Or is it an Existential crisis?
I’ve complained that all this art theory stuff feels irreverent or makes art less fun. But now that we’ve reached the late 20th century The theory and the art now seem to occupy different plains of existence. If you were to get a team of archaeologists and anthropologists to investigate the many types of Site Specific. Land art, Pubic art, and and Institutional Critique, just based on the work. With no access to the writings of the times. Not only would they not guess the motives behind their creation. They’d probably guess something totally opposed to what they were trying to do..
I don’t even know how to write about this stuff. Do I tackle the theory or the art first? I can’t talk about both at the same time. And they don’t lead naturally into each other.
Let’s try the theory first. As that’s what most of the reading and presentations have been about.
By the time we get to the 70s and 80s the question of “What is art” or perhaps “What is pure, unrestricted art” has become the sole focus of making art. The site specific artists have tried to escape the boundaries of museums and frames, and the trap of art being pure idea. And much like an escaped prisoner it’s running about to anywhere it can be. The cities, the junkyards, and nature. And like an escaped prisoner it doesn’t seem to have any goals or dreams beyond not going back.
The theoretical side of Site Specific art has been depressing to read about. Because it feels like art has lost it’s humanity. It is now so keen to not be of point to anything but itself it has shut the world out. It is a depressed narcissist trying to think only about itself while not even knowing who it is or what it is meant to do. Is this what modernism has lead to? A world were art is so concerned with asking “What is art” that art has now no means of expression for fear of being contaminated?
Art used to be about things. Love, hope, anger, faith. despair, time, colour, pattern, compassion and tragedy. But now art can only be about art it seems to hate the world and itself. Is this what people like Turner and Monet wanted when they challenged what art could do and could be? To paraphrase a great movie “Modernism had a dream. This is not it!” (Gladiator, 2000)
If challenging the painting/sculpture/architecture trinary dynamic of what art is just made a world where art has to be defined by what it isn’t and lives in fear of being anything like it’s past self. Or doing anything because no two people agree on what it should be. Then I have to ask. Was this worth it?
There are still people out there who feel all art after 1910 was a mistake. Or not even art at all. And I try to stand by modern art. To say the increased creativity and means of expression was worth the breakdown in artistic norms. But now I really have to wonder. Is this increased creativity and expression. Or the death of it?
Everything made by humans has limits because humans are limited creatures. And everything we make will be imperfect because we are imperfect. You cannot have “pure” art because art does not exist in a vacuum. It is made by humans.
Instead of despising our limits we should embrace them. Work with them. We do great things with our limits. Music is limited by what we can hear. Painting is limited by our ability to see colour. Architecture is limited by what the laws of physics will let us build. Video games are limited by our technology. Gardens are limited by space and the seasons. But all these things are beautiful and amazing. If the fact we can’t make them “Pure” of “Perfect” means they aren’t worth having them I don’t want purity and perfection!
********
Now, let’s talk about the art. It’s almost impossible to talk about Site Specific art as a whole as it’s not really one thing. It is many different things very loosely bound together by being a place rather than being in or part of a place. Could you really say that Banksy, Anish Kapoor, and Andy Goldsworthy are all the same kind of artist, or even all part of the same movement? I might like most minimalists but hate Robert Ryman. But there is no doubt in my mind that Ryman is still a minimalist. But here saying I like one artist and that I don’t like another feels like saying I like apples but hate the long division. It feels random and pointless to say.
I’ve a very strong soft spot of land art. Whether it’s meant to last forever or just a few hours. It can feel exciting. mythic, an inspiring. To be able to see amazing land works that could normally only exist in dreams or video games sounds wonderful.
Needless to say. I adore the work of Robert Smithson, Andy Goldsworthy, and Michael Heizer. I hope to see some of Smithson and Heizer’s work in person someday.
And actually using nature as both canvas and materials seems like the most natural thing in the world. How can the results not be beautful and even spiritual. I wish more people could do this sort of thing. It sounds like it would be fun and good for their souls. But most people don’t even feel up to drawing. Making land art would be way beyond what they’d feel up for. Despite what many artists say you cannot have a world where everything is art and everyone is an artist because most people don’t WANT to be artists. It’s like suggesting a world where everyone is a politician or everyone is a comic book nerd. Most people have other interests and other things they are good at. The dream of the art universe needs to die. But with it goes my hope of a world where everyone can get in touch with nature.
All I can do is try to enrich the lives of those around me with art of the earth.
But I hope the legacy of Smithson will continue to grow and change the world for the better.
Site Specific art in cities leaves me cold. It just looks awkward and strange. Site Specific art in cities doesn’t tend to be very beautiful. It just gets absorbed into the city and looks small and ugly. Like a lemon in a rock display. A piece of planned oversized litter. I think the reason for this is unlike land art it tends to work against the setting rather than work with it. And it seems more interested in transforming the space it’s in than saying something meaningful. But just transforming something without trying to improve it means you might as well be doing nothing at all.
Site Specific art in museums just feels odd to me. There’s so little uniformity between the pieces I’ve been shown that I can only really judge each peace individually. Many fall flat for me. Some seem clever. Some can be beautiful. And some sound positively amazing. But I don’t feel drawn to this type of art. Either seeing it or making it. And if it excites me that little it must be doing something wrong.
**********
In conclusion I can’t really call Site Specific art either a failure or a success. It feels more like a theory that was submitted unfinished. “EMC… I’ll figure the rest out later”.
Some good stuff came out of it. My love of Land art is as strong as ever. But I feel like the people of this era got too tied up in trying to figure out what art is to decided what they wanted to make and how they wanted to change the world. Causing the movement to fall into obscurity before most of it’s main practitioners have even stopped working.
I hope someday somebody will pick this up and give it new life. But for now. It will remain just a an idea for a movement.
John's Learning Journal 