Alicia Silverstone on sustainability (or at least influencing the conversation)
In one of the defining films of July 1995, the coming-of-age comedy Clueless, this conversation takes places between Tai, played by Brittany Murphy and Cher Horowitz, played by Alicia Silverstone:
Tai: Do you think she’s pretty?
Cher: No, she’s a full-on Monet.
Tai: What’s a Monet?
Cher: It’s like a painting, see? From far away, it’s OK, but up close, it’s a big old mess.
Growing up in Southern California in the 80s and 90s, I could actually use an egg timer to measure how quickly slang went from the big screen to the school hallway. But this expression stuck with me, if for no other reason than to inspire this blog posting a scant 13 years later. So let me pose this question: Is sustainability a full-on Monet?
The truth is, many people like to talk about sustainability because it’s very attractive from a distance – clean power, reduced footprint, a happier planet, compostable cutlery. But when one gets close up and takes a close look, does sustainability become a whole lot less attractive?
Does the sustainability movement (which is what I see it as, in truth) benefit from being viewed “in extreme close-up,” to quote another great 90s film? Does the average consumer benefit from understanding each brushstroke? After all, Monet’s genius, and the brilliance of Impressionism, was its application of science to art (as a rejection of romantic art), painting every fleck of light as the painter’s eye saw it, not as what it was “supposed” to look like.
Sustainability is, after all, a bunch of brushstrokes contributing to a much grander vision. Energy efficiency, recycling , clean energy, new consumer habits and behaviors, buying products with an understanding of what went into them and how they got to your plate or closet—these are all the splashes of color that make up the painting. But the difference is, we will need everyone to pick up a brush, and getting people to change their behavior is hard enough without having to show how an individual’s actions can have an affect on the planet (see Michael Pollan’s article, “Why Bother?” in this past Sunday’s New York Times Magazine).
But that’s just my interpretation; what’s yours?
Today is 


