Category: Constellation: Year 1

I have been asked to describe a picture I picked for this writing exercise in two different ways. “In its own right” and “As it appears in experience”. I assume the point of this is is to bring home the distinction between what you see and what you know. And the difference between the idea being conveyed and the marks made to to do it. But I’m just guessing there.

The image I chose was a simple doodle done in Microsoft Paint so I wouldn’t have to put too much effort into this exercise. It is of a single blue dot, shown below.

Sadly. I feel my attempt to be lazy might have backfired.It certainly generated a lot of discussion in the group. This is why I hate postmodernism nothing is allowed to be simple anymore. Everything has to be torn apart in search of a deeper meaning that isn’t there (And normally just serves the theorists ego). While work that has actual time and effort put into it gets ignored because it has a an identity and themes of its own. Why can’t a man just be lazy!

Anyhow the criteria.

What is the image in its own right?

The image is a bitmap picture of a cold, darkish blue dot. Against a white background. It is near the middle of the middle of the picture vertically. But very left of centre horizontally. The dot is made using the spray-can tool. Sprayed into solid colour. It looks circular from a distance. But in keeping with pixel graphics it is very jagged and not very circular at all when looked at close up. Even at a medium distance it’s not very convincing. Four pixels at the top, bottom, and sides stand out awkwardly.making it look like straight lines are coming out of the dots.     

The white background has no features to it.

How does the image appear in experience?

One sees a crude pixel rendering of a blue dot, just floating in a white void. It doesn’t appear to be in motion. There is nothing around to show where it is or how it got there. In fact there doesn’t seem to be a “there” for it to inhabit. It’s more of a blankness on the screen. It’s a bit disorientating to look at because it’s hard to tell where the picture starts if it’s on a white background. If it’s not on a white background it looks like a blank piece of paper with a smudge on it. This shows the importance both literally and figuratively of having your work well framed if it is to have consistent context in different mediums and situations.

But that’s me critiquing it as it’s maker. As a viewer I’d say it’s dull and generic post-dadaist/minimalist art with a bland choice of colours that anyone could make. It’s boring. The only thing about it that makes it slightly interesting is how the dot is off centre. But that just robs it of symmetry. Making it even uglier. It’s that little bit of effort and imagination that shows just how lazy it is.

Unlike my classmates I do not see it as standing for something else. It’s a dumb abstract with no artistic intent. I have made way better works in MS Paint. Such as this

But they weren’t so easily reinterpreted by pretentious postmodernists. So they would not get so much praise.

If I had to liken my blue dot to something it would be a floater in the corner of my eye. Annoying and slothful. And that makes me hate it even more.    

Final thoughts

This was an awkward exercise. I’m still kind of glad I went with the blue dot. The trying to define the nuanced difference between objective analysis vs subjective experience of a work of art is something that takes a lot of self mental deprogramming. It’s hard work. And the more complex the image the longer both descriptions would be. This is the sort of topic that can take weeks to cover. So giving myself a simple task still did save me a lot of work. If I’d picked a Turner or a Goya this essay would be 8000 words long. So I still did manage to be lazy after all.

But on that subject. I do still feel a bit annoyed with myself. I realised a bit too late that I could have  come up with something simpler. If I had just mad my MS Paint work a simple block of one colour that would have been a lot more in line with minimalist ideas.

[Citations to be added later] I see now why the Minimalists never used brush marks or colours inside other colours. Either of these things will draw the eye away from the piece as a whole. And individual marks will invite figurative readings just by having their own separate existence beg to be read as things. A circle was a particularly poor choice on my part given how many associations a circle has. One maybe one mark was worse than several marks. Several marks could make a pattern which could be seen as a thing in itself. Even if it wouldn’t be Minimalism proper.

I wanted to make a minimalist work to save time and to avoid there being a distinction between the subjective and objective interpretations of the work.  I managed the former but not the latter. My fellow students were all over the work with reinterpretations. If I had just waited a bit longer and remembered and applied the minimalist theory I learned last year I could have saved myself the embarrassment and writing all this out. I managed to fail at being lazy, and gave myself more work than if I had put in a bit more effort.

It reminds me of something I read in CS Lewis. I think from ‘Mere Christianity’ [Citations to be added later]. It went to the effect of

“Who has to do more work. The boy who studies hard or the boy who copies off him? In the short term the student who burns the midnight oil has to work much harder. He will feel stressed and burdened while the cheater feels at ease. But when finals roll around the it is the studious one who will have it easy and the copier will be lost. For the student who studied will know the method to arrive at the truth on his own while the lazy one will not know how to work on his own and have to learn the right way to methods at the last moment and without help from teachers”.

