The hypocrisy in condemning a national park graffiti artist

10
1855

Last month, graffiti artist Casey Nocket was caught by federal officials after painting on rocks in several national parks across the United States. Although popular opinion and the law suggest that Nocket is an awful person for having destroyed the natural beauty of these sacred national parks, I say that these parks are anything but natural because they are pristine,  perfect, and require preservation.

Annually, hoards of tourists from across the globe take planes, cars, and mobile homes to vacation in national parks. Before arriving, they stock up on essentials at Costco, Walmart, or some other supermarket. To make the most of their trip, they purchase camping equipment, gas, stoves, shoes, clothes, communication technology, and more. After they arrive, they visit designated spaces for camping, parking, swimming and eating. Days are spent hiking on pre-planned routes with man-made bridges and stairs.

When you look at national parks from this perspective, they don’t seem so natural anymore, but are in fact, a reflection of a society based on domination, hierarchy, and consumption. These parks are so artificial that we don’t even allow them to extend their borders to grow naturally.

Even wildlife population is controlled — like everything else, national parks are planned spaces that support big businesses and serve as vacation getaways. These parks become playgrounds for the global elite; the experience of nature becomes a commodity and a privilege.

We must ask the broader questions about nature and real environmental concern.

In such a controlled space, it’s ironic that when a person places his or her artwork (a natural human phenomenon) on a rock, society then silences this person. It’s easy to direct the blame and frustration we feel about the environment toward a single person who has defaced something we have been cultured to hold sacred. Although this feels right, we must ask the broader questions about what nature and  real environmental concern are. Nature is not only in these national parks, but everywhere.

It’s hypocritical to be angry at a woman who paints on a rock while we live in a society that is detrimental to the entire world. Almost every square inch of this earth is accounted for by someone or something; domination has plotted its territory across the globe.

More people should reconsider whether or not Nocket deserves punishment, especially in light of global events like the Mount Polley mining disaster, Fukishima, and the BP oil spill which lasted for 87 days. These events were true acts of environmental degradation. In combination with the amount of fossil fuels burned and the garbage we throw into landfills daily, one person who draws on a rock is insignificant.

Real environmental concern is a difficult issue to tackle. To criticize a person for painting on a rock is easy and feels good, but the real criticisms lie in pointing blame at ourselves, the corporations we support, and the economic system that plunders our daily lives.

10 COMMENTS

  1. Simple solution for graffiti artists. Simply tattoo the same graffitti on the graffiti artist’s face. Then they can walk around “defaced” just like the place where they put their handiwork.

  2. I think the environmental havoc wreaked by humans, is precisely the reason people are so upset with Casey “Knothead” Nocket tagging in national parks. We like to think at least a few places on this earth are being kept in a relatively pristine state, and not degraded by acts of man.

  3. Pretend iconoclasm is very trendy, but in many cases labels you a fool. Like this article.

    As someone who spends weeks every year backpacking in places the author doesn’t even know exists, if I see someone altering the landscape, they pay. Much of the equipment I take with me (yes, some of it even purchased from WalMart!) is there specifically so that I DON’T make a mark.

    I agree that we should punish corporations harshly for environmental disasters, and work much, MUCH harder to prevent them. But our shared neglect in that area doesn’t free the individual from responsibility. It’s like saying, “Who cares if your sister got murdered – don’t you know there are WARS going on?”

  4. Who says that those who angry at this woman, aren’t angrier at the greedy corporations. I think if she wasn’t young and blond, you wouldn’t be defending her.

  5. I want to keep this topic in the news – so I am going to post here to bring back onto the search engines. As to your opinion, be glad you live in a country that allows you to express it. Nocket, wasn’t stopped from her actions, but she is being held accountable – free speech applies does not mean you are free from consequence – just as you cannot yell fire in a theatre and claim free speech protects you from the consequence of the stampeded you initiate.

    She got what she wanted – recognition, notoriety and many to have an awareness of her existence. Now for the consequence of how it is she decided to become recognized.

  6. “Almost every square inch of this earth is accounted for by someone or something; domination has plotted its territory across the globe.” ….what? Can you please clarify this statement. It doesn’t make sense to me as there are, in fact, literally hundreds of square miles that have yet to be discovered/charted in this modern era. And what are these ‘somethings’ that are accounting for the square inches that haven’t been accounted for by the someones?

  7. “I say that these parks are anything but natural because they are pristine, perfect, and require preservation”

    You contradict yourself in one sentence because you don’t understand what the word “natural” means.

    Natural essentially means to be untouched by humans, or how you put it: pristine. That is the whole point of national parks: to preserve (look that up as well before you go and write another stupid article) the land so that humans don’t destroy it.

    Of course there are problems on this planet, and we work to fix these problems but are met half way by uneducated people, such as yourself, who don’t even know the first thing about logic or reasons for regulation so that people don’t continue to do stupid things like persuade people to imagine that punishing people for not following the rules is absurd.

    Are the people that let you publish this stupid article as dense or more dense than you?

    • Once we start to preserve, it stops being nature. It becomes a museum, not allowed to change. Monitored and managed. Surrounded by fences. Controlled by breeding programs, tree planting programs and erosion protection programs. Artificial and fake. Sad and empty. We sacrifice what little nature we have left and make it a museum to remember all the nature we’ve lost. Now we don’t have any nature left. Only museums. Great! I think Pascal understands the meaning of nature much better than most people do…

Leave a Reply