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 …
“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?”
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:
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:
Paul Klee
The artwork of Paul Klee is so imaginative and playful, I think of him as just floating along on a cloud of pure inspiration!
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: