Same here, Jo. Although environmental issues were coming into public awareness, it is more recently that the communicative balance of ecosystems are better understood. There is something about the strive towards bigger (better) etc. that reminds me of the cautionary tale of Babylon.
"Aesthetic affront" would not be Christo's favorite term. Clearly he means the opposite. I see his work as temporary or performance. When taken down we only have photos or video, which possibly is a poor way of capturing his statement.
That made me laugh. He wouldn't have like that at all! Definitely he had an appreciation of the elements he was against, and that it wouldn't ever be an enduring exhibit. I have to admit that if I'd been riding down that very bike-friendly looking road and stumbled across the Valley Curtain, I would have been awed by the sight. You raise another point about the nature of the work - photos, documents etc not being a way of capturing the art of his pieces. The more I look into the why behind land art, the more the experience of the piece is its point, fleeting though it may be.
Good to have you here Richard, welcome to The Fiertzeside!
Thank you for visiting my substack and sharing it! I am so glad that the post on Rita’s magnolia meant something to you. I was very new to writing again when I wrote that.
Again, fascinating echoes back to myth training in Landscape Architecture in your main post - the profession was thought to be ‘being the advocate and spokesperson for the landscape’, os writing reports on whether something was or wasn’t an affront to the aesthetics of nature was part of the job. And of course the landscape was pretty mute on its own aesthetic potential.
I always found the clash between the aesthetics of the landscape and the functioning of the landscape odd - for example the public would often object to something like a barrier that kept invasive species out because it was ‘ugly’, and interrupted the landscape. Yet it was improving so many of the ways the landscape was creating habitats for endangered animals,,say.
As part of one of the university projects, we were to make a piece of land art, once. I made a sort of a pile of fallen weed species flowers with a wrapping of some shiny paper (which I was going to remove at the end of the day). Then I hid to see what would happen. The first person to come across was a man who was instantly enraged and hit its repeatedly with a stick until everything was scattered. He definitely thought I was committing aesthetic affront.
Oh wow, Helen! That's incredible. So good to get personal examples like this.
I was struck by the statement that the landscape was pretty mute on its own aesthetic potential. My approach to the garden comes from what I learned about permaculture design and regenerative agriculture. While it might be mute, there is a lot that can be read in a landscape and much it can teach. I struggle with social ideas about how land should look, what a garden should look like and how it should be maintained, most of which revolves around the notion of 'tidy' and 'clean'. Your own example of objection to barriers seems a different type of objection, but one of preconceived notions of aesthetic, I sense which are no less harmful.
Thank you for the input, Helen. I love the different perspectives people bring to the conversation.
Mute was probably the wrong word - I really meant that the act of hearing it is so dominated by our own knowledge and cultural perspective that we are never hearing the pure voice of the landscape itself, only one very mediated by who we are.
Thanks for providing this good space to talk about things I haven’t thought about for ages.
Absolutely. As our understanding changes, so does our relationship with the land. Wouldn't it be great if we could hear the pure voice of the landscape?
I love the argument (intended) in this essay Safar…
For reasons of environmental disruption, whether that be to fauna, flora, or any other of natures own art, unless these (rather incomprehensible) errections, coverings and earth movements are constructed in complete harmony and sympathy with the nature surrounding and living upon it, I see it rather like the hunter glorifying his kill by asking for a photo of said dead creature laying in front him and his weapon. I cannot condone such behaviour. Likewise with these vast works of art(?), whilst I find some aesthetically pleasing, at what cost?
Perhaps I am narrow minded in this, old fashioned even but truly, who is the beneficiary… ?
I like your metaphor. The art was created in a particular time and context, so from that point of view it was socially radical. Now, given what we know, it seems obscene. I much prefer the ephemeral uses of nature's litter. So quiet, just as powerful, even more so for its lack of longevity. It is done in the spirit of understanding/reestablishing a relationship with nature. The earthworks, I agree are like trophies. I have been pondering this question in relation to art, who is the beneficiary and how important a question is that to ask of art? To be continued, I'm guessing.
