9/14/10

TED lecture: Paul MacCready on nature vs. humans



Paul MacCready on nature vs. humans | Video on TED.com

Paul MacCready looks at a planet on which humans have utterly dominated nature, and talks about what we can do to preserve nature's balance.

"Now human related to animals: look at what I call the human portion -- humans and their livestock and pets -- versus the natural portion -- all the other wild animals-- these are vertebrates and all the birds, etc. in the land and air, not in the water. How does it balance? Well, certainly 10,000 years ago, the civilization's beginning, the human portion was less than one tenth of one percent. Let's look at it now. Humans, livestock and pets are now 97 percent of that integrated total mass on earth and all wild nature is three percent. We have won. The next generation doesn't even have to worry about this game -- it is over. And the biggest problem came the last 25 years: it went from 25 percent up to that 97 percent. And this really is a sobering picture in realizing we, humans, are in charge of life on earth, we're like the capricious Gods of old Greek myths, kind of playing with life, and not a great deal of wisdom injected into it. "

I thought it interesting how much domestication the human has actually performed. Its staggering when you see the growth charts. We, humans, are responsible for this huge shift. And we are responsible for the well being of the animals we've domesticated as well as being stewards of the natural world that we've capitalized on.





9/13/10

TED lecture: Tony Robbins

Tony Robbins asks why we do what we do | Video on TED.com

(maybe a cheesy, petty choice but thought it worked on some level)

Tony Robbins discusses the "invisible forces" that motivate everyone's actions. The 2 invisible forces at play are: 1) our state (physical and emotional) and 2) our model of the world/world view: the shaper of meaning, emotion and action. What is our motive for action? What is it that shapes us? Tony believes it is emotion that is the force of life. And the invisible force of internal drive, activated, is the most important thing in the world. Tony concludes that there are 6 human needs (not goals or desires) that are universal: 1) certainty, 2) uncertainty, 3) significance, 4) connection and love, 5) growth and 6) contribute beyond ourselves. We all have the same needs but are all driven by different ones. Robbins encourages the audience to explore their own web- the needs, the beliefs, the emotions that are controlling them. And also to understand and appreciate what drives other people.

I think that the universal human needs that Robbins lists can be used to explain why we seek out our relationships, be it friendship, romance, etc. I also think it helps to explain why people become pet keepers... why they seek out a relationship with an animal(s). The human-animal bond can offer certainty (pets can offer certainty that people can avoid pain and at least be comfortable with the pet), we need uncertainty (pets offer variety, surprise and spontaneity), significance (our pets can make us feel important, special and unique), connection and love (we want it. We can get it through intimacy, friendship, prayer, walking through nature, or even a pet), growth (we bond and grow with our pets over time. If we aren't growing or a relationship isn't growing, we feel like hell. We grow in order to give something of value) and finally, contributing beyond ourselves (its not about me, its about we. Contributing to our pets and the relationship we have with animals. i.e. walking your dog, brushing your cat, training your dog to be a therapy animal to others, volunteering at your local animal shelter, etc.)

How would you define the 2 invisible forces at play (1. physical/emotional state & 2. world view) in pet keepers?

What is it that drives people to be pet keepers?

6 quotes


Pet Cemetery

“Here then is a book that explores the cross-species relationship in all its ramifications. No longer are pets seen as one kind of thing and people as another, and no longer are pets studied in a vastly different way than people are studied. We belong together, our species and theirs. We should be viewed together. And in this book, we are.”

Beck, Alan and Aaron Katcher. Between Pets and People. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1996.

I chose this quote because it basically states what I want to accomplish with my art.

“The name of the animal is linked to the owner in the same way that a snapshot is. Jay Ruby, an anthropologist who studied the logic of home photography, noted that family photographs are rarely meaningful in themselves. Instead they are used as keys to family narratives: ‘That was when Uncle Tom visited us just before Vera got married, and we were eating on the terrace just after coming back from the wedding rehearsal,’ or ‘That’s Mother outside of the cathedral Amiens with the hat she got at the outdoor market that morning.’ The pet’s name and the home photograph are linked to us by specific associations, while human names are linked to us by general associations.”

Beck, Alan and Aaron Katcher. Between Pets and People. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1996.

I thought it was interesting that photography and the snapshot were referenced in a book on pet keeping.

