Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:32:17.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Environmental Art an Aesthetic Affront to Nature?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Allen Carlson
Allen Carlson*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaT6G 2E5
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this discussion I consider one aesthetic issue which arises from certain intimate relationships between art and nature. The background to these relationships can be traced to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It includes factors of considerable importance in the history of the aesthetic appreciation of nature such as the eighteenth century infatuation with landscape gardening and the continuingly influential role of landscape painting. Here, however, I concentrate on these relationships only as exemplified in a contemporary phenomenon – environmental art. By environmental art I mean both the earthworks and earthmarks of artists such as Robert Smithson, Michael Heizer, and Dennis Oppenheim and certain structures on the land such as those of Robert Morris, Michael Singer, and Christo. Some paradigm cases are Smithson's Spiral Jetty (1970), Heizer's Double Negative (1969-70), Singer's Lily Pond Ritual Series (1975), and Christo's Running Fence (1972-76).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 635 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Baker, Elizabeth C. ‘Artworks on the Land,’ Art in America 64 (1976);Google Scholar reprinted in Sonfist, Alan ed., Art in the Land: A Critical Anthology of Environmental Art (New York: Dutton 1983), 75Google Scholar

2 See Frankenstein, Alfred ‘Christo's “Fence,” Beauty or Betrayal?’ Art in America 64 (1976), 58–61.Google Scholar

3 See ‘Compromise Proposed in Christo Island-Wrap,’ New York Times (March 20, 1983), 54.

4 Humphrey, Peter ‘The Ethics of Earthworks,’ Environmental Ethics 7 (1985), 21;CrossRefGoogle Scholar I am grateful to Humphrey for a number of insightful suggestions.

5 Newton Harrison, paraphrased in Michael Aupling, ‘Earth Art: A Study in Ecological Politics,’ in Sonfist, 103

6 Crawford, Donald ‘Nature and Art: Some Dialectical Relationships,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 42 (1983) 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Crawford, 56

8 Humphrey, 8

9 Humphrey, for example, motivates his ethical inquiry into earthworks by means of a somewhat similar point: ‘an earthwork is ethical if and only if what it does to the environment is ethical. This requires us to look at the earthwork as a mark and not only as art. In seeing earthworks in this way, the implication is that earthworks should be ethically judged by the same standard … that all other such marks are judged by - marks like strip mines, dams, and golden arches.’ Ibid.

10 Gussow, Alan A Sense of Place: Artists and the American Land (San Francisco: Friends of the Earth 1972).Google Scholar The quotation is reprinted in Smithson, Robert ‘Frederick Law Olmstead and the Dialectical Landscape,’ Artforum 11 (1973);Google Scholar reprinted in Holt, Nancy ed., The Writings of Robert Smithson: Essays with Illustrations (New York: New York University Press 1979) 122.Google Scholar

11 Smithson, Robert ‘A Sedimentation of the Mind: Earth Projects,’ Artforum 7 (1968);Google Scholar reprinted in Holt, 83

12 Heizer, Michael quoted in Gruen, John ‘Michael Heizer: “You might say I'm in the construction business”,’ ARTnews 76 (1977) 98Google Scholar

13 For a description of one such proposal and an illustration, see Robert Smithson, ‘Untitled, 1972’ and ‘Proposal, 1972’ in Holt, 220-1. For a useful discussion, see Aupling, 92-104.

14 With regard to different kinds of artworks, see Walton, Kendall ‘Categories of Art,’ Philosophical Review 79 (1970) 334–67;CrossRefGoogle Scholar concerning artworks and non-art artifacts, see Sagoff, Mark ‘The Aesthetic Status of Forgeries,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 (1976) 169–80;Google Scholar concerning artifacts and non-artifacts, see Carlson, Allen ‘Nature, Aesthetic Judgment, and Objectivity,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 40 (1981) 15–27.Google Scholar

