The City, by Michael Heizer, has been getting a lot of attention lately. After over 50 years of design, fundraising, and earth moving, one can now make arrangements, through a non-profit foundation, to see it at its remote location in Nevada. Much has been made of its enormous size (the site is over 1 and 1/2 miles long, by about 1/2 mile wide), its enormous expense (over $40 million), its inaccessibility (only six people per day will be allowed to see it) and the half century of its gestation.
I haven’t made up my mind what to think about it. Is it possible to form a sound aesthetic judgement on something I will never see?
Anyway, a lot of questions come to mind from the bare information I have. For instance, does it have to be that big? Would it have worked at one-half, or one-quarter, or even a tenth of the scale? Given everything that is happening on Earth in the Twenty-first Century, is it OK for one man to impose his will over such a large section of land? Did a man really build a monument to himself bigger than The Great Pyramids? Will any aesthetic joy felt by its few visitors ever justify all the bother?
I first got interested in photography in middle school, in the 1970s. Some friends showed me there was a small darkroom at the school, and they showed me how to develop film, and how to make enlargements.
“Look, life is ridiculous. Nothing means anything, really, when you get right down to it. Besides, we’re all going to die. We all know all that. But, can’t we have a little fun along the way?”
When I first encountered Kandinsky, it was the German Expressionist style he worked in when he was part of the German Expressionist group Der Blaue Reiter.
The City by Michael Heizer
The City, by Michael Heizer, has been getting a lot of attention lately. After over 50 years of design, fundraising, and earth moving, one can now make arrangements, through a non-profit foundation, to see it at its remote location in Nevada. Much has been made of its enormous size (the site is over 1 and 1/2 miles long, by about 1/2 mile wide), its enormous expense (over $40 million), its inaccessibility (only six people per day will be allowed to see it) and the half century of its gestation.
I haven’t made up my mind what to think about it. Is it possible to form a sound aesthetic judgement on something I will never see?
Anyway, a lot of questions come to mind from the bare information I have. For instance, does it have to be that big? Would it have worked at one-half, or one-quarter, or even a tenth of the scale? Given everything that is happening on Earth in the Twenty-first Century, is it OK for one man to impose his will over such a large section of land? Did a man really build a monument to himself bigger than The Great Pyramids? Will any aesthetic joy felt by its few visitors ever justify all the bother?
Share this:
Like this:
Related
Related Posts
Robert Frank
Every artist, of whatever skill or level, can point to the very specific moments when they saw work that…
Share this:
Like this:
Ansel Adams
I first got interested in photography in middle school, in the 1970s. Some friends showed me there was a small darkroom at the school, and they showed me how to develop film, and how to make enlargements.
Share this:
Like this:
DADA
“Look, life is ridiculous. Nothing means anything, really, when you get right down to it. Besides, we’re all going to die. We all know all that. But, can’t we have a little fun along the way?”
Share this:
Like this:
Wassily Kandinsky
When I first encountered Kandinsky, it was the German Expressionist style he worked in when he was part of the German Expressionist group Der Blaue Reiter.
Share this:
Like this: