WHY CO-CREATIONS?

Bending the Curve is the latest in a series of exhibitions (Trees of Life – Stories for a Damaged Planet 2019/2020, The Intelligence of Plants 2021/2022) in which the Frankfurt Kunstverein collaborates with international natural science research institutes and contemporary artists to systematically examine various aspects around the issue of socio-ecological transformation and the changing relationship between humans and nature.

This exhibition arises from the realization that global biodiversity has been declining at an alarming rate for decades. To halt or reverse this downward trend, it is essential to know what can be done, but even more crucial to engage in effective action. Katrin Böhning-Gaese offers a succinct summary of the complexity of the crises: “Climate change determines how we live, species extinction determines whether we survive in the future.” Bending the Curve is born out of hope and conviction to advocate publicly for a still possible transformation.

Katrin Böhning-Gaese and I have remained in continuous dialogue since the exhibition Trees of Life, our first collaboration with the Senckenberg Society for Nature Research. We share a deeply felt urgency to not let up, to inspire people to commit to the preservation of the beauty and diversity of life on this planet; each through their competence and their networks. Therefore, we decided to tackle this exhibition together and embark on this path with numerous artists, scientists and developers of transformative approaches.

Katrin Böhning-Gaese’s perspective is that of a profound connoisseur of biodiversity connections. In addition to her work as a scientist and as director of the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Center and as the recipient of the German Environmental Award in 2021, also her involvement as an expert in political advisory bodies and international forums make her an expert in the fight for the preservation of biodiversity.

The Frankfurt Kunstverein sees itself as a cultural forum at the heart of society where artists and experts from various fields can exchange ideas with different civil society actors, leading to a public discourse and challenging political action using the means of art and visual thinking.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ART AND SCIENCE

For years, the curatorial work of the Frankfurt Kunstverein has stood for exhibitions that recognize the visions of science and art equally. From the perspective of both, major social themes are consistently examined and questioned in depth.

Science is a system for observing and categorizing causal relationships and regularities. It is methodical and process-based and subject to rules to make these insights comprehensible. Science can analyse the past but also develop outlooks. It creates models based on existing evidence, data and information. Bending the Curve is the result of extensive information that spans future scenarios. Here, scientists introduce existing knowledge into public discourse so that social and political action can be discussed in a different way, topically, time and again, and aligned accordingly.

Art also generates knowledge. A knowledge that expands the realm of information and factuality to include the experience of feeling. In this way, art develops transformative power: for individuals, as contemplation and, therefore, as a private act; and, beyond that, for communities, as a symbol. Art can examine reality with entirely independent methods and represent reality in an unfamiliar and different way. It creates images and narratives that can subversively alter the world of human imagination.

Thinkers and scientists such as Donna Haraway, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, Frédéric Lenoir, Stefano Mancuso, Andreas Weber and many others convey to us that this transformation does not happen through intellect, through knowledge of macroecological aspects or modelling alone. They tell stories of individuals, of individual beings they observe and get to know. They speak of connections between species and forms of communication. It is possible to read in them a kind of ode to love for all living things and the realization that life is so terribly fragile, so terribly ephemeral and so terribly unique. Not everyone is able to view fellow beings with empathy. I am convinced that the ability to empathize with and respect all living things is part of the transformation, and a so-called Deep Leverage Point. When we exert control over other beings and disregard their right to life, this leads to questions of ethics and responsibility. And this also leads to questions of power structures. The arts already make a significant contribution to this awareness.

A work becomes art when the artistic investigation is more than an objective statement, and at the same time, refers to more than subjective experience.

The exhibition Bending the Curve does not intend to perpetuate the swan song of the planet through dystopian narratives but instead follows the voices of art and science that show concrete ways in which each individual, as well as companies, political actors and society as a whole, can pursue the restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity.

KNOWING, ACTING, CARING FOR BIODIVERSITY

First, some thoughts on the subtitle of the Bending the Curve exhibition, which we chose over the course of two years of research as a programmatic statement: Knowing, Acting, Caring for Biodiversity. It became an essential prism for the curatorial work that determined the underlying stance and selection of exhibits. The works of the invited artists represent more than mere symbolic references. We made the selection to present exemplary projects and initiatives that have actively committed to socio-ecological transformation.

After all, people around the planet have set forth to become part of the change. Most exhibits in Bending the Curve were created with the attitude and idea of co-creation: with other people, but also with non-human beings. The invited artists seek ways to overcome the exploitation of planetary materials and beings. They cooperate with them, know their characteristics and behaviours, and engage in dialogue with them. They pursue changed, paradigmatic perspectives by attributing “agency”, or the power to act, to non-human life forms and acknowledging them. In doing so, they chart a new path to place humans as part of a whole, where fellow beings are no longer seen hierarchically (or less so). The artists and scientists are part of the rooting of this new, and at the same time old, thought substrate. Their works and methods indicate what changed action and prioritization of values can look and feel like. They bear witness to knowledge, action and a deep care for, and taking care of the departure from human anthropocentrism towards the idea of transformative naturecultures (Donna Haraway, 2008).

Short-term thinking, thinking in terms of government and electoral cycles, maximizing growth and annual financial statements and the exploitation of communities and landscapes, have come under great pressure. There is a battle of worldviews underway, where global communities are demanding thinking and action that is socially and ecologically just and intergenerational. The consequences of the climate crisis and species extinction will affect everyone equally; humans, animals, plants and entire ecosystems, regardless of political or cultural affiliation. And here we are all called upon, as civil society and as the human species, to engage in our immediate environment in transformed, more conscious and responsible action.

Will we achieve this goal together? What does it mean to break with the familiar and reinvent it? How does change work, what does it look like?

What we have experienced in the many months of research, countless conversations and encounters with artists, researchers, scientists, new material designers and social scientists is that a fundamental transformation towards changed action is indeed already underway. New knowledge is developing in countless places, giving rise to initiatives, laboratories, studios and cooperatives, as well as international research projects and startups.

BENDING THE CURVE – FURTHER POSITIVE APPROACHES TO FEASIBILITY

The title of the exhibition pays tribute to the concept of Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss. The conservation biologist Georgina Mace coined this phrase in her eponymous text in Nature Sustainability in 2018. Building on this work, David Leclère and an international network of roughly 60 scientists and 46 institutions have developed the first comprehensive models of different future scenarios. We were able to enlist Leclère for collaboration and thus open up another resonance space in the cultural world for this crucial endeavour. In his text contribution, he presents the work and goals of the Bending the Curve initiative.

The proposed courses of action of the Bending the Curve initiative are voices from the natural sciences calling for change directed at civil society, politics and the economy. As accompaniment to socio-ecological transformation, an international, interdisciplinary debate with countless positions, focusing on the necessity of a great mindshift is taking place in the social sciences. At issue are beliefs and orientation patterns that locate societies and individuals in the world and lead to changed practices. Publications such as Uwe Schneidewind’s Die Große Transformation: Eine Einführung in die Kunst gesellschaftlichen Wandels (2018, The Great Transformation: An Introduction to the Art of Social Change), Maja Göpel’s The Great Mindshift: How a New Economic Paradigm and Sustainability Transformations go Hand in Hand (2016), Paul Hawken’s Regeneration: Ending the Climate Crisis in One Generation (2021) and Karen O’Brian’s You matter more than you think: Quantum Social Change for a Thriving World (2021) are just a few that show a positive habitus of feasibility already in their titles.

SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

Often overlooked in natural science and economic contexts is that socio-ecological transformations must also be accompanied by cultural transformations, not just material ones. What are always negotiated together with the demand for a more responsible use of natural resources and fellow beings are possible models of economic systems. Naomi Klein’s publication This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate from 2015 can be mentioned as one representative example here. Debates on sufficiency and post-materialism, however, exclude those who do not belong to the affluent classes and world regions and therefore cannot afford to continue to abstain. Calls for renouncing growth must be made with a view to solidarity and include different perspectives.

Under pressure is the hierarchical imbalance, the exercise of power, and thus the use, the objectification of disenfranchised beings. At issue is a new relationship, more of a collaboration and coexistence of humans with other humans and also non-human beings and between different systems. Power relations, class structures and shifts in outdated hegemonies between the global North and South demand new interpretations of history. There is a struggle for narratives that reflect the respective location of a society and its historical experience. A change in relationships is required. “Care”, “ “healing”, reciprocity” and “repair” are but a few terms for a changed attitude.

Change arises from historical examination and manifests itself as a collective demand for care, healing processes, equality and solidarity. It affects cultures and communities that in the past have suffered from colonial injustice, violent conflicts, cultural theft, displacement and oppression. And it affects the exploitation of landscapes that were once places of significance and cultural identity for the people living there.

CHANGED PERSPECTIVES AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE

How do we break with the duality of “culture vs. nature”, with enlightenment, and attempt new ways of being in the world? Can old and sometimes lost knowledge be revived? Can economics be practised beyond industrial utilisation and capitalist exploitation? The promise lies in connecting old and new knowledge and applying it in adapted form to the specificity of each place and context – a form of knowledge that arises from its situational anchoring: situated knowledge (Donna Haraway). This idea fundamentally questions the notion of knowledge as an objective, universally valid and neutral reality. Knowledge is thus understood as a dynamic quantity, not as an absolute reality. It emerges through individuals and groups at a particular historical moment, in a specific place, with a specific experience.

The economist and social scientist Enrique Leff defines the environmental crisis as a consequence of the crisis of Western thinking. To break the dominance of prevailing knowledge views and to promote a knowledge dialogue, an engagement with different cultures is necessary. This includes not only different languages and cultures but also different ideas and definitions of human communities, nature and the corresponding mutual dependence.

Increasingly, indigenous, non-Western conceptions of nature are being conveyed, actively remembered or newly discovered. They are being recognized and are expanding scientific designs in biodiversity research. There are not only two basic types of concepts of nature (scientific or mythological), but a heterogeneous variety. Many artists and scientists are participating in this fundamental shift. Robin Wall Kimmerer, Dr. Teresa Ryan, Dr. Max Liboiron and Elizabeth A. Povinelli with the Karrabing Film Collective – to name just a few –  represent changed principles that practise a reconnection of local knowledge with natural sciences in different cultural contexts. Data, information and quantifying factual knowledge are increasingly supplemented by the dimension of emotion to include an existential experience of connectedness.

Examples can also be found in agriculture. Faced with climate change, soil erosion and water scarcity, agriculture faces enormous challenges on a global scale. In addition to more sustainable bio-economies, numerous projects have emerged that use traditional methods such as agroforestry and permaculture as viable paths for future-oriented action.

If reality is a cultural construct based on an imagined relationship between a subject and its counterpart in the world, we are currently faced with the challenge of once again redefining ourselves.

What we are experiencing today is the struggle for new collective narratives. Transformation can also be seen as an opportunity. Along with knowledge and accountability, responsibility and a sense of justice are skills of the future. Solidarity and empathy, curiosity and encounter. Perhaps they come together in the idea of care. Care can arise from fear of the consequences of a major threat and motivate us to accept responsibility. It has the power to generate meaning and (re-)establish a bond with what is paramount.

Franziska Nori, Director Frankfurt Kunstverein

Franziska Nori and I met at a workshop on the New Senckenberg Natural History Museum in early 2019. Franziska deeply impressed me with her speech. She said “art can open up new perspectives” and ideally “creates ‘sublime moments’ that have transformative character”. Since then, we have maintained close communication, especially regarding the exhibition “Trees of Life”, developed in collaboration with Senckenberg nature museum, and the exhibition “The Intelligence of Plants”. Why do we collaborate? Why do I, as a biodiversity researcher, find it exciting and meaningful to collaborate with the director of an art institution? And what role do “sublime moments” play?

Biodiversity on our planet is under dramatic threat. In the first Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), published in 2019, it was scientifically established that of the approximately 8 million species on Earth, 1 million species are threatened with extinction. There is a particularly high level of endangerment with over 60 percent of palm fern species, 40 percent of amphibian species (such as frogs, toads and salamanders), and almost 40 percent of coral species. Furthermore, the populations of many species are declining dramatically. The Living Planet Index, which reflects species’ abundance, shows a decline of over 60 percent over a 50-year period. In Germany and Europe, we observe declines primarily in species of agricultural landscapes, i.e. fields, meadows and pastures, with a nearly 60 percent decrease in bird species over a 37-year period.

In addition to species, also natural ecosystems are disappearing and being converted into human-used and often degraded ecosystems. Half of all ecosystems have already been significantly altered. In the last 30 years, the extent of natural forests has decreased by an area equivalent to twelve times the size of the Federal Republic of Germany. In Germany, only 4 percent of previously extensive peatlands remain as conservation areas.

Changes in biodiversity have consequences for nature’s contributions to people. Biodiversity is the foundation of human life: almost everything we humans use is made available through biodiversity. Material contributions from nature include air to breathe, clean drinking water, food, building materials, energy, fibres and medicines. Regulatory contributions include pollination, seed dispersal, natural forest regeneration, climate regulation and the formation of fertile soils. Finally, biodiversity provides a wide range of non-material contributions: beauty, relaxation, recreation and mental health, spirituality, home and identity. The loss of biodiversity also affects the contributions of nature. According to scientific consensus (IPBES Global Assessment Report 2019), all but three of the 27 subcategories of nature’s contributions are declining; the only contributions increasing are areas for food and animal feed cultivation, energy crops (e.g. oil palm) and materials (e.g. cotton). Ecosystems are clearly managed for short-term human productivity.

What are the causes of biodiversity loss? There are five major direct drivers, the so-called “Big Five” of biodiversity loss. First is land use, primarily agriculture. Agricultural land is currently being massively expanded, especially in tropical countries, leading to the destruction of natural ecosystems such as forests, savannas, grasslands and wetlands. In Germany and Europe, the decline of species in agricultural landscapes is mainly due to intensive agricultural practices, including high use of fertilizers and pesticides, large-scale monocultures and the disappearance of hedges, trees, streams and fallow land. Second is the exploitation of species, mainly affecting the oceans; over 35 percent of commercially exploited fish stocks are currently overfished. In addition, climate change, pollution and the introduction of non-native, so-called “exotic” species are significant drivers.

However, behind these direct drivers are indirect or deep drivers that cause changes in land use and species exploitation. These include demographic and socio-cultural changes, such as population growth, increasing per capita consumption of natural resources and a shift toward a more meat-based diet. Other factors include economic and technological changes, changes in institutions and governance, conflicts and epidemics. These factors include increasing prosperity and the institutional and technological capabilities for global supply chains.

From a scientific perspective, it is clear that the loss of biodiversity and its contributions to humanity are already affecting the health, wealth and well-being of many people today. With further declines in biodiversity and its contributions to people, an even larger population is at risk. But what can we do to initiate a turnaround, to halt further biodiversity loss, and ideally, promote biodiversity again?

At the forefront of measures are international agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, established at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and subsequently signed by 196 nations. At the 15th Conference of the Parties in Montreal at the end of 2022, known as the World Biodiversity Summit, new targets were agreed upon. These include the goal to effectively protect 30 percent of land and marine areas by 2030, restore 30 percent of degraded land and marine areas by 2030 and promote sustainable land and forest management and fisheries. The great strength of these agreements is that they are international agreements that nearly all countries on earth have agreed to. Unfortunately, there are no legal instruments to enforce these goals: The International Court of Justice does not address these issues, and there is no world police force. Nevertheless, all countries on earth have a moral obligation to implement these goals, and it is the responsibility of civil society and the media to demand their enforcement.

International science-policy interfaces also play a central role in biodiversity conservation. The relevant international interface between science and policy for biodiversity is the aforementioned IPBES. It is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established many years ago for the topic of climate. The IPBES assesses the state of knowledge and action options for individual world regions and also globally. A key finding of previous reports is that the protection and promotion of biodiversity cannot be achieved through isolated measures. This means that the establishment of protected areas or the reduced use of pesticides, while good and necessary measures, will not be sufficient to preserve biodiversity. Instead, a socio-ecological transformation is demanded, defined as a fundamental system-wide transformation of society as a whole, including politics, law, economy, science and civil society (IPBES Global Assessment Report 2019).

In addition, there are thousands of scientific publications that have examined the impact of humans on biodiversity and the consequences for ecosystems and people. Biodiversity models play a particularly important role in these publications. These models work similarly to the more well-known climate models: they are parameterized and validated with existing data and established relationships, then used to create alternative future scenarios. These scenarios offer alternative futures that predict a positive development, stabilization or further decline of biodiversity depending on the measures taken. A particularly comprehensive and ambitious study by David Leclère and co-authors from 2020 concludes that with a package of three sets of measures, we can stop the decline of biodiversity by 2030 and achieve an increase in biodiversity by 2050. The packages of measures are: 1. large, well-managed protected areas plus ecosystem restoration, 2. productive but sustainable agriculture and forestry, and more trade, and 3. changes in our consumption and dietary behaviour toward less food waste and, for countries like Germany, a more plant-based diet. This study shows, an increase in biodiversity is possible! This is very positive news. We need positive images and stories for the future.

When addressing changes and measures, it is helpful to distinguish between shallow and deep leverage points in the system (Meadows 1999, Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System). Shallow leverage points address parameters, such as the toxicity of pesticides. Deep leverage points address thought patterns and paradigms on which the system is based. Measures taken to protect biodiversity have so far focused more on shallow leverage points, such as establishing protected areas. Measures targeting deep leverage points, on the other hand, are very rarely applied. Admittedly, these deep leverage points are very difficult to access. Nevertheless, approaches to deep leverage points, thought patterns and paradigms have enormous potential to bring about truly deep and sustainable, long-term changes toward better human-nature relationships.

This is where art comes in (among other things). The experience of “sublime moments” can shake a person’s thought patterns so deeply that it can create a willingness to fundamentally question and perhaps even change their own attitudes, preferences and behaviours. This is the reason (or at least one of the reasons) why I collaborate with Franziska Nori as a biodiversity researcher. Deep leverage points in a system are virtually inaccessible to natural scientists, but they may (perhaps) be reached through art.

However, initiating a turnaround in the conservation of biodiversity remains a huge challenge. The design of socio-ecological transformations is complex and complicated. The good news, however, is that everyone can contribute to the necessary transformations. To make the number of possible measures manageable and concrete, Friederike Bauer and I have developed a catalogue of ten measures in our book Vom Verschwinden der Arten: Der Kampf um die Zukunft der Menschheit  (Böhning-Gaese and Bauer 2023, Vom Verschwinden der Arten), which we consider to be the ten most effective based on our collective experience. Each measure addresses different sectors of society:

1. Protect 30 percent of the Earth, with 30 percent of that under strict protection by 2030 (politics and conservation). By 2030, at least 30 percent of the Earth’s surface should be effectively protected (not just on paper), up from the current 17 percent on land and 8 percent in the ocean; 30 percent of that, meaning 10 percent of the total area, should have minimal human intervention – as wilderness. These areas can then serve as arks of biodiversity for the future. …
2. Globally increase the share of organic farming to 25 percent by 2030 (politics and agriculture). Organic farming promotes biodiversity. Currently, it accounts for around 9 percent in Europe and only 1.5 percent worldwide. Expanding organic farming, both in Europe and in the global South, benefits the health of nature, crop plants and animals and therefore, human health.
3. Gradually reduce harmful subsidies for nature by at least $500 billion annually by 2030 (politics). Currently, exorbitant sums are spent on promoting fossil fuels, environmentally damaging agriculture and fisheries. These funds must be redirected to support biodiversity-friendly measures such as rewilding and organic farming, and to mitigate social hardships. …
4. Establish global reporting requirements for companies and the financial sector regarding their impact on biodiversity by 2030 (politics and businesses). Such reporting requirements make the negative (and positive) impact of the economy on nature visible and measurable. This is likely to lead to a change in business thinking, a redirection of investments and new business models. Because: There is no business on a dead planet.
5. Increase the share of Green Bonds financing conservation from the current 3 percent to 30 percent by 2030 (financial sector). Currently, Green Bonds primarily focus on climate protection, such as wind and solar power. While this is fundamentally important, we need more financial products that channel funds into the preservation of nature, biodiversity conservation or organic farming.
6. Radically reduce meat consumption to a maximum of 300 grams per person per week, with a maximum of 100 grams of red meat, preferably from pasture-raised animals (everyone). Currently, around 70 percent of arable land worldwide is used for animal feed, rather than directly serving human nutrition. Reducing meat consumption is a crucial step to free up land for biodiversity or human nutrition, even with further population growth. …
7. Minimize food waste as much as possible (everyone, restaurants, businesses). Europe alone wastes 173 kilograms of food per person per year, roughly half a kilogram per day. Minimizing this practice saves land for cultivation. It also helps discover the value of food, is enjoyable and is easy on the wallet.
8. Spend fifteen minutes a day or two hours a week engaging with nature (everyone). Greening the balcony, growing vegetables, taking walks in the park, going into the woods, discussing herbs with others, etc. This engagement helps develop or maintain a closer relationship with nature and a better understanding of its diverse values. You only protect what you love, and you only love what you know. Moreover, it promotes relaxation, well-being and demonstrable health benefits.
9. Green cities wherever possible; balconies, roofs, sidewalks, courtyards, etc. (municipal administrations, everyone). This benefits biodiversity, cools urban areas and enhances our health and well-being. Diversity is important here too: trees and shrubs with flowers and berries instead of thuja, meadows instead of lawns, deadwood instead of borders – and it can all look a little untidy.
10. Media, films, books, exhibitions and educational materials must seriously engage with nature, neither exaggerating nor ignoring it (journalists, educators and artists). The subject of nature must be integrated into the politics and economics sections of newspapers, not just relegated to the “Miscellaneous” or “Panorama” sections. It is about more than koalas, gorillas and tigers: it is about connections, ecosystems and nature as a foundation of existence. This requires engaging stories and images that reach people in various ways and remind us that every individual matters (Böhning-Gaese and Bauer 2023, Vom Verschwinden der Arten).

