to buy things. You don't have to participate in "community improvement" projects. Maybe stay at home and some weed and play some video games. Leave work early, turn off your phone, and draw your silly comics and write your silly stories. Sit out on your front porch and have a drink with your neighbors. Grass and flowers will grow in the cracks of the concrete without your help. All you have to do is literally nothing.
One of the reasons I enjoy living in Philadelphia is that it's a very compact but very green city. And the great thing is that it's not green because of city planning or district gardening budgets, but rather the exact opposite. The city just lets plants grow, and nobody who lives here does anything to stop them. The Amish set up farmer's markets in the public parks on the weekends, and this is technically illegal without a license, but nobody stops them. People sell fruits and vegetables out of the backs of U-Haul trucks on street corners during the weekdays, and this is definitely illegal, but nobody cares. Nobody chases away urban outdoorspeople from the larger public parks, so they plant gardens. Everything is covered in folk art, from Isaiah Zagar's broken glass murals to the work of street artists whose tags are elaborate illustrations of Studio Ghibli characters. This aesthetic exists because nobody did anything to "fix" it, and it's admittedly a little ghetto sometimes, but it makes Philadelphia a comfortable and interesting place to live.
But I also think a cleaner solarpunk aesthetic would make much more sense for a place like New York, where "just letting things break" would result in most of Manhattan Island flooding in less than 24 hours. I mean, the sea level is rising. The flooding is going to happen eventually. But that doesn't mean you can't have stylish vertical gardens while the city is still above water, or that they're necessarily bad. People have to eat, and people have to live somewhere, so your rent might as well pay for community deck gardens and solar panels.