“Surely the most important role our pets play in our lives is that they love us. No person is too old or ugly or poor or disabled to win the love of a pet- they love us uncritically and without reserve… Not surprisingly, many of us admit our pets into the most intimate areas of our lives. We are not in the least embarrassed when a dog sees us in the shower or overhears an argument. In this, a companion animal provides an intimacy that exceeds any we may experience with virtually any other human being, including our spouses and children; the intimacy is on a par with that of mother and newborn infant, or of our skins. A dear friend once expressed this feeling beautifully. Se had been resting on her couch with her dog, and as she looked into his eyes, it seemed to her that she and he could give each other transfusions if necessary, that their very blood must be compatible.”

Beck, Alan and Aaron Katcher. Between Pets and People. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1996.

The fact that a your pet could be your most intimate relationship is a startling statement at first but if you really think about it makes some sense. Even with our closest family members we usually aren’t comfortable revealing embarrassing things about ourselves but with our pets, it doesn’t even seem to phase us. Is it the only relationship that can truly be nonjudgmental?

“What I have discovered is that the history of pet keeping is an integral part of the history of everyday life in the United States. It is connected to changing ideas about human nature, emotional life, individual responsibility, and our society’s obligations to all kinds of dependent others, including people. Pet keeping is an important part of the history of childhood in America, and it speaks to evolving ideas about the proper roles of men and women and the historical characteristics of the modern American middle classes.”

Grier, Katherine C.. Pets In America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

There is a significant history to pet keeping, which is worth exploring. The changes in our attitudes and actions towards pets over the centuries do say something about our society. It does reveal a lot about our class, gender roles, community, industrial and commercial development, and capitalist/consumer society. It’s even a part of the story of government, public health, and philanthropy.

“ The psychologist Damon, states that in societies where the family has been
eroded by mobility, ‘friendship replaces kinship in establishing relations between persons based on positive feeling, trust and other non-tangible manifestations of
affection,’”
Serpell, James. In the Company of Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.

Perhaps we don’t stop and think about how mobility in our modern society affects us. But it makes sense that when mobility increases our kinship bonds decrease. But the need for close, trusting relationships is still present. Pets have been able to fill that void for many in an almost perfect way.

“The World Health Organization defines health as: ‘A state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’ To have a life worth living, you need to connect to those around you and contribute to their lives. This is where the Bond plays such a crucial role. At a time when psychology, sociology, and politics have sucked the spontaneity out of human relations, the simplicity of our affection with pets is a model for the smaller, intimate moments that really sustain us. Without those ties that bind—the bonds of love, friendship, responsibility, and dependence—we gradually begin to wither away. It is our bonds that keep us healthy . . .”

Becker, Marty. The Healing Power of Pets. New York: Hyperion, 2002.

This reiterates how important relationships are to our health.

9/12/10

Monday 9/13/10






Valerie Shaff

Artist Bio

Valerie Shaff was given her first camera when she was seven years old. Photography has since become her career. Her work has appeared in many popular publications such as the New Yorker, Paper, Good Housekeeping, and Martha Sterwart Living. Valerie is best known for her sepia toned portraits of dogs. Her 1998 collaboration with Roy Blount, Jr., If Only You Knew How Much I Smell You/True Portraits of Dogs was such a success that more have followed of puppies, barn yard animals and now, cats.

She is equally skilled at capturing the essence of other animals, places and people, too. Her work of Silent Pioneers - 13 Portraits of Gay Activists appeared in Out magazine. She describes herself as having a "romantic vision" and says she seeks "truth in both subjects and beauty." Her commercial clients include the Gap, Ralph Lauren, Vintage Press and Atlantic Records. She is the recipient of a Polaroid Corporation grant and her work is in the corporate collections of Polaroid and Colgate Palmolive.



"canine measure somewhere between ordered and free."
Blount Jr., Roy. I Am Puppy, Hear Me Yap. HarperCollins Publishers. New York, 2000.

"... people still keep dogs and cherish them, pet photographers run thriving businesses..., producing portraits which take their place within family iconography... In her (Shaff) remarkable series of studio portraits, we can glimpse the dedication of their owners..."
Williams, Val. New Natural History. National Museum of Photography, Film and Television. Bradford, England, 1999.

