*************************************************************** Report from Haroun Tazieff Day in Brussels From: Gerald Ernst <plumeman2000@xxxxxxxxxxx> *************************************************************** This Saturday, 9 February, about 120 people gathered to pay homage to Haroun Tazieff in the small village in Brussels where he had lived in his youth and to debate the origin of his personality and approach to exploratory science, as well as his legacy. Attendees were of all ages from 5 to 90 years old and from 3-4 different countries (dominantly Belgium and France). In addition to some children, there was a mix of volcanologists, amateur volcanologists, speleologists and members of the public whose imagination had been captured by a conference, a book, a film or a meeting with Tazieff. The fact that so many people attended on a sunny day of the carnival vacation, when many were away, is a measure of the large appeal that Tazieff still retains amongst volcano enthusiasts and there are lessons to be learnt from this. Here is my own summary (i.e. my own interpretation) of interesting points which were raised from the debate within the panel and with the public: 1. There was a consensus that Tazieff revolutionized eruption film-making in the late 1950s with his film "Les rendez-vous du diable". My own observations are that the film portrays volcanology as an exciting exploration and adventure and also emphasizes the links between volcanoes and humans living around them; its main weakness is an over-dramatization of volcanic hazards at least for some volcanoes, which on hindsight was unnecessary (again my own view). There is also a bias to types of eruptions which can be filmed from close quarters while in progress (e.g. a full-blown plinian eruption could not easily be represented). It takes the audience on an amazing voyage, however, "à la Jules Verne". The story-telling line is simple (accessible to anyone including young children), poetic and powerful; the unique footage of eruptions, married with and reinforced by music and poetic words, have an almost hypnotic character. The film's power probably lies in the fact that each viewer can identify with the main protagonists (the 2 "volcanologists"), themselves seen in close emotional connection with their environment that is in turn fascinating or frightening, so that a powerful emotional link is built between the viewer and both with the explorers being filmed and with their environment. It is well-known in some quarters that an emotional connection between a teacher and its audience is prerequisite to any transfer of information (any learning). A unique opportunity for outreach is created in this film through this mechanism. Universal aspects of the human condition and strong (universal) contrasts are used to make the links between the viewer, protagonists and environment even more powerful. 2. Tazieff's films illustrated his clear inclination for exploration rather than more traditional science. The panel appeared to agree that he was first a pioneer of volcano exploration and second a precursor of modern volcanological science. It was discussed that Tazieff subsequently emphasized the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to volcanology and the importance of volcanic gases. Most panel members agreed that the current revolution in gas monitoring can be traced back to him even though Tazieff did not live to see this vision of his realized. The crucial contribution of Werner Giggenbach was also acknowledged as much more significant than that of Tazieff by one expert panel member and I would add that advances in volcanic gas remote sensing by the likes of Bill Rose, Peter Francis, Clive Oppenheimer, and a few other VRS experts should also have been acknowledged. 3. Tazieff's disappearance, followed by that of Maurice and Katia Krafft has left a vacuum regarding a unique sort of outreach which remains unfilled and for which there is a need in the panel's opinion. Tazieff expended much energy with popular books, films and conferences which ultimately attracted many young people to volcanology research. These activities were often denigrated by the scientific community. Now that Tazieff or the Kraffts are no longer here, however, it was pointed out that attracting young scientists to volcanology, notably in France, has become difficult and that there is a deficit in this area. Outreach activities are however nowadays required of scientists in a number of countries (e.g. notably in the UK or USA but generally anywhere). So here is a paradox, first Tazieff was despised by many colleagues for his science outreach efforts and now such activities are expected of scientists who do not normally have the experience or time of a Tazieff to dedicate in this area. 4. Relatedly, the showing of Tazieff's 1959 cult film, "Les rendez-vous du diable" proved the point. There are unique cinematographic qualities to this film which led it to appeal to a truly immense number of people worldwide. Yet what made this particular film uniquely appealing to so many has not yet been analysed to draw lessons that could be used to attract young scientists to volcanology research or generally to the Earth Sciences. The panel did not have sufficient time to do justice to this analysis. However, the panel felt there was not enough cinematographic innovation nowadays amongst popular volcano films. The case of documentaries (used for teaching at university for example) was not discussed for lack of time. Clearly there are some outstanding documentaries such as that of Lea and Sparks on the andesite volcano at Montserrat. 