I wonder what is the impact on wildlife large and small, and if there is disruption of the tree roots and life below the soil
Same here, Jo. Although environmental issues were coming into public awareness, it is more recently that the communicative balance of ecosystems are better understood. There is something about the strive towards bigger (better) etc. that reminds me of the cautionary tale of Babylon.
"Aesthetic affront" would not be Christo's favorite term. Clearly he means the opposite. I see his work as temporary or performance. When taken down we only have photos or video, which possibly is a poor way of capturing his statement.
That made me laugh. He wouldn't have like that at all! Definitely he had an appreciation of the elements he was against, and that it wouldn't ever be an enduring exhibit. I have to admit that if I'd been riding down that very bike-friendly looking road and stumbled across the Valley Curtain, I would have been awed by the sight. You raise another point about the nature of the work - photos, documents etc not being a way of capturing the art of his pieces. The more I look into the why behind land art, the more the experience of the piece is its point, fleeting though it may be.
Good to have you here Richard, welcome to The Fiertzeside!
Thank you for visiting my substack and sharing it! I am so glad that the post on Rita’s magnolia meant something to you. I was very new to writing again when I wrote that.
Again, fascinating echoes back to myth training in Landscape Architecture in your main post - the profession was thought to be ‘being the advocate and spokesperson for the landscape’, os writing reports on whether something was or wasn’t an affront to the aesthetics of nature was part of the job. And of course the landscape was pretty mute on its own aesthetic potential.
I always found the clash between the aesthetics of the landscape and the functioning of the landscape odd - for example the public would often object to something like a barrier that kept invasive species out because it was ‘ugly’, and interrupted the landscape. Yet it was improving so many of the ways the landscape was creating habitats for endangered animals,,say.
As part of one of the university projects, we were to make a piece of land art, once. I made a sort of a pile of fallen weed species flowers with a wrapping of some shiny paper (which I was going to remove at the end of the day). Then I hid to see what would happen. The first person to come across was a man who was instantly enraged and hit its repeatedly with a stick until everything was scattered. He definitely thought I was committing aesthetic affront.
Oh wow, Helen! That's incredible. So good to get personal examples like this.
I was struck by the statement that the landscape was pretty mute on its own aesthetic potential. My approach to the garden comes from what I learned about permaculture design and regenerative agriculture. While it might be mute, there is a lot that can be read in a landscape and much it can teach. I struggle with social ideas about how land should look, what a garden should look like and how it should be maintained, most of which revolves around the notion of 'tidy' and 'clean'. Your own example of objection to barriers seems a different type of objection, but one of preconceived notions of aesthetic, I sense which are no less harmful.
Thank you for the input, Helen. I love the different perspectives people bring to the conversation.
Mute was probably the wrong word - I really meant that the act of hearing it is so dominated by our own knowledge and cultural perspective that we are never hearing the pure voice of the landscape itself, only one very mediated by who we are.
Thanks for providing this good space to talk about things I haven’t thought about for ages.
Absolutely. As our understanding changes, so does our relationship with the land. Wouldn't it be great if we could hear the pure voice of the landscape?
I love the argument (intended) in this essay Safar…
For reasons of environmental disruption, whether that be to fauna, flora, or any other of natures own art, unless these (rather incomprehensible) errections, coverings and earth movements are constructed in complete harmony and sympathy with the nature surrounding and living upon it, I see it rather like the hunter glorifying his kill by asking for a photo of said dead creature laying in front him and his weapon. I cannot condone such behaviour. Likewise with these vast works of art(?), whilst I find some aesthetically pleasing, at what cost?
Perhaps I am narrow minded in this, old fashioned even but truly, who is the beneficiary… ?
I like your metaphor. The art was created in a particular time and context, so from that point of view it was socially radical. Now, given what we know, it seems obscene. I much prefer the ephemeral uses of nature's litter. So quiet, just as powerful, even more so for its lack of longevity. It is done in the spirit of understanding/reestablishing a relationship with nature. The earthworks, I agree are like trophies. I have been pondering this question in relation to art, who is the beneficiary and how important a question is that to ask of art? To be continued, I'm guessing.