Editorial Reviews of : If Only You Knew How Much I Smell You: True Portraits of Dogs

Amazon.com Review:

Who hasn't put words into their mutt's mouth? From "yes, the chicken-flavored treats are my favorite," to "no, I'm not quite ready for my bath," all dog devotees are guilty as charged--although not all do it in such a hilarious and endearing manner as writer Roy Blount Jr. and photographer Valerie Shaff in If Only You Knew How Much I Smell You: True Portraits of Dogs. Blount, humorist and author of Be Sweet, brings us closer to "understanding the 'inner dog'" through his use of Doggerel, a uniquely Blount brand of verse with the "canine measure somewhere between ordered and free." The effect of this puppy poetry--when paired with Shaff's truly remarkable duotone photographs of mixed and pure breeds--is comic genius. A Boxer coyly stares into the camera wondering, "What does that mean, 'expensive shoe'? / I ate it because it smelled like you," while a chubby-tummied bulldog declares "Good stick. / Got a good stick. / A real / good / Stick. / Getting all the good / Out of this good / Stick / That's in / This / good / Stick." You'll never be able to resist this entertaining and affectionate look at our canine friends as "they ponder the confusions, certainties, pangs, and pleasures of a dog's life."

Review:

Man's best friend, but what exactly goes through a dog's mind when he looks at us? Photographer Valerie Shaff and American humourist Roy Blount Jr. have joined forces to produce a book every dog lover should have. From the pertinent to the poignant, the farcical to the fancy, terriers, hounds and everything in-between are impeccably captured on film and in word. In play or portrait, Shaff's snapshots capture the marvellous range of looks that can cross our canine friend's faces while Blount succinctly encapsulates the dogs mind from simple two liners to longer verse. A must for all dog fans, with humorous and in some cases hilarious slants on their emotions as seen by humans. And anyway, who can resist that longing look emanating from the book jacket? - Lucy Watson

Carrie Haddad Gallery

http://www.valerieshaff.com/

9/8/10

9/8/10 Thursday Blog




Are Animals People?
The disparity between experiments that suggest sophisticated cognition in animals and those that find hard limits to animal intelligence has created a debate over animal “personhood.”

Animal Intelligence

"Until a landmark paper [pdf] by Erich Jarvis and colleagues in 2005, the answer to this question had been a resounding yes! Look at a mammalian brain and you are struck by the multiple folds of the massive cerebral cortex. Bird brains, it was said, don’t have such a cortex. Hence, their cognitive capacity should be extremely limited. This, essentially, was the argument I had faced through three decades of work with Alex. He was not supposed to be able to name objects and categories, understand “bigger” and “smaller,” “same” and “different,” because his was a bird brain. But, of course, Alex did do such things. I knew that Alex was proving a profound truth: brains may look different, and there may be a spectrum of ability that is determined by anatomical details, but brains and intelligence are a universally shared trait in nature—the capacity varies, but the building blocks are the same." - Irene M. Pepperberg
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/20-think-animals-dont-think-like-us-think-again

Spain Gives Great Apes Legal Rights:

"On June 25 the Spanish Parliament’s environmental committee approved a resolution to grant legal rights to great apes, covering chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orang­utans. The resolution, expected to be enacted into law by June 2009, gives great apes the right to life and protects them from harmful research practices and exploitation for profit, such as use in films, commercials, and circuses." - Apoorva Mandavilli
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/064


So while many animals display remarkable cognitive abilities, there are clearly limits to what they can do. Does this mean they aren’t entitled to be considered “non-human persons?” Is it even appropriate to judge non-human animals in such anthropomorphic terms? Suppose we decide it’s wrong to keep an orca in captivity because of its intelligence. Then what about a slightly less-intelligent animal like a pig or a dog? Where do you draw the line? These questions are still up for debate.

How smart is man's best friend?


The Pooch IQ Kit: $49.99

This references the issues addressed in JeongMee Yoon's Zoo series which I posted on Monday. Is it wrong to keep them captives because of their intelligence? Is it wrong to keep animals in captivity period? Where do you draw the line?

