Research I am really interested in site specific art . Materiality, Time, and Space in Site-Specific

Time, and Space in Site-Specific

Does the site dictate the material? Materiality plays an important role in site-specific art. Onsite art became popular in the nineteen sixties and is still being produced today. Materiality in the art of this nature includes time and space. Do artists who produce land art hinder indigenous peoples’ heritage and their relationship with the land?

Materiality is a communication of agency. It has no boundaries. Art transcends meanings and speaks different languages. It brings communities together through material and artwork. In the book Materiality edited by Petra Lang, materiality is described as an,” incredibly pleasurable and rewarding experience.”[1] Materiality gives validity and understanding that art can be made of anything by anyone. With this being noted, how is site-specific art dictated by materiality? For one to delve into this we have to take a look at artists that produce onsite art. Site-specific art, onsite art, eco-art, and land art are primarily all coupled. Such artwork is not generally displayed in a white box gallery. The nature of the site specifies what is being incorporated into the work. Land art can be built-in nature, department stores, mountains, lakes, or anywhere it is created. Site-specific art is made specifically for a certain place with a certain aesthetic. While researching land artists, several names came to light, but there were a few that were repetitively mentioned in journals, dissertations, articles, and books.

When you seek out an onsite artist, Richard Serra is a notorious site-specific artist. Serra’s work incorporates geometry, intersubjectivity, and property. Serra’s work is nonrepresentational and nonmetaphorical. His processes reside in relationships, sites, and material.[2] Richard Serra’s work is discussed as cooperation and interest in material production and process. One of his most infamous sculptures is titled, Titled Arch. This piece’s dimensions are one-hundred twenty feet long, twelve feet high, and two and a half inches thick. Materials used were self-oxidizing unfinished steel in solid plates. It was meant to have a patina over time. Materials like this were used because of their attributes which, in turn, dictated their use. It delineated time and space, therefore time and space became attributes of his piece and became part of the piece’s materiality. Serra was commissioned in 1979, installed in 1981, and this work was destroyed in 1989 by the Art-in architecture Administration which also commissioned Serra to create the piece.[3] Another one of Richard Serra’s spectacular art installations is displayed at the MOMA. The site-specific piece, Sequence, plus various pieces were on display throughout the establishment. These were shown in 2007.[4] Sequence is created of two twelve feet high steel plates, cradled inside each other. Serra created a maze that extends sixty-seven feet in length, forty-two feet in width, and thirteen feet in height. This sculpture took twenty-three loads of concrete to set the monstrosity of unfinished steel. Serra created another piece that reacts to the elements over time therefore; unpolished steel is the choice. The material is not only strong but archival. It has to be able to support the spirals and withstand the elements. The elements affect the material, mainly causing rust, so over time, it creates a rich red color. Steel has all of these capabilities. The piece, like some of his other works, integrates time and space. Richard Serra’s work encompasses more than just the use of steel. In his earlier works, he used different materials to captivate art enthusiasts.

Richard Serra paired with music producer and composer Steve Reich to collaborate on some earlier works of art. A couple of examples are Candle Rack (1967) and Corner Gutter Splash (1969).[5] In the music studio, Steve Reich was swinging a microphone in a very slow pendulum movement. The movement created screeching sounds, low snarling sounds, and thuds. Serra, intrigued by the rhythmic noises, wanted to recreate sound through visual art. Serra wanted to find a common thread and dialog between art and music. Serra believed it to be an interpretation of slow information. Candle Rack (1967) is a simple structure he created to reenact this motion through art. It is two and three-quarters of an inch in height, one hundred and forty-four inches in width, and three and a half inches in depth.[6] The structure is made of a long slender piece of wood fashioned in a C formation. On top, it has fifteen long white candlesticks that, when burned, drip onto the wood. When Serra first created this piece, he thought it was genius, but it did not have the impact Serra had hoped. He had to further research material that would represent the idea of slow rhythmic movements he wanted to convey. This is another instance where materiality is the cornerstone of creating a work of art therefore; materials seemingly dictate the piece. At this point, Richard Serra turned to lead for its melting quality and its splattering effect. It reacted much like candle wax, but with a better aesthetic. He created Gutter Corner Splash (1969). Serra adopted this medium, but it was short-lived and Reich was more interested in Serra’s materials and the adaption to music, so Reich moved on to other projects.[7] In site-specific art, Richard Serra is one of the best-known artists along with several other names, such as Robert Smithson.

Robert Smithson is known for his massive sculptures and land art. Smithson’s work includes monumental pieces like the Spiral Jetty. His works also incorporate space and time. Spiral Jetty (1970) is an earthwork in Salt Lake City, Utah at Rose Lake. Smithson’s eco-work was considered groundbreaking. In retrospect, this piece is considered to have changed the modern way of thinking and catapulted the art world into post-modernism. Spiral Jetty is not only recognizable to the art world but is very well known in different and multifaceted academic communities. Artworks such as these touch on biology, geology, and have many dimensions of science incorporated into their intimate workings. Smithson, in his journal Earthworks, speaks on the materiality of Spiral Jetty.[8] The journal talks about materials, scale, and shift. One aspect of the Spiral Jetty is that it disappears and reappears. In 2002 the water receded in Lake Rose and the Jetty appeared after many years of laying silent beneath the water. Materials for this piece included sand, salt, algae, and water, but industrial use of machinery has to be looked at as part of the piece’s materiality. Smithson wanted art to create a bridge between ecological and industrial works. “Smithson does not actually ‘invent’ anything that is not already there,” states (Simeon O’Sullivan 2017 in Fictioning the Landscape: Robert Smithson and Ruins in Reverse)^{^[9]} Some say that Smithson’s land artworks, and works like his, are a nuisance. It has also been brought to attention that works like these displace the heritage of the lands’ native inhabitants.

In the art community, there is opposition to land art. It is said, land art is counteractive to museum-based works. This movement of eco-art coincided with the minimal art movement. Site-specific works, some have said, are reckless to native peoples. One opposer to land art is Michell Bae-Dimitriades.

Bae-Dimitriades’ attitude exudes the understanding that the landscape does not belong to the art and, has its heritage through indigenous peoples. Art changes the geography and the relationship between people and land. [10] Bae- Dimitriades’s understanding of Smithson’s ideals for art is he changes the motif of the landscape considered pure and pristine by the first western settlers. Some examples that she used from Smithson were: “Spiral Jetty, Broken Circle, Spiral Hill, and Armadillo Ramp.”[11] The claim by Bae-Dimitriades is these works of art are a hindrance to native peoples. It is stated that it is neglecting the interests of the people presently living in the areas of these works and there is no thought given to them. It also states that western art of this nature is giving way to decolonization. Artists of western culture are perceived to change the indigenous lands to fit their white western ideas of art. Much of the site-specific art is considered temporary art. One might find Michell Bae-Dimitriades’s idea is not plausible because the majority of land art is eco-friendly and are temporary structures. This is seen in well know artist Christo Vladimirov Javacheff.

Land artist Christo Vladimirov Javacheff created The Floating Piers at Italy’s Lake Iseo 2014–16. He created many other pieces throughout his career such as,” The Gates (2005) in New York’s Central Park, Wall of Oil Barrels, The Iron Curtain, Rue Visconti, Paris, 1961–62, Wrapped Coast, the wrapped Point Neuf in 1975, Surrounded Islands in Miami, 1980–83., L’Arc de Triomphe, wrapped (Project for Paris) Place de l’Étoile—Charles de Gaulle (2019).”[12] All are considered temporary works of art.[13] To do these works he chose fabrics. This material is plentiful, flowing, and does the job. Temporary pieces that are wrapped have to be something that could be assembled and disassembled quickly.[14] In the article Public Art, Public Feeling: Contrasting Site-Specific Projects of Christo and Ai Weiwei by Erika Doss for many years, Christo and Jeanne-Claude created land art on a monumental public scale.[15] This couple’s works centered on the coercion of space and the interference of usual, or normal, interpretations of land, things, and thoughts. These were apparent and part of the materiality in most of their works. [16] Most site-specific works are temporary so one would have to say that there is not much validity to the argument that these works are a nuisance or that they are disrupting the land. This can be said because Smithson’s works were eco-friendly. Christos’s works are temporary and change the view of the landscape. In some cases, the people become part of the art, but this is fleeting because it is taken down as quickly as it is built after use. Serra’s works are site-specific, but many can be moved, and most are commissioned, contrary to the writing on this matter by Michell Bae-Dimitriades.

Site-specific art is multifaceted and touches many areas of academic studies. Its materiality has much to do with time and space and in most cases, the site helps dictate the materiality. This can be seen in the artists that have been researched. One can also say that most land art is temporary and eco-friendly and, in most instances, not a nuisance.

Bibliography

Archer-Lean, Clare. “Queering the Happily Ever After: Paradoxes of the Cinematic Trope in Christos Tsiolkas’s Loaded. “Journal of Australian studies 46, no. 1. (2022): 85-97.

Ballard, Susan, and Liz Linden. “Spiral Jetty, Geoasthetics, and Art: Writing the Anthropocene.” The Anthropocene Review 6, no. 1-2 (2019): 142-161

Doss, Erika. “Public Art, Public Feeling: Contrasting Site-Specific Projects of Christo and Ai Weiwei.” Public art dialogue 7, no. 2 (2017): 196–229.

Lange-Berndt, Petra. Materiality. London: Whitechapel, 2015.

Maizels, Michael. “Steve Reich, Richard Serra, and the Discovery of Process.” PAJ (Baltimore, Md.) 39, no. 1 (2017): 24–37

Bae-Dimitriadis, Michelle. “Land-Based Art Criticism: (Un)learning Land Through Art.” Visual arts research 47, no. 2 (2021): 102–114.

Molesworth, Charles. “Richard Serra at MoMA: Placing the Surfaces.” Salmagundi (Saratoga Springs), no. 157 (2008): 33–44.

Rifkind, David M. “The All-but Architecture of Richard Serra”. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1997.

Takac, balasz. “Looking Back at Richard Serra's Controversial Tilted Arc.” Widewalls. Accessed April 25, 2022. https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/richard-serra-tilted-arc.

[1]Petra Lange-Berndt, Materiality. London: Whitechapel, 2015.

[2]David M. Rifkind, David M. “The All-but Architecture of Richard Serra”. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1997.

[3] Balasz Takac, “Looking Back at Richard Serra’s Controversial Tilted Arc.”, March 10, 2020. (Last accessed April 25, 2022).

[4]Charles Molesworth, “Richard Serra at MoMA: Placing the Surfaces.” Salmagundi (Saratoga Springs), no. 157 (2008): 33–44.

[5] Michael Maizels, “Steve Reich, Richard Serra, and the Discovery of Process.” PAJ (Baltimore, Md.) 39, no. 1 (2017): 24–37

[6] Maizels, “Steve Reich, Richard Serra, and the Discovery of Process.” 24–37

[7] Maizels, “Steve Reich, Richard Serra, and the Discovery of Process.” 24–37

[8]Susan Ballard, and Liz Linden. “Spiral Jetty, Geoaesthetics, and Art: Writing the Anthropocene.” The Anthropocene Review 6, no. 1-2 (2019): 142–161.

[9]Simeon O’Sullivan, “Fictioning the Landscape: Robert Smithson and Ruins in Reverse” reviewed. Issue 2, Volume 3, July-December, 2017

[10] Michelle Bae-Dimitriadis, “Land-Based Art Criticism: (Un)learning Land Through Art.” Visual arts research 47, no. 2 (2021): 102–114.

[11] Bae-Dimitriadis, “Land-Based Art Criticism: (Un)learning Land Through Art.” 102–114.

[12]Erika Doss, “Public Art, Public Feeling: Contrasting Site-Specific Projects of Christo and Ai Weiwei.” Public art dialogue 7, no. 2 (2017): 196–229.

[13] Doss, “Public Art, Public Feeling: Contrasting Site-Specific Projects of Christo and Ai Weiwei.”196–229.

[14] Clare Archer-Lean, “Queering the Happily Ever After: Paradoxes of the Cinematic Trope in Christos Tsiolkas’s Loaded.” Journal of Australian studies 46, no. 1 (2022): 85–97.

[15] Doss, “Public Art, Public Feeling: Contrasting Site-Specific Projects of Christo and Ai Weiwei.”196–229.

Does the site dictate the material? Materiality plays an important role in site-specific art. Onsite art became popular in the nineteen sixties and is still being produced today. Materiality in art of this nature includes time and space. Do artists who produce land art hinder indigenous peoples’ heritage and their relationship with the land?