Art=Text=Art: Works by Contemporary Artists Wednesday, August 17 to Sunday, October 16, 2011Joel and Lila Harnett Museum of Art On view in the Harnett Museum of Art, University of Richmond Museums, from August 17 to October 16, 2011, Art=Text=Art: Works by Contemporary Artists features 72 works created between 1960 and 2011, that include text or reference textual elements. Many of the works reflect developments in modern and contemporary art and critical theory, and relate to concurrent politics, history, and philosophy. Among the more than 40 artists included in the exhibition are Alice Aycock, Trisha Brown, Dan Flavin, Jane Hammond, Jasper Johns, Sol LeWitt, Ed Ruscha, Karen Schiff, Cy Twombly, John Waters, and Lawrence Weiner. Art=Text=Art was organized by the University of Richmond Museums and curated by N. Elizabeth Schlatter, Deputy Director and Curator of Exhibitions, University Museums, with Rachel Nackman, Curator of the Kramarsky Collection, New York. The exhibition and programs were made possible in part by the University of Richmond's Cultural Affairs Committee, and funds from the Louis S. Booth Arts Fund. The exhibition is accompanied by an online catalogue featuring images of all of the works in the exhibition, an essay by N. Elizabeth Schlatter, and entries contributed by University of Richmond alumni and students among other artists, writers, curators, and critics. It is free and accessible at www.artequalstext.com. Read the essay by N. Elizabeth Schlatter by choosing the download button. ; https://scholarship.richmond.edu/exhibition-catalogs/1001/thumbnail.jpg
Published on the occasion of the exhibition Growing Up in Civil Rights Richmond: A Community Remembers, Joel and Lila Harnett Museum of Art, University of Richmond Museums, January 17 to May 10, 2019. Organized by the University of Richmond Museums, the exhibition was developed by Ashley Kistler, independent curator, and Laura Browder, Tyler and Alice Haynes Professor of American Studies, University of Richmond. The exhibition, related programs, and publication are made possible in part with funds from the Louis S. Booth Arts Fund and with support from the University's Cultural Affairs Committee. The printed exhibition catalogue was made possible in part with support from the Elizabeth Firestone Graham Foundation. Published by University of Richmond Museums, Richmond, Virginia. Edited by N. Elizabeth Schlatter, University of Richmond Museums, and Ashley Kistler, independent curator. Designed by DELANO Creative, Richmond, Virginia Printed by Worth Higgins & Associates Inc., Richmond, Virginia. Cover: Brian Palmer (American, born 1964), Deborah Taylor, Franklin Military Academy (formerly East End High School), 2017, archival inkjet print on paper, 30 x 40 inches, lent courtesy of the artist. ; https://scholarship.richmond.edu/exhibition-catalogs/1006/thumbnail.jpg
This deliverable analyses the relationships between the various policy packages involved in soil sustainable management, and the soil management practices they foster or restrict, at the European level and in eight Member States. Soil processes are at the interface between agricultural production and ecosystem services provision, and making sure that these processes work properly is a matter of multi-layered policies and actors, in an uncertain environment. To analyse the policy context, we have built a method that grouped together two different frameworks. Using these two frameworks together, we have designed a grid in which each relevant policy measure favours (or hampers) the adoption of each BMP, with which objectives, and whether they are implemented on a mandatory way, or with incentives, or even in a voluntary way. Soil protection is at the interface of three major policy packages: Agricultural and rural policies, where soil is considered as a production mean that needs sometimes to be preserved, environmental policies where the soil is considered as a medium towards air, water or biodiversity protection, and urban policies where forest or agricultural soils have to be preserved from urban sprawl. Since the last twenty years, soils are also a matter of policy packages related to climate change, mostly under the Kyoto protocol. The immediate consequence of soils being at the interface is the existence of a bundle of soil-related policy measures, with expected direct or indirect effects on soils: in 2008 for instance, Kutter et al. (2011) accounted for 410 different soil conservation measures in the European Member states, while Eurostat breakdown of agri-environmental measures (AEM) considered in 2008 that 8 % of the EU-27 agricultural area under AEM benefit from actions to conserve soils. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive has been initiated in 2006 with the objective of simplifying the way soils stakes are considered in policies and initiating comprehensive legislation on soil protection. This Directive was unfortunately withdrawn in May 20141. Since this withdrawal, the Soil Thematic Strategy takes actions to integrate soil stakes into all relevant policies when renewed. The main consequences on the Soil Thematic Strategy lie on the expected impacts on the region oriented approach led by the new CAP on decentralized effects which may, in turn, affect existing political and institutional relationships. There is a balance between the freedom of regions to design a variety of instruments to protect soil, directly or indirectly, and administrative burden linked to the new governance schemes where changes have to occur. Limited budgets for environmental protection in a context of economic crisis also require improving the cost-effectiveness of policy measures, which results, depending on the region and country, on putting less emphasis on soils protection objectives, or on combining measures so as to protect soils by side effects of promoted practices. The analysis of the wide range of policy packages and their instruments implemented in the Catch-C partner countries highlights that soil stakes are embedded to different degrees in these countries. Building on this embeddedness and on the focus of each country on coherence between the various instruments they use towards soil, we have found three different strategies (see also fig below): - Some have designed for long a comprehensive strategy towards soil protection; they consider that soil provides multiple functions, from habitats to raw material extraction through production of food and building materials. For these countries, raising concern about soil protection at EU level enforces national and regional policies, sometimes permits to design harmonized policy packages at national level (more coordination from regional initiatives). This is the case for Germany, and to a lower extent Austria. Belgium has an intermediate strategy with the next group. - Some countries took the opportunity of implementing EU strategy to design some placebased policies to deal with local soil issues, mostly erosion (Italy, Spain and Poland). - Last set of countries (France and The Netherlands) relies more on side-effect of already existing measures to ensure a minimum soil protection, and instead focus on other stakes like biodiversity or water protection
