Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Photographs by Chris Dunker
Tell Us What You Think--We're Here To Listen
Recent Comments
Disclaimer
This blog, the posts, or the comments contained herein are not the official opinion(s) of Brigham Young University, the College of Fine Arts & Communications, or the BYU Museum of Art. The images have been provided for educational use only. Any other use or reproduction of the images is prohibited, unless authorized by the BYU Museum of Art
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(7)
-
▼
March
(7)
- General Comments, Thoughts or Queries
- Why do you think these photographs are being shown...
- What impact do you think Geneva Steel's closing ha...
- Is the closing of Geneva Steel evidence of progres...
- What was your favorite work in this exhibition?
- What do you think is the theme of this exhibition?
- How important are machines and technology to the a...
-
▼
March
(7)
23 comments:
I think that depends on who you are. For those who lost employment, that would most definitely be a loss. I think the photograph of the room with uniforms that no one will be wearing again shows that very pointedly. However, if you are a resident of the area, the closing of Geneva Steel could be progress by way of clean air and a movement towards safer working conditions.
Resources in the economy shifted from a less productive use to a more productive use. This has happened over and over again in American history. Our tolerance for allowing an particular group (i.e. steel workers) to suffer an admitted hardship is part of why American productivity is among the highest in the world.
The closing of the plant may have had an impact on the economic situation of the locals who depended on the plant for their income. But, there are also two main benefits that come to mind from the closing of the plant.
1. The polution caused by the plant has now come to a halt.
2. The land that the plant laid on has now become available for housing developement.
While I recognize the relative validity of prior comments, I see the sequence of demolition, and the implicit loss of competitive ability of the plant, as a gripping, irreversible loss of power of our nation, in that it now lacks inherent native manufacturing of that indispensable commodity, steel. Now that our government, under both Democrats and Republicans, has failed utterly to deal with the predictable consequences of palpably unwise international trade policies, our national strength is sapped.
How are progress and loss opposed? In one sense, progress can be adding to an existing condition. But it can also be moving from one condition to a better one. Anytime you are changing conditions, rather than just adding to an existing one, you will experience loss.
The question here is: Did the Closing of Geneva Steel generate greater benefits than the losses Utah County experienced? That is . . ."Was the closing actually progress?"
I think the answer to that is currently "No." Nothing has yet been done with the resources freed up by the "Loss" of Geneva Steel. Hopefully, that will change.
Amazing imagery! It is not only a documentary on the dismantling of a single steel plant. It is a documentary on the dismantling of US production capability.
This is clearly a loss to the community and to the country. The United States does not have the capacity to produce enough steel for its own use. This is the same circumstance we were in when WW II broke out. I spoke with a veteran who was at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and asked him a lot of questions. The one comment he made that I remember was this one, said literally through tears: "We can't ever let America be unprepared again."
I believe the closing of Geneva Steel is a necessary loss in order to progress. At least for the workers, it is like growing up and leaving one's home. It is not a happy time, nor is it a sad time. I like the quotes hanging from the former employees of Geneva Steel. They articulate how the people who are influenced the most by the closing of Geneva Steel feel. As I walked through the gallery, I couldn't help but feel a sense of how the former employees of Geneva feel. The only way I could feel any form of empathy is to think of the house I grew up in being torn down. I am glad Dunker photographed Geneva because it has had such a large influence on the history of Utah County.
I think that it is progress that it was shut down because it was an eye-sore to those of us how didn't see it in operation in the earlier days.
While american productivity has always required change and adaptation to maintain competitive advantage, few people recognize how those changes affect individuals, communities, and the environment. While judgment of progress or loss may be explored under many models and justified for the good of the whole, it is important not to forget what the change meant to the individuals and communities who lost their jobs, homes, and way of life. It is not necessary to halt progress for fear of the effects the change may have on society. Instead, it is important to recognize the trade offs that come with any choice and seek to acknowledge the sacrifices and the hardships that some people make when change is implemented.
Progress. Definitely. If we don't get rid of the outdated past, there is no room for the greater future.
More than progress or loss, it's adaptation. There are real reasons that other places can produce steel more economically; using government policy or subsidy to overcome these reasons would have been more expensive than it's worth.
More than progress or loss, it's adaptation. There are real reasons that other places can produce steel more economically; using government policy or subsidy to overcome these reasons would have been more expensive than it's worth.
To determine if an act constitutes progress, it is first necessary to identify a goal toward which progress is to be made. As Lewis Carroll so aptly caused his Cheshire cat to point out, if you do not have a destination your choices don’t matter. A friend of mine is fond of observing “None of us is as stupid as all of us;” without going to that superlative, I do think that few individuals are as aimless as the collective.
A few things we can say with some certainty. The closing of the plant was certainly a loss, in that it was not changed but destroyed. We lost jobs and steel production, of course, but we also lost a nontrivial source of pollution. It was also a proactive, if not necessarily progressive, choice; the plant had not become antiquated and was still fully capable of producing world-grade steel. Closing it was not a reaction to the inability to keep it open, but rather a deliberate, considered action.
What I think is being asked (or at least what the other commentators seem to be trying to answer) might be restated as “did the collective minority involved in making this decision make a decision you, personally, agree with?” Unfortunately, I don’t have a clear opinion on that matter. On the one hand, I feel that we are to “subdue the earth and have dominion over it,” but on the other we are clearly to be responsible stewards over the earth as well. How to execute that stewardship is, in all but the most extreme real-world situations, anything but obvious.
I think that the closure was, at least in part, motivated by the first world’s drive to have the grittier aspects of life hidden, to have the slaughter houses and manufacturing plants somewhere where the citizenry can’t smell the blood and ozone. While I do not agree with this qua philosopher, qua citizen I find the urge quite compelling—frankly, I am glad the air in Utah valley is as clear as it is today rather than the more opaque status it held in yesteryear. All of which is a round about way of saying I can see it both ways. As with any question truly worth asking, the answer is larger than we can fully understand.
There is a deep and silent horror in these photographs. We are now almost entirely dependent on foreign nations to produce our steel.
I think it was really progress, if you look at it on the brighter side, in the future there might be development of green industries
The closing of the mill is evidence of great loss to both the Utah Valley and the nation. The exporting of jobs to other countries is killing our own country's strength and well-being. It gives power to the countries that are making the steel and other products.At any time they can cut off supply and that would be disastrous to our economy.
Where did all of the scrap metal go? What is the effect on our land and on our waters?
I love the lighting it really brings in the mood, of the experience. Jared
I think progress would be reduction of pollution emissions in Utah Valley. I also think the loss would be a loss of jobs.
anonymous said...
I think it was a lose because if the plant would have stayed open it would have made more jobs and made the cost of steel not go as high as it is now and if it did stay open it would be doing very well
I think it was a huge loss, I hate to see American jobs go over seas. And if you think about it, the pollution is still going on, its just somewhere else like China, where we can not regulate it. So I think it's a loss either way you look at it.
American unions may have played a role in making us vulnerable to foreign labor also.
Ryan,
Salem Oregon
USA
Clearly, the answer is both. As with any change, things are both lost and gained. Only time will tell which direction the closing of Geneva Steel will take us.
I think that it shows a little bit of both. It is a loss in the fact that many people worked there and have made many memories there. It is a progress in the sense that other materials are being developed that are more in demand. I personally hope that more good will come from the closing of the plant than bad since there is no going back on the fact that it's gone now.
Post a Comment