******Response 2****** MEN

          How did Linnaeus’ (taxonomic) method of classifying organisms influence the design and composition of early British zoo such as the London Zoo? How does the notion of “stamp collecting” relate, and in what context is it brought up in the readings about Lincoln Park Zoo (The Ark in the Park)? Why is “stamp collecting” in the context of zoos potentially problematic

         

               While the Little Oracle and The 19th Century Phenomenon readings make it clear that the practice of natural history was very popular in the 1700 and 1800’s, and natural history collections especially so among the wealthy, what other supposed societal value and value to personal development did many believe natural history nurtured and why? Why was the promotion of zoological gardens thought to be an extension of this logic?

(Answer applicable to question 1 and 2)

Stemming from the “mania” of colleting botanical specimens, producing aviaries and acquiring miniseries among England’s upper class. It comes to me at no surprise that the zoological gardens in London were organized around the principle of Linnaeus’ method. In  1828, when the zoo opened, it only serviced members of the zoological society, Members who where most likely aware of Linnaeus’ method. The lay out of the space made sense targeting an audience of the informed. Not till some nineteen year latter did the zoo open its doors to the public for educational proposes. The zoo was now not only a place for the general public to lean about animal classification but class. Just how Linnaeus’ had established order to the natural world the London zoo was now establishing a hierarchical societal order. The zoo served as a stage where the pull and tug of elitist animals symbolism could be played out.

The notion of stamp colleting is a highly appropriate metaphor in witch the London and Lincoln Park zoos would operate.  Both zoos in slightly alternative ways would stem their collections from smaller privet collections. As is the nature of the archive, when dealing with the public the politics and motives morph and entertainment and power become part of the equation. In turn the morality and appropriate dealing with animals become more symbolic than rational.

       According to the video Animal Showboat to Animal Lifeboat, what was the result of the public demand for seeing exotic animals? In what ways were zoos involved, practically and in principle, to the “showboating” and trade of animals? Consider the history of the Lincoln Park Zoo in this regard. What the practice of “care for life” in zoos?

As conveyed in the film the main propos of colleting animals was to attain the most of the most exotic animals to keep people coming in the gates, in this way fulfilling the many zoos past of showboating.  In the mid 1800s when zoos start to begin to show the behavior of animal dealing directly shows the ignorance and lack of understanding possessed by zoological society about the conditions in witch life must be cared. Mostly referencing the Lincoln Park zoo, the practice that they engaged in mirrors other historical form of concurring and enslavement of other cultures.  However I do agree with the films opinion of showboating, I do not agree with its suggestion of excluding amphibian dissection from schools. There is a grate difference in exploring a physically present creature than experiencing it through a synthetic avenue. I feel that that opinion is narrow minded in its ability to comprehend the diversity of knowledge.

According to John Berger, Why do we look at animals? Now and / or then? Summarize and synthesize his argument (don’t simply quote him, I already read the essay myself!). Discuss two or three ways in which Berger answers the question he poses (pets, anthropomorphism, zoos). He argues there is a “similar, but not identical, abyss of non-comprehension” when animals and humans look at each other. What could me mean by this? Do you agree? If there is anything that strikes you as particularly interesting in his essay, please mention it and say why.

Starting with the origins of animals’ symbolism. The desires to articulate human emotion was are first motivation of capturing animals. In wall paintings, gestures and noises. Animals became humans’ symbolic and metaphoric language. Compelling humans to produce figurative language and dive into the poetics and romanticism of life. The animal possesses awesomeness to the human, pre-industrial revolution. It was the presences of animals’ and dependence to animals that produced the ability for animals and humans to have dialogue. Without shared verbal language observation and Anthropomorphism joined humans and animals. During the industrial revolution animals began to marginalize. More so seen as a mechanism of a lager plan, animals reached equilibrium to machine. Due to their now mundane purpose to society, animals now were merely preserved as representation of human traits. Disappearing in the human world representation in industry such as toys and entertainment became the proper place to “view” animals. Animals now being bred to adapt to humans way of capitalistic life the commodifying of animals to pets became the proper way to “ be” with animals. It is the dissolve of human and animal interaction that led to the  “abyss or non-comprehension” that humans and animals experience it is the death of the ability to relate to animals through poetic language and the rise understanding through categorization.

 Particularly compelling to myself is the industrialization of animals’ products through a martial vein. The concept of providing wealthy children instead of with actual animals, representation of them through stillborn animal hides, is an interesting extreme of capitalism. As mentioned most of these prized stuffed or soft animals were made of cow and most of the stuffed animals were not cows. I feel this instills a paradox of association to the idealization and of animals through direct material/societal metaphor of hierarchal animal symbolism.