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?
Seeing a piece by Calder is always a fresh and delightful experience. His work is not really “around that much.” Unlike the work of some of the recent, super-popular artists like Warhol, or Koons, or Basquiat, whose work seems to show up every time you turn a page, or click a link, you sometimes go …
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.
Mondrian’s work has been a big influence on me, and my approach to art. When I first encountered his paintings, I was struck by how spare, flat, and organized they were.
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
Alexander Calder
Seeing a piece by Calder is always a fresh and delightful experience. His work is not really “around that much.” Unlike the work of some of the recent, super-popular artists like Warhol, or Koons, or Basquiat, whose work seems to show up every time you turn a page, or click a link, you sometimes go …
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:
Joseph Cornell
The central metaphor of art is transformation… Turning one thing into another is where art starts.
Share this:
Like this:
Piet Mondrian
Mondrian’s work has been a big influence on me, and my approach to art. When I first encountered his paintings, I was struck by how spare, flat, and organized they were.
Share this:
Like this: