Minus Mel Chin’s Revival Field and Maya Lin’s The Character of a Hill, Under Glass there is not a lot of Land art in the Twin Cities area. Land art is distinguishable from public art and sculpture in that the process of creation is interested in the nature of places and contemplation of context within the landscape. Although environmentalism is not always the focus, ecological issues are usually tied-in.


Introduction to Land Art

When encountering Land art, meaning is found behind the process of creation, documentation, chosen media, and site location. As you will soon see, there are many similarities and differences between Land art, public art, and sculpture gardens. It is important to remember that all art, regardless of structure, has an agenda and can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on its location.

While difficult at first to distinguish, Land art is valuable for viewers and artists alike as it challenges conceptions of art with its consideration for the creation of works outside of studios, and placement of works outside of gallery and museum spaces. Furthermore, its method of creation is pre-meditated by the artists and the process of creation and entropy are documented by cameras and film.

I would like people in my geographical area to become aware of local Land art pieces and their striking difference from sculpture and public art pieces because I believe Land art is powerful in the way that it comments on the industrial and its competition with nature. I think in recognizing and discussing Land art, we are given the opportunity to fuel social and environmental change through altered perceptions of everyday life and values.

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?

No comments:

Relevant Texts/Bibilography

  • Beardsley, John. Earthworks and Beyond. 3rd Edition. Abbeville Press Publishers: New York. 1998.
  • Berry, Thomas, The Dream of the Earth
  • Hinman, Lawrence, Ethics, a Pluralistic Approah to Moral Theory
  • Seine, Harriet. "Urban Sculpture: Cultural Tolkens or Ornaments to Life?" Art News v.78, Sept. 1979, p.108-114.
  • Tufnell, Ben. Land Art. Tate Publishing: London. 2006.

Have you heard of Earthworks or Land Art before?

Has this Blog helped you identify what Land Art is?

Have I effectively explained Land Art's importance to Minnesotans?

About Me

My photo
200 RYS Level 3 Reiki B.A. English Literature and Art History

Site Meter