After my last post about the quirky rock piece by Ed, I was inspired to research art that did not necessarily draw on major philosophical or political themes. I wanted to look up someone that seemed driven to simply produce aesthetic works. With a help of a friend, I was reminded of Andy Goldsworthy, who doesn't necessarily fit the criteria discussed in Overlay (where prehistoric art themes are revisited by a contemporary means). According to my research, Goldsworthy's works, are essentially guided by his relationship with nature. The materials he uses and the types of works he produces he says are governed by the seasons-he uses what nature gives him. I think a good deal of his work comes is inspired by particular attributes of the materials he finds in the wild, such as colors of leaves, or the sharpness of stones. He often seems to sculpt to accentuate that particular characteristic of aspects of nature he finds. I've also found that a lot of his work reflects the repetitive approach we've discussed several times in class. For another example of this, check out the Rowan LeavesWith that, I just wanted to put out to the class if anyone had a comment about Goldsworthy's take on art versus what we've seen in the text. Does his lack of direct reference to prehistoric themes take away from what he produces? I know how it was mentioned in class that some of Goldsworthy's work found its way to the greetings card markets. I myself am new to looking at art in depth, so I'm curious, when do the critics draw the line when it comes to art being marketed like that? Or yet, does credibility to an artist begin to dissipate when the aesthetic values of his or her work begin to become more the focus than the inspiration behind it?
Photo:
Foxglove leaves split down
centre vein laid around hole
Leeds, Yorkshire
October 1977
centre vein laid around hole
Leeds, Yorkshire
October 1977
2 comments:
Lippard mentions about Robert Smithson that he enjoyed the "substance of of nature, not its looks, and always made clear that he did not separate humankind from nature."
I'm wondering how Smithson would have gotten along with Goldsworthy. Or another artist I've researched, photographer Brad Temkin, who has said he focuses on photographing nature as a result of humankind. Temkin often tries to give the illusion of a humankind that has long passed, almost like an extinction has occurred. How would Smithson react to pieces illustrating this theme?
Smithson was complex and often contradicted himself as we all might seem to do if we were studied over our lifetime. But one think I feel for certain, Smithson would have hated Goldsworthy's art ... predominantly because Smithson was a minimalist-conceptualist - about the process - and Goldsworthy leans more toward aesthetic, at least in his earlier work.
Post a Comment