Aesthetics Exploration – Post 1 Dirt Theory

The paper Dirt Theory and Material Ecocriticism [1] by Heather I. Sullivan “speaks for dirty aesthetics. Although aesthetic landscapes readily inspire environmental thinking, a case can be made for grappling with the truly local dirty matter right at hand. Dirt, soil, earth, and dust surround us at all scales: we find them on our shoes, bodies, and computer screens, in fields and forests, and floating in the air. They are the stuff of geological structures, of the rocky Earth itself, and are mobile like our bodies.”

This essay supports the importance of “dirty aesthetics” and postulates “dirt theory” as a perspective for addressing environmental thinking in terms of much-missed presence and importance of dirt, soil, and dust in everyday life, rather than idealizing a “pure” and “clean” nature by promoting knowledge about the interactive inter-relationship between humankind and the Earth in a manner that puts dirt as part of the vibrant ecological processes. Being an aggregate of organic and inorganic matter, dirt transitions from microscopic organisms in soil to industrial pollutants; hence, in this sense, it sustains life and at times harms.

The essay critiques “green thinking” for its failure to take into account the less glamorous aspects of the environment and warns against perpetuating a false dichotomy between pristine nature and polluted human spaces. In embracing dirt’s material and symbolic roles, it challenges the idea of nature as separate from humanity and promotes a grounded understanding of our planetary interdependence.

Ultimately, the theory of dirt is a bridge of scientific knowledge to cultural interpretation in fostering a holistic view of the environment that reconciles reverence for nature with practical ecological insight.

This essay supports the importance of “dirty aesthetics” and postulates “dirt theory” as a perspective for addressing environmental thinking in terms of much-missed presence and importance of dirt, soil, and dust in everyday life, rather than idealizing a “pure” and “clean” nature by promoting knowledge about the interactive inter-relationship between humankind and the Earth in a manner that puts dirt as part of the vibrant ecological processes. Being an aggregate of organic and inorganic matter, dirt transitions from microscopic organisms in soil to industrial pollutants; hence, in this sense, it sustains life and at times harms.

The essay critiques “green thinking” for its failure to take into account the less glamorous aspects of the environment and warns against perpetuating a false dichotomy between pristine nature and polluted human spaces. In embracing dirt’s material and symbolic roles, it challenges the idea of nature as separate from humanity and promotes a grounded understanding of our planetary interdependence, although I am not bringing importance to the space technological side of this.

Scientific and other studies, books, and culture narratives all purport the dual functionality of dirt by being a fostering and a destructive tool. It considers such soil quality factors in the civilization rise and fall and explains how the utilization of soil reflects to depend on larger ecological functions. For example Karen Duve’s Taxi book explains the strong presence of dirt in urban activities with symbolic implications.

Ultimately, the theory of dirt is a bridge of scientific knowledge to cultural interpretation in fostering a holistic view of the environment that reconciles reverence for nature with practical ecological insight. At the center of such an understanding is a recognition of our need to work in our enmeshment with dirt.

Now this is the only kind of document I found that kind went into a dirty aesthetic, however I don’t believe it was Ms. Sullivan who created it, but rather one of few who seemed to incapsulate the idea. Dirt has been around far before the earth and will likely be there far after. Nobody has dictated that dirt is cool, but rather humans and all forms of life have an attraction to it. In recent times there has been more glorification towards green nature and that sort of life rather than the ground from which it stems so that is why I thought it could be a fun aesthetic to explore.

It seems that the “dirt aesthetic” stems from dirt theory which was first brought up in the 1966 book Purity and Danger [3]. I have not read this book, but it seems to use dirt more for the symbolism than the physical thing itself. Since this book I think people have definitely more connected themselves with the outdoors and getting down and dirty. What comes to mind initially is early rock climbers in the 60s and 70s who would just live in the woods minimally and just climb and re-embrace themselves with nature. I find this different to the nature of green trees and plants, but more so the ruggedness and earthly feel of things like rock and dirt. 

 

These kind of images is what I am hoping to incapsulate in my project. Some sort of method of combing the use of dirt and the rawness of it with both the recycled use of some sort of material. Pictured below is something that I am interested in doing.

 

[1] Sullivan, H.I. (2012). Dirt theory and material ecocriticism. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and the Environment, 19(3), 515-531. doi:10.1093/isle/iss067

[2] https://everlastingfabric.com/blogs/ever-lasting-blog/bringing-nature-indoors-revamp-your-bedroom-with-the-earthy-aesthetic

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_and_Danger#:~:text=The%20line%20of%20inquiry%20in,but%20did%20not%20chew%20cud.

[4] https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fall-aesthetic-muddy-puddle-good-backgrounds-1188190303

[5] https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/lots-pill-bugs-moving-on-wet-2019668054

[6] https://www.venusjasper.earth/dripstone/to-live-and-die-with-soil

[7] https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/types/houseplants/bottle-gardens-and-terrariums