15 Baker, 74

16 Dali, Salvador ‘Why They Attack the Mona Lisa,’ ARTnews 62 (1963);Google Scholar reprinted in Barbaralee, Diamonstein ed., The Art World: A Seventy-Five-Year Treasury of ARTnews (New York: ARTnews Books 1977) 326Google Scholar

17 Ibid.

18 Heizer, Heizer, Michael Oppenheim, Dennis Smithson, Robert ‘Discussions with Heizer, Oppenheim, Smithson,’ Avalanche 1 (1970);Google Scholar reprinted in Holt, 171

19 Smithson, Robert quoted in Alloway, Lawrence ‘Robert Smithson's Development,’ Artforum 11 (1972);Google Scholar reprinted in Sonfist, 131

20 Picasso, Pablo quoted in André Malraux, Picasso's Mask, trans. June Guicharnaud and Guicharnaud, Jacques (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1976) 55;Google Scholar the remark is related to environmental art in Mark Rosenthal, ‘Some Attitudes of Earth Art: From Competition to Adoration,’ in Sonfist, 60-72.

21 Heizer, ‘Discussions,’ 178Google Scholar

22 Some of these replies are suggested by Humphrey, 11-18, and Crawford, 50-1, 55-6.

23 Baker, 80

24 Christo, quoted in Crawford, 56

25 Baker, 75

26 Smithson, ‘Frederick Law Olmstead,’ 124Google Scholar

27 Smithson, Robert ‘Conversation in Salt Lake City: Interview with Gianni Pettena,’ Domus 516 (1972);Google Scholar reprinted in Holt, 186

28 See Carlson, Allen ‘Appreciation and the Natural Environment,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37 (1979) 267–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 See Carlson, Allen ‘Nature and Positive Aesthetics,’ Environmental Ethics 6 (1984) 5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Smithson, ‘Discussions,’ 172Google Scholar

31 Smithson, ‘Frederick Law Olmstead,’ 123Google Scholar

32 Smithson, ‘Untitled, 1972,’ 220Google Scholar

33 Smithson, ‘Conversation,’ 187Google Scholar

34 Smithson, Robert ‘Entropy Made Visible: Interview with Alison Sky,’ On Site 4 (1973);Google Scholar reprinted in Holt, 192-194

35 Gruen, 97

36 See Carlson, Allen ‘On Appreciating Agricultural Landscapes,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43 (1985) 301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Smithson, ‘Frederick Law Olmstead,’ 127Google Scholar

38 Yard, Sally Christo Oceanfront (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1975) 19Google Scholar

39 McCullogh, Alan ‘Letter from Australia,’ Art International 14 (1970) 71;Google Scholar quoted in Hall, Carol ‘Environmental Artists: Sources and Directions,’ in Sonfist, 16Google Scholar

40 Singer, Michael quoted in Kate Linker, ‘Michael Singer: A Position In, and On, Nature,’ Arts 52 (1977);Google Scholar reprinted in Sonfist, 188

41 Linker, 183-4

42 Grace Glueck, ‘Art Notes: Auction Where the Action Is,’ New York Times (November 15, 1970) D26

43 Alan Sonfist, quoted in ibid.

44 Sonfist, Alan Natural Phenomena as Public Monuments (Purchase, New York: Neuberger Museum 1978)Google Scholar

45 Sonfist, Alan Rock Monument of Buffalo (Buffalo, New York: Albright-Knox Art Gallery 1979);Google Scholar quoted in Carpenter, Jonathan ‘Alan Sonfist's Public Sculptures,’ in Sonfist, 146Google Scholar

46 Carpenter, 151

47 Sonfist, quoted in Glueck, D26

48 Rosenthal, 68. Rosenthal's article provides a useful comparison of Sonfist's Time Landscape and Smithson's Spiral Jetty.

An earlier short version of this article was presented as part of a symposium on interactions between art and nature at the Xth International Congress for Aesthetics in August, 1984, and appears in the proceedings of that congress. I wish to thank those present, and especially my co-symposiests, Donald Crawford and Dabney Townsend, for helpful comments and suggestions. I also with to thank the anonymous referees of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy for constructive criticism of this version.