5. Another related point is that there is a need for a few dedicated scientists specializing to professional level in outreach activities through truly innovative films. It is not helpful to expect scientists to publish, lecture, run tutorials and open days, apply for grants, do university administration, serve on committees and to also be specialists in film-making…This expectation that one should fulfill all these roles meaningfully is equivalent to asking scientists to be able to walk on water. It is detrimental to the maintenance or development of quality in any of these activities. This topic does not appear to be often on the agenda and year on year scientists are asked to take on an ever increasing workload. 6. One panel member suggested that Tazieff's legacy in terms of publications was extremely small. Other panelers respectfully heard this opinion but disagreed. They felt that to be a poor indicator of Tazieff's contribution for several reasons. First a small number of high quality papers relate to: 1) the geological verification of the "plate tectonics" theory in the Afar depression (award-winning research for Tazieff's collaborators on this at the time), although it was pointed out that this work is no longer acknowledged in publications on this; 2) work related to the documentation of lava lakes as natural laboratories – which also generated a revival of interest for lava lake research generally. Second, Tazieff could not have developed his approach to volcanology, which was largely phenomenological in this time of science exploration (in the 1950s and early 1960s), within the Belgian university system at the time. Hence he made the courageous decision of largely (but not completely) dissociating himself from the university system although this meant he was left without financial support. He also had to teach himself about volcanic activity for about a decade and had to finance his phenomenological research through the sales of popular books, films and conferences for the first 15 years of his efforts in volcanology (1950-1965). This must not have left him much time, if any, to write papers, especially that he had an increasing number of solicitations to come and advise authorities during volcanic emergencies and that he valued this much more than publishing. Third, following this, Tazieff officially rejoined the academic world first in Italy then in France and considerably helped put in place the exploration of multidisciplinary measurements at volcanoes. He had many followers and although he did not publish much he was the motor for much of this effort which laid the basis for substantial developments in modern volcanology in France or of modern volcanological monitoring at Etna and Stromboli in particular. There was a number of publications deriving from this, of which Tazieff was not often an author but where he had played the role of a catalyst. 7. The panel also discussed that the new approaches Tazieff was trying to explore were almost successfully prevented from developing after 1976 when his team was made persona non grata on French volcanoes by greater powers determined to stop them, but Tazieff was prepared to try his approaches elsewhere. Ultimately he was fortunate to receive the support of CNRS-CEA, which effectively rescued, according to some, the most (or one of the most) innovative volcanology efforts from France at the time. Other hugely innovative efforts, eg. in geological fluid mechanics, subsequently developed in France, were not discussed, for lack of time, although many would argue that they played and continue to play a key role in modern French volcanology. 8. Panel members also agreed to disagree on the interpretation of the Lake Nyos disaster although it was pointed out that Tazieff's interpretation of the time (release of a CO2 pocket from under Lake Nyos) now constituted the minority view; the majority view being the interpretation of a limnic eruption. 9. The panel also suggested that there was a need for more research at the frontier between the physical and sociological sciences at volcanoes; but also commented that little support for this existed at the present time. The same conclusion has been reached in the UK following the efforts by the SPIDER network. 10. Finally, it was pointed out that Tazieff's predilection for taking the defense of minority views, almost in every situation, had first proved to be helpful when advancing the exploration of new approaches to volcanology but ultimately had led Tazieff to become increasingly isolated from the community including from most of his former followers (many of which he trained and which retain much esteem for his role in volcanology), with the exception of a small group of unconditional followers. 11. The volcanophiles'association LAVE has decreated 2008 as the "Tazieff year" and will further commemorate Tazieff in its newsletters throughout this year. There is also talk that further debates about Tazieff's personality and legacy will take place in France later this year. For information or to take part, please contact the son of Haroun Tazieff: "Frédéric Lavachery" lavachery@xxxxxxxxxx Panel members included: Frederic Lavachery, Gerald Ernst, Alain Bernard, Patric Allard, Jean-Christophe Sabroux, François Le Guern, Michel Luquet (speleologist), Françoise Wolff (journalist) Kind regards, Gerald ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald ERNST, Mercator & Ortelius Research Centre for Eruption Dynamics, Geology Department, University of Ghent, Krijgslaan 281/S8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium PS: Other panel members are not responsible for any errors that I may have made. ============================================================== To unsubscribe from the volcano list, send the message: signoff volcano to: listserv@xxxxxxx, or write to: volcano-request@xxxxxxxx To contribute to the volcano list, send your message to: volcano@xxxxxxxx Please do not send attachments. ==============================================================