On Thursday of last week my new Constellation grope we tasked with doing an experiment where we smelled two different containers and saying what they made us feel and think of. With the first one I surmised correctly that it had spices in it and wrote accordingly.

The second container was where things got interesting. I took a sniff and the first thing that came to my mind was swimming pools. Specifically the chlorine smell they have. Now I felt certain that what I was smelling wasn’t some form of dried chlorine. In fact the thing I was holding didn’t even smell much like chlorine. It’s just that it reminded me of the chlorine smell.

I felt sure deep down it was probably something plant based, and I was right, it turned out to be mint and cucumber tea. But I decided rather than record my reaction to what I thought it was, I would be honest and write my reaction to what it made me think about.

Smell of chlorine can make me feel a little nervous. It reminds me of the moment of anticipation before I would get into the pool. Normally it makes me happy. I like the smell of chlorine. It brings back a lot of happy memories of swimming. But if it was making me feel anxious this time I would be honest about it.

There is a long running debate as to whether things can be objectively known or not. People on both sides fill fight to the death. I suspect it usually has less to do with reasoned arguments and more to do with wanting unshakeable ground on which to stand.

If all truth is subjective then one does not need to change one’s mind on anything. If all opinions are equally valid then the opinions YOU hold are 100% true.

If the world is objectively knowable it means as long as you are right you can treat anyone who disagrees with you as a moron. It would mean if you are wrong other people would have the right to do the same to you. But all you have to do to avoid that is never be wrong about anything, which many people believe they are.

I am closer to the latter camp. I am with Descartes. I know that I exist. This cannot be disproven. Therefore there is objective truth. The laws of mathematics also seem immutable. No impairment of the senses can stop 5 X 5 from equalling 25. How much else is objectively knowable I can’t say. But the truth IS about there. And we should search for it rather than ignore it.

So then. Why did I choose to record a series of thoughts that don’t adhere to reality?

Well, being human is strange. Our feeling are strong and it’s worth trying to understand them. I recently read ‘A Grief Observed’ by C S Lewis. In this book Lewis is angry with God for the death of his wife. In a moment of passion he accuses God of being a cosmic sadist, or of having a morality totally backwards to our own. These feeling cannot change God, or if you prefer, could not make God more real. But these feelings were real even if the conclusions they came to were wrong. And Lewis felt acknowledging these thoughts and feelings important enough to publish them in a book. The point wasn’t to prove or disprove the existence or goodness of God. But the make an honest recording of deep grief and what it does to a man of faith.

I stand by belief that the world can be known. But one has to be honest about who one is. Even if it means your tutor laughs at you now and again. The alternative is to not be truthful. And I don’t like to lie just because it’s convenient to myself.

So. Did I learn anything  from being honest about the tea and what it made me think of?

Not really. But that’s life. Sometimes your ideals give you zero sum game. You just gotto roll with it.

I have been asked by my lecturer from last term to reflect on these two points. The essay I wrote for the end of term on Dan Flavin [Linked here https://johnhawk.art.blog/2018/12/12/an-essay-on-dan-flavins-untitled-to-barnett-newman-two/ ] and how I can adapt to make my next constellation course better, so I shall oblige. These are meant to  be reasonable reflections on the theme of “How will I solve my problems? Well, to do that I’ll first need to figure out what my problems are.

Well the first problem is easy enough to diagnose as it’s been done for me. Both Professor Clarkson and my support worker have pointed out to me that my referencing needs improvement. The problem I have been told about is my referencing needs work. I am not used to referencing at all (Despite some mild attempts on this journal) and I have a few stumbling blocks. Firstly, when I read for reference I’m not good at taking notes, meaning I don’t remember on which page or even sometimes which book I get my info from. I need to start taking notes as to to the right pages. I guess this is why people underline things in library books, that said, I’m still only going do that in books I own.

This in turn means a lack of references in my text. I’m assured they don’t need to be long references, they don’t need to interrupt the flow of the text. Just little bullet points. But If I don’t remember where the thing I want to reference are that doesn’t help.

I will try to be better about this in future. But the problem is I don’t know in advance if something I read will BE useful. It’s only later when I’m putting my thoughts together that certain things stand out as worth referencing. And I don’t know how to fix this.

Some things have been given examples of what I should select when writing. For Instance:

I mentioned that Mondrian was a hero of Flavin’s.But didn’t say were I got that from. But I have wonder why this was a an oversight but not when I mentioned his love of Barnett Newman or Vladimir Tatlin? The other piece of direct advice I’ve been given is when I quoted Flavin saying “It is what it is, and it ain’t nothin’ else” I should have given the book and page number. It hadn’t occurred to me to site quotes from the artist in question. I guess I just thought of them as the source. But in the future I’ll be on the lookout for quotes and influences. Though I fear this will lead to me taking a bunch of useless notes. Which is an idea I detest.

So. What other problems could I tackle on the subject of my essay? I don’t know. I was hoping to get feedback from my tutors rather than from myself!

The only way I can look back on my work with any authority is through hindsight. Which means waiting, which I can’t do here. The best way to get hindsight is to have more than one experience reflect on. A catalogue of work to look over. Does this mean I should write even more essays in the same style? I hope not. I don’t have time for the level of research in private projects and I hate the 1000 word limit.

The only thing I can think of is that while /i’m getting good feedback I’m only getting good feedback. I’m not wowing anyone. But again. I don’t know how to fix this without feedback from others or extra practice.  

All I can truly prescribe for myself right now is passion. People make their best work when they passionate. I appreciated my essay more like a surgeon removing a tumour. Something to be done thoughtfully and carefully to avoid a future disaster. If I could find a way to engage my own passion into this work it might have a greater chance to make a big impact.

With that done let’s look towards the future. My upcoming Constellation module. How can I adapt or do things differently so it’s easier for me this time?

Not the easiest topic. I tried to do my best last year. I don’t think anyone could accuse me of phoning it in. Well could always try to do my reading in advance. Granted we aren’t always given our reading in advance. And I still have the same workload. But maybe by doing this I could spread the workload out a bit?

I could try taking notes in class again. Granted every time I’ve tried this in the past I’ve just forgotten my notes right after writing them. But maybe I could try doing something a bit different? Or maybe it I just checked my notes I’d find they had something useful in them (But I doubt it).

It has also been suggested to me that I don’t need to do all the suggested reading. That I can be a bit more selective. I can’t say this comes naturally to me. But I’ll keep it in mind for if I get truly swamped.

I could maybe try to view the module as a whole with an arc. Rather than just taking it one week at a time. Maybe that could give me some extra perspective?

My biggest issue last term was simply that I was bored. Constellation seemed like a giant waste of time and irrelevant to my animation work. I was legitimately shocked when I found out it was supposed to help me with my real work. Now that my Constellation subject isn’t even art based this problem is just going to get harder. I don’t see a way to fix this. I’m sure anthropology is interesting but it’s b

Not something I’d willingly study in my own time. The problem isn’t me. It’s the course. The whole Constellation system is counter-intuitive.

I imagine someone-else would suggest that I could make it more fun by trying to link it back to animation myself. And I already want to punch that person in the face.

Why am I being asked to fix the course I’m attending?

I could try to have a more positive outlook on this all. That might help me cope with it all. But I’m feeling too grumpy.

I occoures to me as I write this that it’s hard to think of ways I can improve my constellation work when I’m too busy trying to write about ways to improve my Constellation work. Maybe writing helps other people think through their problems. But for me I can’t focus on finding solutions to my problems because the writing is hard enough.

Fuck my life.

The hardest part about talking about Dan Flavin is trying to put it in context. The look of Flavin’s work has been absorbed by our culture and now has a lot of associations with it that never would have occurred to the artist or viewers at the time. Flavin’s style is seen in movies, music videos, and video games. And as a result, is also connected to music and books associated with the above works.

It’s lost the identity it once had through its own influence. Depending on how you want to view it, you could call Flavin’s work irrelevant or transcendent.

‘Untitled: to Barnett Newman two’ is a Situation piece (As Flavin coined his works. Many today call them installations) made of fluorescent lights in a rectangular shape. 8 feet high and four feet across, placed in the corner of a room. The horizontal lights are yellow and face toward the viewer. The vertical lights are red and blue on both sides and face away from the viewer.

All of Flavin’s most famous works were made with fluorescent lights. And he often put his Situations in corners, or other unusual places. But the portrait-like rectangular shape wasn’t something he used often. It’s almost unique to this series Flavin made in honour of his idol, Barnett Newman.