We can thus see that art has the potential to contribute to the necessary socio-ecological transformations; and maybe it even has a duty to do so?

Katrin Böhning-Gaese, Director Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre

Dog benches (pups), 2023
Weaven agave fibers, plywood structure
Each 67 x 40 x 45 cm

Totomoxtle, 2023
Polygonal multi-colored corn panels
12 m²

Agave Regeneration, 2019
Video
5:34 min

Totomoxtle – Biomaterial Made from Mexican Heirloom Corn Husks, 2019
Video
7:19 min

Courtesy Fernando Laposse

Fernando Laposse views art as a socio-ecological action. For Bending the Curve, the Mexican artist has conceptualized a room installation spanning over 140 square meters, in which the products of the indigenous Mixteco community are presented as exhibits in a staged landscape. Laposse founded a cooperative with them in the rural area of Tonahuixtla, where he combines local knowledge, ecological restoration, social community life, and sustainable economic practices. The artist revitalizes fallow areas, prevents soil erosion, and advocates for food sovereignty and the protection of cultural plant diversity and indigenous knowledge.

In this exhibition, Fernando Laposse focuses on two natural materials from Tonahuixtla: corn leaves and sisal fiber. These natural products are collectively produced, processed in the traditional manner in the cooperative, and transformed into contemporary artworks when placed in a museum context. The colorful Totomoxtle intarsia panels made from corn leaves are displayed on the wall. The Pink Hammock and the three sculptural dog benches (pups) are crafted from sisal fiber derived from agave plants. The two films, Agave Regeneration and Totomoxtle – Biomaterial Made from Mexican Heirloom Corn Husks, reveal the history of the artworks and the Tonahuixtla community.

Laposse began collaborating with the indigenous Mixteco community in Tonahuixtla in 2015. The rural village is located less than 50 kilometers from the world’s oldest archaeological site of maize domestication—a plant that has always played a central cultural and financial role in the community’s identity. The history of this place is marked by socio-ecological challenges that began in the 1990s with the introduction of hybrid maize seeds and the abandonment of traditional farming methods. This development led to a range of problems, including soil erosion, migration, unemployment, and the loss of agrobiodiversity and endemic plant species, especially maize.

Tonahuixtla is not alone in its history; it exemplifies the fate of countless rural communities in South Asia and Latin America affected by the spread of new agricultural systems. In Mexico, agricultural modernization began in the 1950s with a focus on increasing domestic demand. This led to the intensified use of high-yield but less resilient and adaptable industrial seeds that rely on expensive synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and machinery. In just a few years, Mexico lost 80% of its maize diversity. The consequences of these changes were particularly severe in Tonahuixtla, where the soils were severely depleted, and many residents became dependent on large corporations, leading them to emigrate to the United States to make a living.

Laposse, who had been visiting the Tonahuixtla community since childhood, returned there after studying art in London to find a village on the brink of extinction. To signal change and hope for the community, he initiated Totomoxtle: a socio-ecological artistic project aimed at reintroducing native maize varieties in collaboration with local families who had preserved traditional seed varieties for generations and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) seed bank in Texcoco, Mexico. In just four years, more than 50 people were employed, and six endangered maize varieties were reintroduced into local agriculture. Working together with the cooperative he founded, Laposse used the colorful leaves of criollo maize, usually agricultural waste, to create intarsia for furniture and interiors. The name of this new material, Totomoxtle, refers to the indigenous Nahuatl word for corn husks. It is veneer, 0.5 to 8 mm thick sheets, typically made from wood and, in this case, from maize farming remnants. After being cut from the plant, corn leaves retain their color and can be flattened or bent due to their fiber structure. The production of Totomoxtle created jobs locally and motivated the community to return to traditional farming practices. Craftsmanship became a driving force for socio-ecological transformation on a small scale.

In a second step, Laposse and the cooperative sought a solution to the severe problem of soil erosion, leading to the reintroduction of agave plants on a 120-hectare area. Up to 150,000 agaves were planted. Their roots can anchor to rocks, preventing soil erosion, storing water in dry soil, and strengthening ecosystem resilience. However, the use of agave plants in Tonahuixtla differs from their typical use in Mexico. Agaves are usually grown industrially to produce the national spirits Mezcal and Tequila. For this, the agave plants are cleared from the fields, and their leaves are left as waste, leading to insect infestations and potential soil harm from excess leaves. In Tonahuixtla, the agave plants are preserved. Only their leaves are harvested and ground to obtain sisal fibers, which are woven into textile sculptures. The three dog benches (pups) sculptures at the Frankfurter Kunstverein showcase the natural “blonde” color of sisal. In contrast, the Pink Hammock sculpture was dyed with a natural pigment. The red pigment cochineal is produced by a beetle that lives on cacti in Central America.

In Laposse’s reforestation project with agaves, the production of textiles from sisal becomes an act of care that distances itself from the conventional textile industry, which depletes natural resources faster than they can regenerate. Laposse’s communal practice goes beyond sustainability, regenerating ecosystems and communities to preserve local biocultural wealth for future generations. He demonstrates the regenerative power of art to address complex issues and shows how art can provoke not only aesthetic but also socio-ecological transformation. Laposse acts in favor of a financially independent community that operates in harmony with the local ecosystem. Landscape and people join up in Tonahuixtla in an ecologically oriented economic cycle, underscoring the importance of awareness and promoting change, not matter at what level it occurs.

The presentation of Fernando Laposse’s work in the exhibition Bending the Curve exemplifies a whole range of artists who use their art to advocate for the preservation of agrobiodiversity and a shift in agricultural practices through local solutions and research approaches. This includes artists like Vivien Sansour with the Palestine Heirloom Seed Library, Marwa Arsanios with her film trilogy Who is Afraid of Ideology?, Jumana Manna with her films Foragers and Wild Relatives, Nida Sinnokrot with the residency program Sakiya – Art/Science/Agriculture, as well as the artist duo Cooking Sections with their art research projects CLIMAVORE and Monoculture Meltdown.

BACKGROUND ON THE FOOD SYSTEM

The climate crisis confronts our food system—agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture—with new challenges, such as rising temperatures, wildfires, droughts and floods. What we eat, how much food costs, where land can be cultivated, and how much food people have access to are closely tied to biodiversity and increasingly extreme climate conditions. An essential part of biodiversity is genetic diversity, which allows species and populations to adapt to constantly changing environments. This also opened up a wide range of options of plants for people to use and grow.

The diversity of organisms living in our agricultural ecosystems is referred to as agrobiodiversity. This includes crop plants, livestock, microorganisms and wild plant species. It is largely a cultural heritage created by humans over centuries, making it a unique form of biodiversity. Agrobiodiversity encompasses not only agriculture and food but also history, tradition, identity, culture, geography, genetics, science and craftsmanship. As the genetic foundation for food and agricultural production, our future depends on it. Agricultural diversity enhances the overall resilience of our food systems, allowing for the breeding of more resistant plant varieties that can better withstand challenges like diseases, pests, changing environmental conditions and other threats. Due to global warming, increasingly harmful pathogens that destroy crops and wipe out entire plant species are spreading. However, today, agrobiodiversity is under significant threat, and so is their contribution to the future of human nutrition.

Like the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis is human-made. The most significant loss of agrobiodiversity began in the 1960s when scientists attempted to improve global food security by increasing the yields of wheat, rice and maize. To cultivate the additional food needed urgently, thousands of traditional varieties were replaced by a small number of new varieties (especially in maize and soybeans). These hybrids were bred using a mix of traditional and genetic engineering methods. The strategy that guaranteed this using new technologies—new seed varieties, more agrochemicals, increased irrigation—became known as the “Green Revolution”. This movement was supported by various organizations and scientists, including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, as well as agricultural scientists like Norman Borlaug. The Green Revolution spread worldwide, especially in South Asia and Latin America, and marked the beginning of modern industrial agriculture in countries of the Global South. The introduction of hybrid varieties was often associated with intensive use of agrochemicals – fertilisers and pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides). Just four agrochemical companies control 60% of the global seed market (and 75% of the pesticide market); these companies thus represent huge market power. The dependence on hybrid varieties, fertilisers and pesticides, and in the hands of a few corporations, has often left local communities of small farmers in financial difficulties, losing their resilience and traditional agricultural knowledge. While new practices and new scientific knowledge have alleviated acute hunger problems in many regions, biodiversity, local food systems, social justice and the health of soils, ecosystems and water bodies have taken a back seat. The Green Revolution spread worldwide, particularly in South Asia and Latin America, marking the beginning of modern industrial agriculture in countries of the Global South. The introduction of hybrid varieties sometimes intensified the use of agrochemicals—fertilizers and pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides). Only four agrochemical companies control 60% of the global seed market (and 75% of the pesticide market); these companies thus represent huge market power. Due to their reliance on hybrid varieties, fertilisers and pesticides and in the hand of a few corporations, local small-scale farming communities often faced financial difficulties, losing their resilience and traditional agricultural knowledge. While the new practices and scientific knowledge were able to alleviate acute hunger issues in many regions, in the long run they sidelined biological diversity, local food systems, social justice, and the health of soils, ecosystems and water bodies.

In response to the negative effects of globalization and industrialized agriculture, protest movements by farmers, agricultural laborers, and indigenous communities emerged in the 1990s, opposing industrialized global agriculture and prioritizing local solutions. They propagated the concept of food sovereignty, which challenged the dominant model of food security as a priority. Food sovereignty refers to the right of individuals and communities to have control over their own food systems, including how food is produced, distributed and consumed. The focus is on local and traditional knowledge and sustainable agricultural practices (agroecology).

Today, several plant species familiar to us from our daily lives are affected by the loss of agrobiodiversity. A well-known example is the story of bananas. Of the over 100 species of Musa paradisiaca (banana) that evolved through natural selection, the seedless Gros Michel was grown and spread worldwide. After Gros Michel plantations were nearly wiped out by a soil fungus, the industry turned to a fungus-resistant variety: the Cavendish banana. However, as a single variety, it is susceptible to new fungi and pathogens at any time. More and more plants that have been reduced to a few varieties are exposed to the dangers caused by climate change: popular examples include Hass avocados, Arabica coffee, cocoa, as well as apples and potatoes, and many more. But above all, plants on which global nutrition depends are at risk of losing their diversity: wheat, rice, and maize. With many farming systems optimised for high yields, people today have major challenges – yields and profits have been optimised in the short term, but in the long term the diversity, resilience and robustness of the farming system has been undermined.

However, there are good opportunities to improve the agricultural system again. In parallel with the Green Revolution, there have been efforts worldwide for decades to preserve species and variety diversity in gene or seed banks. Seed banks are a resource for maintaining at least part of the historically grown agrobiodiversity; with great potential for future food security. There, researchers can find populations and old varieties to breed more climate- or pest-resistant varieties that are better able to cope with current environmental changes, now and in the future. There are now approximately 1,700 seed banks worldwide that house collections of plant species, invaluable for scientific research, education, conservation, and the preservation of indigenous cultures.

The concept of gene banks has proven moderately successful in rescuing staple foods, but it has been much less successful for vegetables and fruits. And while storing seeds under carefully controlled conditions is not easy but feasible, many foods like coffee, apples, peaches and vanilla must be preserved as plants or trees, posing an even more complex and expensive challenge. One solution could be to bring diversity from seed banks back to the fields of farmers, where old varieties can once again become part of the diversity of varieties and further develop our agrobiodiversity.

In the future, we will need a variety of different approaches to have enough good, healthy food available. On the one hand, we need highly productive varieties grown in climatically favourable conditions on good soils, as in Ukraine; this plays an important role in global food security. On the other hand, we need to use local and indigenous knowledge, rediscover traditional varieties and develop them further. It is of great advantage to use techniques that mimic nature, that rely on varietal diversity, diverse crops and landscape diversity, as well as natural pest control. Applying traditional knowledge does not mean going back to the past; it means looking at the various food systems that people have preserved for millennia in harmony with nature and considering how these practices can best be applied and developed within local approaches in the modern 21st-century food system.

Fernando Laposse (*1988, Paris, FR) is a Mexican artist with a degree in product design from Central St. Martins in London (UK). Today, he resides and works between Mexico City (MX) and Tonahuixtla (MX), where he has been collaborating on social-ecological projects with the Mixtec community since 2015. The works created in collaboration with them have been exhibited in numerous international museums and festivals, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York (US), the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (UK), the Triennale di Milano (IT), the Cooper Hewitt Smithsonian Design Museum in New York (US), the World Economic Forum in Davos (CH), and the Dutch Design Week in Eindhoven (NL). He has been nominated for numerous international awards and won the Future Food Design Award 2017 from the Dutch Institute of Food and Design in Eindhoven (NL).

Sieh dir diesen Beitrag auf Instagram an

Ein Beitrag geteilt von Frankfurter Kunstverein (@frankfurterkunstverein)