A Reaction to Modernity

Earthworks and Land Art truly took off in the 1970s-80s as a reaction against Modernism. Before it subsided in mid-80s, Land art had become widespread across America. While Land art is not prevalent today in the Midwest, people should be able to recognize or remember the few pieces that are present, from Andrew Leicester's Cloverleaf (1982) at the intersection of 494 and 35E, to Mel Chin's Revival Field (1990-1993) in West Saint Paul at Pig Eye's Lake landfill.

Following Minimalism and Post-minimalism, Land art found its niche as art outside the gallery setting. Around the same time sculpture gardens, like the Walker in Minneapolis, were constructed in an effort to break out of the box of formalism. Although the Walker was constructed as a reclamation of a wasteland area in Minneapolis, the formalism of the gallery aesthetic pervaded the outside space, thereby killing any Land art intentions of specific sculptures.

In terms of Art History,  Earthworks and Land art can be seen as a movement in reaction to a reaction:

Finally, Earthworks and Land art are not unique to America, though there are qualities of American Land art that differ greatly from say, European land art. While American Land artists worked to comment on the industrial by making works that attempted to conquer nature, literal gouging in the landscape (Michael Heizer, Double Negative, 1969-1970), British Land artists like Richard Long (A Line Made By Walking, 1967) and Andrew Goldsworthy (Balanced Rock Misty, 1977) worked to celebrate the pastoral setting, connecting with nature, working with it, and leaving no trace.

Various Conceptions of Land Art

I believe that Land Art is best known by its oppositions. By deciding what is NOT Land Art, it becomes easier to identify what Land Art is and what it is about.

I've asked some Minnesotans if they can think of examples of local Land Art and have gotten some interesting suggestions.

The Snowman in North Saint Paul. 

While playful and creative, this snowman does not comment directly

 on anything ecological or political and is not Land art. It was constructed out of stucco for the purpose of being the city's icon. If anything, this suggestion clearly demonstrates a misunderstanding of the goal and type of art Land art is.

 

Rather, see Andrew Goldsworthy's Midsummer Snowballs as an example of European Land art made in 2000 and placed in the streets of London to comment on global warming.

The "Witches' Tower" water-tower in Minneapolis.

This is also not considered Land art. While this is an interesting architectural design for a water-tower, it does not spark particular dialogue or have a site-specific purpose related to landscape other than delivering water to the neighborhood residents.

The Japanese Garden and the Como Zoo Conservatory/Park Reserve in Saint Paul strikes a balance between architecture and formal gardens. Though this location celebrates the contours of the land in its placement, I would not deem it Land art. The Japanese garden, like zen gardens are debatable, but the conservatory itself has a functional purpose all its own.

 

 

I would not consider Woodbury's "Central Park" and Library to be a form of Land art, although it strikes a comparable similarity to Maya Lin's The Character of a Hill, Under Glass.

    

 

The Woodbury "Central Park" does function as a communal gathering place, as Lin's piece acts as a center for commerce, but I do not see it as Land art because there are benches and chairs, much like a park, whereas Lin's piece is a conceptual space where one can meander on rolling wooden hills.

Mounds Park in Saint Paul.

These mounds were constructed over 2,000  years ago. Like the Serpent Mound in Ohio, the mounds in Saint Paul are very much Earthworks. Although the context of their creation has been lost on today's residents, these mounds were created as part of a cultural ritual of the Hopewellian Indians.

Finally, another piece that is Land art while also a scientific experiment is Mel Chin's Revival Field (1990-1993). This is a conception of Land art as an environmentally sustainable reclamation plan for a toxic waste site.  Chin's goal was to restore and maintain nature while keep industrialization. This project not only acknowledges that landfills exist and are harmful to the original environment, it suggests a solution for restoration and equilibrium between human industrialization and nature.

As you can see, Land Art is not easy to identify if one is not familiar with its concepts. If one can recognize the importance of context or placement within landscape, the artist's intention, materials of construction, and resistance to formal structures of art, the identification of Land art can be simplified.

Land Art vs. Public Art

Public art and Land art are different in the manner of monetary acquisition. Public Art solicits support and receives government funding while Land Art (for the most part) is financed personally by the artist.

Public art is like Land art in that it looks for communal involvement.

Both Public art and Land art work to break down the concept of formal museum and gallery prominence in the art world. While Land art is usually found in natural settings, Public art is typically found in urban settings, usually in the forecourts of businesse

s or plazas downtown (Seine 114).

Examples of Public art in Saint Paul include:

*The annual ice carving competition of the Saint Paul Winter Carnival in Rice Park across from the Landmark Center. 

*The Snoopy (and subsequent) sculptures (Charlie Brown in

 Town, For the Love of Lucy, Linus Blankets the City) which are sponsered by businesses in and around Saint Paul, they appear on many city sidewalks (much like the Cow Parade in New York during 1999, Chicago during 2000, and Madison during 2006).

Land Art vs. Sculpture Gardens

Like Public Art, sculpture gardens were created with the intent of connecting different audiences with art. As Harriet Seine says in her article "Urban Sculpture: Cultural Tolkens or Ornaments to Life?" featured in Art News September of 1979, "Familiarity with art [creates] greater understanding, appreciation, and desire for more [art/engagement]" (112).

The Walker in downtown Minneapolis, decided to create their sculpture garden in 1987 as an effort to reclaim the wasteland area across from their museum. Furthermore, to

 establish an engagement with the community, the Walker commissioned the artist Siah Armajani to construct a 375-foot long bridge  (the Irene Hixon Whitney Bridge across Interstate 94 to connect people from the Loring Park area directly into the flourishing sculpture garden.

Although sculpture gardens integrate art into the outdoors, it is their formal construction that invalidate the contained sculptures as Land art. The gallery aesthetic of the Walker tends to pervade its sculpture garden. Look at its structure. It looks like the design of the garden echoes that of museum spaces, with courtyards mimicking gallery rooms, spaces designed specially to house certain sculptures.

Pieces like Arikidea (1977-1982) by Mark di Suervo are not Land art. Arikidea is a sculpture because it can be placed inside a museum and the only difference for viewers would be that they would feel less inclined to interact with it. Like public art, there is an aspect of viewer participation, but because it is not site-specific, it is not Land art.

Another place to explore is Franconia Scultpre Park near Taylors Falls in Minnesota. It was designed as a place for artists to play and experiment without having to worry about costs or exhibition space. Here artists have free reign over the land and can use it to display or create

 art as they see fit. When visiting, the feel is very different than that of the Walker Sculpture Garden, it is less formal in its organization, in fact sculptural pieces are scattered across the land without any order of presentation. Here there are not only definite pieces of sculpture, but there are also sculptural Land art pieces. 

See:

Trees have bones for roots, Araan Schmidt 

1963 Black Walnut, Aaron Dysart

Earthcubes Leah Frankel

For me, these pieces worked as 

Land Art because they utilized and demonstrated qualities of both the industrialized (with paint in 1963 Black Walnut and bronze in Trees have bones for roots) and the natural process of decomposition (of earth in Earthcubes).

Discussion/Debate on Site-Specificity

Like Land art, some sculpture is site-specific. The context alters the meaning of the work. Take David Nash's Standing Frame (1987) at the Walker Sculpture Garden. It is made of white oak, torched for preservation. Based on one's position relative to it, different "pictures" can be captured in the frame. Thus the situation of the viewer is important in creating meaning, as is its contextual location. This piece is debatable as Land art; because of its location within an sculpture garden, I do not consider it Land art, but like much Land art, this piece is composed of organic materials and comments on how humanity frames things.

So the question arises, can Land art exist in public places like sculpture gardens? Like Seine comments,

How we interpret such sculpture is considerably determined by where we see it. If it's in a gallery, we 'read' it as art; if it's in a city square, we will still expect it to be a monument (Seine 112).

Location is integral in the creation of Land art, and if it is within a gallery or museum setting, its purpose as Land art is invalidated. Thus the concept of site-specificity is prevalent in determining which art is Land art and which art is Public. Look at the Venn diagram below to see how I have placed the decidability of site-specificity for certain works:

Again, Land art stands apart from Public art and sculptures within sculpture gardens because the context of location is paramount in the creation of Land art pieces. See James Turnell's Sky Pesher. Is it Land art because of its specific location, or is it another sculpture for the Walker Sculpture Garden because of its location?

To Review:

Land art [...] is in large measure about the landscape itself—its scale, its vistas, its essentially horizontal character, its topography, and its human and natural history. It is frequently made from the materials at hand. It reveals the changing characteristics that a work assumes in different conditions: diurnal or nocturnal light, winter glare or summer haze, full sun or could shadow. While any outdoor work will change appearance under different conditions, sited sculptures are less exclusively about the landscape itself. They are also about mass, form, volume, surface: that is, some of the traditional concerns of sculpture. Alternatively, they are manifestations of the organization of space, both internal and external: that is architecture. They are still made with a great sensitivity to the surroundings—and often, this is the landscape—but have an internal coherence that land art does not. With sited sculptures, there is often an explicit boundary between the work and the environment. Rather than being forms that have emerged from the landscape, they often have the look of objects that have been set down within it (Beardsley 103-104).

When assessing Land art, there are many identifiable similarities and differences from Public art and Sculpture Gardens. I have found the following qualities helpful in determining what is Land art:

*Context/Site-Specificity

*Materials (organic vs. synthetic)

*Artist's intention/Viewer's perception

*Resistance to formal structures of art (i.e. Modernity and Post-Modern concepts)

I hope that by viewing this site people can begin to clarify their understanding of Land art and its unique way of conveying meaning through methods of creation and display.