The experience of seeing a Dan Flavin is an immersive experience. It isn’t just in a room. It changes the room. If the room is darkened and only has only one Flavin in it (The correct way to install a Flavin) It transforms the room. It even becomes the room. To say that a Flavin is just the light fixtures is missing the wood for the trees. The walls turn into a canvas of Purple and blue light. The coloured light around the fixtures are as much the artwork as the fluorescent lights themselves. A Flavin is not an artwork when it’s turned off.

The Light fills the room, taking it over. Giving it a unique atmosphere. And the light seems to fill the very air itself. So you feel almost like you art inside it. An artwork made of intense, cubic, volumetric space. As immersive as water.

Flavin started out as a painter. He made abstract works in the vain of Franz Kline. But he also made paintings with text inside them. Using poems. Or in one case, a passage from the psalms. While Flavin did not hold much in the way of religious beliefs, a love for it would persist throughout his work.

He became enamoured with Russian Constructivism. Particularly Vladimir Tatlin who became one of his greatest idols. He particularly loved Tatlin’s ‘Corner Reliefs’. Sculptures that would be hung or fixed in the corners of Rooms. These were inspired by Russian religious icons. Which were placed in the corners of household rooms.

He was also influenced by Barnett Newman. A modernist painter who worked within the confines of rectangular shapes. Flavin avoided using rectangles in his work, so as not to seem like he was copying Newman. After Newman died Flavin made a series dedicated to his memory. Finally using rectangles as homage.

He took elements from all these influences to make his ‘-to Barnett Newman’ series. Some of his simplest but most sublime works.

Flavin’s work can seem intimidating up close. ‘Barnett Newman two’ is no different. The lights hmm and whir. At a full 8 feet tall the piece looms over and threatens to consume the viewer. But seen from a distance there is a sense of calm to the piece. The lights are harsh. But the colours are calm and soothing.

In an almost humours fashion Flavin has taken the colours of his hero, Mondrian. Red, yellow and blue. And used them to make a canvas of gentle magenta and calm cyan. The yellow lights end up just adding some warm white to the piece. Keeping it from looking cold.

The fact that the unseen red and blue lights are more powerful than the visible yellow ones tells us of the power of the unseen over the gaudy. The divine over the material. As well as on a simpler level. The strength of lights on a surface instead of in the air.

The way he has turned Mondrian’s primaries into a piece dominated by purple shows the transformative powers of light and surface. Turning lighting into an alchemy.

The piece is clearly flat. But it is in the angular confines of a corner. This is a contradiction. But both have symmetry. And the light binds these two symmetries together. Creating harmony. Both transforming the space, and radiating piece into the room. Much like the Russian Icons shining a divine light into the home. Like God’s presence transforming the lives and minds of people.

In fact, the very shape of the work is not unlike a door or window. Promising to take us into new world of peace and harmony. It’s a long way off from the cold and cruel portrayal of neon in science-fiction films.

Flavin didn’t see his works as having stories to tell or alluding to other things. He once said of his work “It is what it is, and it ain’t nothin’ else…” So it’s hard to try to read greater meaning into his works without being pretentious and self-serving. But maybe even in this there is something to work with. A simple thing in and of itself. Still, unchanging and harmonious. Like the presence of God. And like a religious icon ‘Barnett Newman two’ Invites us to put ourselves in that stillness and harmony. Pulling us into something simple and divine. Making us one with the world.

I haven’t been able to find any evidence that this, or any of the others in the Barnett Newman series have had any legacy or influence on the art world. Flavin is an extremely influential artist. But he’s more Tangerine Dream than Paul MacCartney (In fact the visuals of Flavin’s work would fit well with Tangerine Dream’s music). His body of work is bigger than any of his individual works. I could talk about Flavin’s legacy. But I think It’s okay to say that just because a work is not influential that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable.  Movies like ‘The Uninvited’ and ‘The Congress’, or books like ‘Urchin of the Ridding Star’s maybe not be influential. But they are great. And they are classics in my book. And so is Dan Flavin’s Barnett Newman series.

Reference list:

Weiss, J.(Ed) (2006) Dan Flavin: New Light. Washington: Yale University Press

Zwirner, D., (2015) Dan Flavin Corners, Barriers and Corridors. New York: David Zwirner Books

I’m supposed to talk about what I have learned from this course and what I’ve gained from it as an artist. But as an artist I feel I’ve gained nothing. These constellation courses aren’t well designed for university students with their own vision.

I’ve proven my knowledge of art time and again. In A-level art and Art Foundation just for a start. I’m at a stage where I need to learn by doing. Not by reading. To quote Desmond Tutu “You learn to swim by swimming”. This is just taking me out of the metaphorical water. Wasting my time and stunting my growth as an artist.

If I have nothing good to say about the module as an artist, can I say I learned anything as a person? I’m not sure.

I knew many of the artists here. But had never read their writings or those of the theorists who inspired them. But the experience of reading these overlong, overblown, theory pieces has been one of the most joyless and frustrating reading experiences of my life. It didn’t enhance the work for me, it did the opposite. I now respect some of the artists involved less for it.

Beneath all the fancy language there is a degree of pettiness to all these journals, worthy of a modern Twitter feud. Everyone claims their art is the purist, or in some cases the only real art at all. And everyone thinks they are the final word in art. History ends with them. Only Donald Judd escaped from this narcissism unscathed. And even he couldn’t escape all the snide bickering that went on between these supposed mature adults.

When people are sniping at each-other for adding one brush stroke of paint, or even using paint at all, it suggests something has gone wrong. Rather than being a cornucopia of creativity the art world became a collection of dogmatic cults where any deviation spells hysteria and anger if you are a heretic, and excommunication if you are a follower.

It doesn’t help that some of it is barely readable. There is so much deliberately over-complicated writing that it can take hours to read. And when deciphered it’s dry and bland once you strip out all the ego-stroking and infighting. The reasons why these art works exist tend to be less exciting than the ideas you had in your head. But when art is made to be pure art and nothing else how can it not be cold and emotionless? An emotion would point to something that is not art. And alluding to things outside of the single artwork is forbidden. That’s how the old art worked.

The fact these manifestos and Journals were read so avidly baffles me. The theories are always so boring and honestly, very samey.

Besides. The work is always infinitely more powerful than the writing behind it.

So, the main thing I’ve learned from reading all these art journals and manifestos is that I hate reading them. Followed by them not feeling relevant to the works or even antithetical to how the works came out.

I don’t even find that my feelings about 20^th century art have changed. I still like the artists I like, and still dislike the ones I disliked to begin with. But I already knew it’s almost impossible to change a person’s view on an artwork by force of argument.

I’ve also learned I find the artists more compelling than the movements they were in. When an artist is good it doesn’t matter what movement they belonged to. Though I’m certainly more likely to appreciate an artist from movement I like.

Movements come and go. But the artists who worked in them remain powerful and relevant long after the ideas and rules of the movement have been forgotten.

More, even in their own lifetimes these artists keep on making great works long after the movements they are associated with have faded away.

But do these movements at least act as a useful springboard for these artists? A way for them to find their voice and get some notice before stepping out on their own? I don’t know. I can’t judge with the limited information I have right now.

But when you consider how many great artists from before, during, and after the 20^th Century were not tied to specifics movements, you have to wonder if these movements even matter at all.

One thing I have learned about myself is I usually find these journals a lot easier to read if it’s by an artist I like. This is not always the case. Robert Morris’s manifesto on minimalism was one of the worst reading experiences of my life. But when reading books on Dan Flavin for my final essay I found my enthusiasm for him helped enormously in understanding the more theoretical side of the texts.

On that note, I feel glad that I was able to do some classic book reading. I forget how much fun really reading is if I don’t do it often. Not only is it more enjoyable than reading online. But I found I got more useful information out of it too.

And I’m grateful that I’ve been able to keep my writing skills sharp and even push them forward. I’ve had to up my game. Making my writing sharper. More refined. Make my arguments better and better presented. This does at least feel valuable. But I wish someone would give me feedback on my work. I have no idea if what I’m doing is any good or not.

Was this worth it? No. I feel the artworld has been lessened in my eyes. I’ve been unguided. Overworked. My worldview has gone unchallenged. I’ve been distracted from my real work. And this hasn’t helped me grow as an artist at all.

The only part that has been useful is revisiting reading books and having to improve my writing game. But both of those things could have been put in a much better course.

I can’t shake the feeling these courses aren’t being done for the student’s benefit but for the ego of the teaching staff. I didn’t learn anything of value here. And this is probably the most art focused course on offer. I can’t imagine how redundant the next course will be.

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.