This deliverable analyses the relationships between the various policy packages involved in soil sustainable management, and the soil management practices they foster or restrict, at the European level and in eight Member States. Soil processes are at the interface between agricultural production and ecosystem services provision, and making sure that these processes work properly is a matter of multi-layered policies and actors, in an uncertain environment. To analyse the policy context, we have built a method that grouped together two different frameworks. Using these two frameworks together, we have designed a grid in which each relevant policy measure favours (or hampers) the adoption of each BMP, with which objectives, and whether they are implemented on a mandatory way, or with incentives, or even in a voluntary way. Soil protection is at the interface of three major policy packages: Agricultural and rural policies, where soil is considered as a production mean that needs sometimes to be preserved, environmental policies where the soil is considered as a medium towards air, water or biodiversity protection, and urban policies where forest or agricultural soils have to be preserved from urban sprawl. Since the last twenty years, soils are also a matter of policy packages related to climate change, mostly under the Kyoto protocol. The immediate consequence of soils being at the interface is the existence of a bundle of soil-related policy measures, with expected direct or indirect effects on soils: in 2008 for instance, Kutter et al. (2011) accounted for 410 different soil conservation measures in the European Member states, while Eurostat breakdown of agri-environmental measures (AEM) considered in 2008 that 8 % of the EU-27 agricultural area under AEM benefit from actions to conserve soils. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive has been initiated in 2006 with the objective of simplifying the way soils stakes are considered in policies and initiating comprehensive legislation on soil protection. This Directive was unfortunately withdrawn in May 20141. Since this withdrawal, the Soil Thematic Strategy takes actions to integrate soil stakes into all relevant policies when renewed. The main consequences on the Soil Thematic Strategy lie on the expected impacts on the region oriented approach led by the new CAP on decentralized effects which may, in turn, affect existing political and institutional relationships. There is a balance between the freedom of regions to design a variety of instruments to protect soil, directly or indirectly, and administrative burden linked to the new governance schemes where changes have to occur. Limited budgets for environmental protection in a context of economic crisis also require improving the cost-effectiveness of policy measures, which results, depending on the region and country, on putting less emphasis on soils protection objectives, or on combining measures so as to protect soils by side effects of promoted practices. The analysis of the wide range of policy packages and their instruments implemented in the Catch-C partner countries highlights that soil stakes are embedded to different degrees in these countries. Building on this embeddedness and on the focus of each country on coherence between the various instruments they use towards soil, we have found three different strategies (see also fig below): - Some have designed for long a comprehensive strategy towards soil protection; they consider that soil provides multiple functions, from habitats to raw material extraction through production of food and building materials. For these countries, raising concern about soil protection at EU level enforces national and regional policies, sometimes permits to design harmonized policy packages at national level (more coordination from regional initiatives). This is the case for Germany, and to a lower extent Austria. Belgium has an intermediate strategy with the next group. - Some countries took the opportunity of implementing EU strategy to design some placebased policies to deal with local soil issues, mostly erosion (Italy, Spain and Poland). - Last set of countries (France and The Netherlands) relies more on side-effect of already existing measures to ensure a minimum soil protection, and instead focus on other stakes like biodiversity or water protection
This deliverable analyses the relationships between the various policy packages involved in soil sustainable management, and the soil management practices they foster or restrict, at the European level and in eight Member States. Soil processes are at the interface between agricultural production and ecosystem services provision, and making sure that these processes work properly is a matter of multi-layered policies and actors, in an uncertain environment. To analyse the policy context, we have built a method that grouped together two different frameworks. Using these two frameworks together, we have designed a grid in which each relevant policy measure favours (or hampers) the adoption of each BMP, with which objectives, and whether they are implemented on a mandatory way, or with incentives, or even in a voluntary way. Soil protection is at the interface of three major policy packages: Agricultural and rural policies, where soil is considered as a production mean that needs sometimes to be preserved, environmental policies where the soil is considered as a medium towards air, water or biodiversity protection, and urban policies where forest or agricultural soils have to be preserved from urban sprawl. Since the last twenty years, soils are also a matter of policy packages related to climate change, mostly under the Kyoto protocol. The immediate consequence of soils being at the interface is the existence of a bundle of soil-related policy measures, with expected direct or indirect effects on soils: in 2008 for instance, Kutter et al. (2011) accounted for 410 different soil conservation measures in the European Member states, while Eurostat breakdown of agri-environmental measures (AEM) considered in 2008 that 8 % of the EU-27 agricultural area under AEM benefit from actions to conserve soils. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive has been initiated in 2006 with the objective of simplifying the way soils stakes are considered in policies and initiating comprehensive legislation on soil protection. This ...
