Carlson on Environmental Art
“Is Env. Art an Aes Affront to Nature?”

1986, Canadian Journal of Phil

Def of Env. Art

• Site is part of the work itself

• Part of nature is part of aes object, it is part of the work of art

• Not just art that is located in nature

Christo’s Surrounded Islands 1983

DeMaria’s Las Vegas Piece 1970

Smithson’s Spiral Jetty 1970

Nature of Carlson’s criticism

• Not moral or ecological criticism

• E.g., Flooding parts of Asia as artwork would be morally and ecologically wrong

• An aesthetic criticism: Aes affront to nature

Aesthetic Affront to Nature

• Aes indignity

• Aes imposition

• Due to aes qualities of env. Art

• Affront to nature, not nec to appreciator

– Even though nature doesn’t know it being affronted

– Jones might also not realize or be able to realize he’s being affronted

Mistaken accounts of why Env. Art is Aes Affront

• Similar/identical in appearance to things like mining/industry/commerce that all agree are aes affronts

– We require reclamation/restoration

– Because such an eyesore

Smithson’s Asphalt Rundown 1969

• Looks just like industrial pollution

• So it’s an eyesore like industrial pollution is and thus an aes affront

• Road foreman: “If I dumped my extra asphalt like that they’d make me clean it up.”

Heizer’s Double Negative 69-70

• Looks like skyline mining notches in Appalachia

• Thus it’s an eyesore like those are

Reply: Same appearance not = same aes quality

• Aes qualities of object those it appears to have when appro appreciated as the kind of thing it is

– When appreciated in the right category

• Two things identical in appearance can have dif aes quality if dif kinds of things

• E.g., Duchamp’s fountain

• E.g., Asphalt rundown is art, not pollution, thus it may have dif aes qualities

• Heizer’s double negative can have majesty while identically appearing mining notch does not

Why must app aes object in right category

• Lively or a bit sedate? Post impressionism or German Expressionism

German expressionism

Change in kind of object can/must? change its aes qualities

• Does change in aes qualities of an aes object lead to (nec?) an aes affront?

• Examples where it does

Duchamp’s LHOOQ

• Duchamp’s mustached and goateed Mona Lisa changed work’s kind from Renaissance Portrait to 20^th century Dada and changed its aes qualities

• A clear denigration and aes affront

Michelangelo’s David

• Monty Python’s turning of Michelangelo’s David into a kinetic structure with a moveable right arm

• Would have dramatically different aes qualities even when arm at rest

• An aes affront

Env art is aes affront to nature because

• Changes kind of thing part of nature is

• Changes if from being part of nature to part of an artwork

• Aes qualities are changed

• Env. art an affront because turns nature into art and changes aes qualities and this is an affront

• Even if env. Art is not nec an aes affront, many env. Art in fact are like Duchamp’s LOOQ and Python’s David in constituting an aes affront

Ned’s questions

• Depends on how aes qualities changed, not that they are?

• Is any dramatic env. change to nature an aes affront?

• Depends on intention of env. artist?

Some env. Artists intend to affront nature

• Smithson: “Disruption of earth’s crust can be compelling and has a primordial grandeur”

• Heizer: “I’m in the construction business. I mess with nature. I defile it.”

• Picasso: “Nature exists to be raped”

Carlson replies to 4 objections

• Affront is only temporary

• Env. Art improves nature

• Artist is a part of nature so not changing kind of thing piece of nature is

• Env. Art not changing nature’s kind or aes qualities, but spotlighting them

Env. Art is temporary

• Much env. Art is temporary and nature is resilient

• But affronts still affronts even if temporary

Christo’s Valley Curtain, Rifle, Co 1970-71

• Christo’s response to whether the valley near Rifle Colorado remains unaffected after having hosted Valley Curtain

• “Perhaps not”

Env art typically improves nature

• Because done in non-scenic areas

• Because all of nature has positive aes qualities, can’t argue no affront because there is little of aes merit there to affront.

• If done in significantly humanized areas, not aes affront to nature as not nature, but attempting to restore some natural aes qualities

– E.g., Alan Sonfist’s Time Landscapes in NY City

Christo’s Running Fence 72-76

Env artist is part of nature

• If env. Artist is part of nature then env. Art does not change nature to something that is not nature so no change in kind and no aes affront

• Not plausible to say Duchamp’s LOOQ not an affront because both art

• If artist acts purposely like nature, then its like vandalism

Heizer’s Mass Removed and Put Back