9/6/10

Monday Blog 9/6






http://www.jeongmeeyoon.com/aw_zoo.htm

Zoo series

ARTIST STATEMENT:

Part 1:

Through photographing animals and enclosures in zoos I try to compare the social structure and classification of zoos to those of human's in this dreary society. Animals in zoos are rather surviving while they have forgotten their own animal instinct because they are kept in this apparatus which human devised for the educational purpose like botanical gardens, art museums, natural history museum, and libraries. Though men created various customs, institutions and ideologies for their ideal lives, it is ourselves that are restricted from the system we create. I see contemporaries who are under the fine network of state's subtle surveillance system adjusting themselves without notice when I watch these wild animals used-to-be. Now they are the animals that lost their animal instinct, animals have no control over their own lives, and animals living in the environment without knowing if they are in the real nature or in an artificial environment.

PART 2:

People made values, rules, systems, ideologies and so on, in order to live comfortably and to reach an ideal world. But those things restrained us from freely living, and aroused the excluding. Unfortunately they were increasingly aggravating the alienation. Many people are supposed to have experienced the inconsistent and unreasonable situations in the world. The animals in the Zoo are in the same conditions as us. They need to live a natural and unreserved life in nature. But we put them behind the bars, so that they lose their inherent haracters. I didn`t supposed they lived a true life. Just on that point I started the series of the zoological photos. In my early works, I revolved on the simple idea, but more I took the At last, I asked myself anew what on earth the Zoo is.

This question had me think about what the Zoo presented and hid, that is to say issues of visibility and invisibility. We can see the animals and confirm their names to which we are accustomed in the photos of illustrations of the fairly tails. At the Zoo, we recognize the similarity between the human and animals of discover the differences between them and us. And sometimes, we have a sense of our own superiority to them, even so being ignorant of it. The Zoo is like those of the House of trees and plants, Museums, galleries, Libraries and so forth at the role and the function. All of them belong to the institutions of reproducing the fixed ideologies of the established societies.

In the Zoo, some animals are locked in the cage and lose their inherence, others are under the care, because they are injured. All of them don`t have the power to change their situations, so that they are thrown in back of the bars and remains in the artificial space of the Zoo. And besides they don`t know that the artificial space of the Zoo is the fake circumstances. They remind me of the contemporaries who uncritically accept the present systems
and are increasingly insensible to the simulative life.

And I observed the mechanism that the spatial disposition of the Zoo arouses. The history of the Zoo says only sight could dominate and control the placement of the cages. By the way I recognize that the placement of the cages in the Zoo is homologous to that of the prison. This relation is closely associated with our society, Being blind to the fact that we are under the control of something or someone.

To embossing such ideas in the photos of the Zoo, I have tried to demonstrate the deserted Zoo and the wounded animals. I have maximized the artificial empty space of the cage or closed up the hurt animals, which remind me of the staggering contemporaries.

REVIEW: (see bold for influential ideas)

JeongMee Yoon's black and white photos have our gazes wandering somewhere in-between animals and their habitats which is zoo. The state of wandering is generally perceived as a psychological reaction to a certain kind of deficiency or absence. Different from ordinary zoos with extravaganzas of curious people in festive mood and cute tricks of animals, the zoo in Yoon's photos suggests such dreadful scenes as an empty cage shown through the iron bars, a cement floor soaked with animal blood, and some animals barely resting on the corner, which evokes dreary yet hollow sentiment.

The space called zoo suddenly struck as a representation of wearisome and eeriness. At the same time, the zoo as a tangible space to store animals begins to draw more attention than the animals themselves. Animals in the photos provoke a feeling of sadness and isolation rather than that of affection or intimacy; the photos of an elephant with one ivory broken, an one-eyed owl, a gorilla leaning head on the window, and stuffed animals with kitsch paintings on the background. The images in Yoon's photos have certain remoteness from what we generally believe about zoo and animals. You may find your naive belief become fractured and finally break down in pieces. Indeed, all the images tend to open up our stereotypical perception and teach us how to look at them in different perspectives by making a hole or crack onto our firm believes. Rather strange and even surreal images of the zoo give us a chill: Gazing into it for a moment, you might find it reminiscent of an empty stage or a cell in jail. Considering zoo as a specimen room of living creatures, doesn't it indeed explicate the human history of imprudent killing over animals and of constant subjugation and captivity? What Jeongmee Yoon ultimately attempts to suggest in the series of zoo photos would be the multi-faceted aspects of a space called zoo.

What really is the zoo for? Yoon's photo starts from this question. Her photos may seem like a critical view or a comment on zoo. Why have people created zoos at the first place? What are the functions, structures and the spatial layouts of the zoo like? It must hold strong similarity to fundamentals of human society, such as authority systems, isolations and controls, discriminations and exclusions, and captivities and disciplines. What do we actually expect from zoo? This question is not only applicable to a particular place like zoo, but the same yet very complex question can also be valid for our lives the origins and fundamentals of our so-called modern life. Also, it leads us to a somewhat self-reflective and existential state. What is human and what is animal? Is there a clear distinction between the two? Aren't we also a fragile creature raised and disciplined to be suitable for the human society? Then, would that be rational person or what? Would that be just a matter of social system? Is there anyone completely free from systems or institutions? I suddenly realized that I have gotten obsessed with different questions evoked while looking at Yoon's photos. This kind of obsession can be a bit overwhelming sometimes. But each time we see images, we ended up facing with complex yet inevitable questions.

As for small kids, zoo can be a place full of fun and excitement. In the past, school excursions or children's day used to be the rare occasions to visit zoo. We had so much fun watching animals back then.

Why do we relate zoos with festivals or special events? Human-beings indeed have long history of celebrating rituals in conjunction with shooting and hunting. It certainly has something to do with animals: People circled around the hunted animals and enjoyed dancing, and they even made stone inscriptions with animal images wishing for further luck in hunting. They say that the Chinese character beauty took the image from a lamb offered in sacrifice, which reflects nomadic culture and life where lamb had been the most important food source. Since then, human have learned to fight with animals and cultivate them in order to establish and maintain their own society and culture. With beginning of modern society, human science and technology facilitated the precise capture and butchery of animals. Furthermore, people categorized animals in coherent order for thorough control and management, which resulted in pictorial books, encyclopedia, specimen collections, and biology studies. And the zoo is the essential representation of all the history between human and animals. The zoos are the outcome of modern age. The underlying purpose of zoo and the time of its establishment coincide with other institutions as museums, libraries, and botanical gardens. The emergence of modern capitalism in 19th century and accordingly emerged notion of weekends triggered the birth of zoo an artificial, manipulated and fabricated nature. Zoo shows bloody evidence of human-beings desire to dominate nature and pursue for colonialism as they accumulated wealth and became more materialistic. The engaged animals, barely continuing their pathetic lives, became an object of delight for human-beings. Now, the animals deprived of their instincts, memories about nature, and their origins exist before us as a piece of specimen or as a representative of each species.

JeongMee Yoon has always focused on specific structures or sites taken them as a subject of her works, and her concerns about zoo lies on the extension. It seems like there is not so much difference between spatial structure of a zoo and the human residences. Yoon gradually became paid more attention and time on the subject zoo and produced a series of photos regarding it.

The zoo located next to an amusement park or a museum is a place fully sacrificed itself for the purpose of entertaining human-beings. It appears to be an ideal place where human and nature co-exists in peace, but deep inside, there lurks a history of power and control, invasion and plunder. There exists a certain distance between the caged animals and myself. The distance marked by the iron bars of the cage makes me feel secured and feel overwhelmed with superiority to those encaged creatures. Some kids would throw their snacks or small stones with innocent laughs. What a great place to realize how advanced we are as supreme creatures!

Wasn't it that the idea of human supremacy and controls and possessions in the name of justice has always been the essential principle of Western countries and their Christian perspective? What Westerners have believed (liberating human beings from nature through the development of technology and science) became the fundamentals of modernization and our modern life. However, it also triggered the beginning of the devastation of all living creature, including nature and human-beings. Zoo reflects this bitter reality in helpless manner. Yoon's photos are also on the extension of unveiling the underlying meaning of zoo; her black and white photos contain the long history of human beings and animals. How could it be possible for the photo to unveil a fragment of the dark history, which is hardly exposed on the surface?

- Park, Young-Taek (Art critic, Prof. at Kyung-gi Univ.)

BIO:

1969 Born in Seoul, South Korea

Education
2006 Graduated from Department of Photography, Video and related Media, School of Visual Arts(M.F.A.), NY, USA
1999 Graduated from Department of Photographic Design, Hong-Ik Univ. (M.F.A), South Korea
1992 Graduated from Department of Painting, College of Fine Arts, Seoul National University (B.F.A), South Korea

Residency Program
2008-2009 Changdong Studio Program, Seoul, South Korea
2006 International Studio & Curatorial Program (ISCP), New York, USA
2002 Ssamzie Space Studio Program, Seoul, South Korea

Solo Exhibition
2009 The Pink & Blue Project (Paris-Beijing Photo Gallery, Beijing, China)
2009 The Pink & Blue Project (Bolinas Museum, CA, USA)
2009 The Pink & Blue Project (San Francisco International Airport Museum (SFO Airport Museum), SF, CA, USA)
2009 The Pink & Blue Project (Jenkins Johnson gallery, San Francisco, CA, USA)
2009 The Pink & Blue Project (EM Art Gallery, Seoul, South Korea)
2008 The Pink & Blue Project (Children's Museum of the Arts, NY, USA)
2008 The Pink & Blue Project (Jenkins Johnson Gallery, New York, USA)
2008 The Pink & Blue Project (La Caja Blanca Gallery, Spain)
2007 5th Daum Prize Solo Show - The Pink & Blue Project (Kumho Museum, Seoul, South Korea)
-Supported by Geonhi Art Foundation
2001 Natural History Museum (Gallery Boda, Seoul, South Korea)
-NokUmBangChoBunKiTaengChon Solo Invited Exhibition
2000 Zoo II (Time Photo Space, South Korea)
1999 Zoo (Gallery Boda, Seoul, South Korea)

Teaching
2008 Seoul National University, Seoul Institute of the Arts, Hongik University, South Korea
2007 Seoul National University, South Korea
1999-2004 Photography Department, Seoul National Univ. of Technology, Sungshin Univ.,
Sejong Univ. Hanyang Univ., Dongguk Univ., Kyungwon Univ. Semyung Univ., Korea


Jenkins Johnson Gallery, NY & San Fransisco


With pets, our homes, fenced in yards, vet offices, kennels, etc. have become places to store domesticated animals. The spaces and resources we devote to our pets can become most interesting aspect of the pet/animal relationship. They have been striped of nearly all instinct and are not encouraged to embrace the true animals that they are. Pet cats sit indoors, on window seals, powerless to change their situations, gazing outside at squirrels and birds, longing to stalk and chase after potential prey and be wild. Living in a world where humans have been stripped away from nature, perhaps pet keeping is, in a remote, odd, and subconscious way, a method to reconnect with nature, even if it is in a very controlled manner.

9/1/10

Thursday Blog 9/2/10

Woman in her living room with show poodles, Auburn, NH, 2002 by Sage Sohier


RECREATION

"Leisure involves pleasure with reference to nothing else. Pleasure comes from leisure's being already at its end, in both modern senses: leisure has no goal but itself; and it drives forward to nothing else. It is a state, not a process, in our speech; it is practice, not production; governed by prudence, not by art, in his speech. It is hard to keep from identifying it with happiness, instead of simply associating them as he does." -Christopher Berry Gray from Philosophy of Man at Recreation and Leisure

"Its not enough. But what is enough? Everyone draws the line somewhere else... We have people here who believe their impression's more authentic than somebody else's because they have fleas... I draw the line at what the public sees and perceives." -Civil War Reenactors from Simulated Worlds aired on This American Life

Is pet keeping a hobby, recreational activity or something more? Is it a lifestyle? Is it even optional for some? Is the pet just another "interest" to add to our Facebook page? Is it a member of the family? Is it possible to take pet keeping too far? If so, where do you draw the line?

Simulated Worlds (podcast)

Gray, Peter Berry. Philosophy of Man at Recreation and Leisure. Peter Lang Publishing. New York, 2007.

In Philosophy of Man at Recreation and Leisure, Christopher Berry Gray identifies worldviews that welcome or reject activities of recreation and leisure. Gray rigorously examines the many dimensions of the human being, such as bodiliness, animation, mentality, morality, sociality, and spirituality. By doing so, he discloses the many activities that embody, exemplify, and reveal the human being. Philosophy of Man at Recreation and Leisure is essential reading for courses on recreation and leisure studies and philosophical anthropology.