Climate Change Sculptures

During the first semester of my Masters in Fine Art I created three individual sculptures which each comment on a certain element of the climate change issue.

Value vs Cost

Production vs Waste

Emissions vs Offsetting


Carbon Cost

‘Carbon Cost’ is an art piece which asks us to question the economy of carbon. While we are on the cusp of greatness or tragedy, we need every facet of life to question our moral obligation to our planet. We must decide whether it is right to choose a profit based life, allowing the success of one human to trump the success of humanity as a whole. What is the value of carbon? What is the cost of it?

Footprint of Production

‘Footprint of Production’ comments on the system which defines industrial waste. These 14,232 pieces of plastic were taken from an engineering factory, each piece has been punched out of a strip using what is essentially an enormous hole punch. This machine however remains true to its counterpart in that it is in no way automated through electronics, but operated purely by manual labour. This human element in the operation remains in the piece through the impurities of the disks. These impurities are the reason they are not recycled into further strips, but discarded into landfill as ‘industrial waste’. The raised element of the piece marks out the exact footprint of the machine used to produce the disks.

One Photograph or Five Trees

‘One Photograph or Five Trees’ conceptualises the principle of carbon offsetting. Whilst some artists utilise their practice to raise awareness of the issues relating to climate change, only few have thought about the ramifications these actions will take on their own contribution to carbon emissions. Do these artists use climate science to calculate their carbon footprint, then choose methods to offset this through other means? If so, would this action of producing carbon and then taking it away be of benefit? Instigating a negative contribution only to then engage in a positive one to counteract the first, are they not only balancing the seesaw? Why not skip the first step, and simply create the positive response alone, thus only adding to the better side of the issue?