Environmental Art?

The GALLERY of Environmental Art

What is ART?

• An emotional release (by artist or participant).
• Art is anything.
• When we share experiences.
• An original expression.
• A conscious use of skill or imagination in creation.
• A conscious use of imagination to make something of aesthetic significance.

• It is this editors opinion that works of art are determined by the individual. In general, art is seeing beauty in something created by a conscious being. Beauty is defined in many ways by the individual, thus making art a matter of opinion. To most people art is paintings done by the "Masters". Or maybe works done by more modern people that is confusing and meaningless to the "unenlightened masses". But, in my opinion, art is not defined by the intellectual, but by the appreciation of everyone. A lot of people see the use of lines and space in Frank Lloyd Wright buildings or from the designs of skyscrapers to Buddhist temples. Art can even be taken to the machines that run our lives. The computer I am sitting in front of right now is art to me. The way somebody designed the structure is special and appeals to my senses. Now, it could use some color, rather than the plain ivory, but that is only my opinion. So when talking about art, no one can limit our opinions of objects that are art. What we can do is agree on what is more appealing to humans and uses this to create art that touches more emotions. But we must be understanding in knowing that times and people change. What might be popular know could be "trash" in the years to come.

• The class had a discussion debating the difference between "craft" and "art". Is architecture a craft? Some people said that while the building itself is not art, but rather function, the ornamentation on a building is art (i.e.: the Sistine Chapel). It is my opinion that basic architecture is not art. That is building the world of concrete boxes just for function is simple craft. But as soon as the designer gives individual character to the building, it becomes an unique piece of manmade work that could be considered art. The Sistine Chapel could have served the same purpose is build as a cube of cinder block, but instead it is full of human character that gives it an emotional tie to its users.

Is Landscape Architecture Art? -- A response to Steven Krog's article, "Is it Art?"

During class, we have discussed the difference between "art and craft". Craft is basically work one does as a "job" or to serve a function. A lot of people might say that landscape architecture is simply a craft, being that what we generally design serves a certain function. I respond to this by, the simplest of landscape architecture is craft. Planting trees every 40 feet to serve as a screen or a six-foot sidewalks from one door to the next is craft. But as soon as someone adds something unique to this craft, the landscape starts to transform into art. I would continue to state that there might be different levels of art, for instance, offsetting the trees in a screen is lower art, where as, massing them or trimming them to designated shapes that still perform the same function is higher art. Whether that art is good or bad depends on your specific criteria for evaluation, but never the less, it is still something special.

• MIMETIC -- Art that mimics nature.
• PRAGMATIC -- Art created to move/teach an audience.
• EXPRESSIVE -- The artist has criteria for the product.
• OBJECTIVE -- "Art for art sake."

What does "The VALUE of Art" mean? -- An editorial.

The old saying is, "Art is in the eye of the beholder." An I must agree that that is very true, for more often than not I hear, "You think that that is art?" or "My child can do that." And in the art we see today, that could be true. But most people say that there is more to a work than just the way it looks on the surface; they will say that there is deep meaning in a piece and that the artist is trying to convey a message to the viewer. While a black painted canvas looks like anything that a person can do with a paint can and a roller, the artist puts his personal feelings into each stroke to create a work that might have very profound meaning. I feel that this issue brings people to value art in two different ways.

The first is valuing art for the emotion that is portrays and/or brings out in the individual viewer. A picture of children from Sariavo wounded by shrapnel is not meant to hang on your wall to admire. It is meant to strike a cord, to get the viewer to feel the pain of that child, and to make them want to help these helpless subjects. This is pragmatic art in its purist. Other artist are more subtle, but never the less, it still has the same purpose. Art can also make people feel happiness rather than sadness, or even fear, comfort, and confusion. The piece of art can then be valued on how well, and strong, it conveys the intended message to the viewer. But one has to be careful not to confuse the artist's meaning with their own interpretation. A red dot in the middle of a white field could me contentment to an artist, but to the distraught viewer it might mean loneliness. This person then feels a strong emotional attachment to the piece thinking that the artist understands the pain, when he really doesn't. The art is still valued for its message, but it is a personal value according to what emotional sting it plucks.

The second way to value art is to judge it by its shear technique. Admiring an Impressionistic piece for the brilliant hues and the complex brush stroke, without looking at its meaning, is an objective way at looking at art, but people still love it. To art critics, this way at looking at the art world is for the uneducated and is frowned upon. But I feel that it is very important to look at art this way; simply enjoying something for its appearance can create much enjoyment for a viewer. Steven Spielberg once said about his movies that he doesn't want people to analyze or think about them. He said he creates movies because people want to be entertained, and that is all they should do, entertain. "Art for art sake" seems to be a simple way of looking at the world, but perhaps deep down in everyone spirit, that is what's desired.

Throughout all these discussions, the value of art is still determined by the individual. That is basically why not everyone on the planet has a Picasso in the living room and a sculpture of found objects from a Ford Mustang in there bedroom. The fact that everyone can find something they admire makes art a helpful tool in bringing a little light to everyone's life.

What is environmental art?

• Reclamation/Waste/Energy/Entropy
• Puts people in touch...
• Connects to time/history
• Performance/Ephemeral aspects
• Connection to culture
• Nature for itself/Resource
• Science/Process
• Ecologically sensitive
• Earthwork (soil/sod)
• Modest Gestures
• Gestures
• Enclosers in the land
• Idealized landscapes

Some Environmental Artist

• Bayer, Herbert
• Chin, Mel
• Christo
• Ferrara, Jackie
• Finlay, Ian Hamilton
• Fleishner, Richard
• Goldsworthy, Andy
• Haacke, Hans
• Haas, Richard
• Heizer, Michael
• Herd, Stan
• Hollis, Doug
• Holt, Nancy
• Irwin, Rober
• Johanson, Patricia
• Leicester, Andrew
• Miss, Mary
• Morris, Robert
• Noguchi, Isamu
• Oppenheim, Dennis
• Pierce, James
• Pinto, Jody
• Schwartz, Martha
• Simpson, Buster
• Smithson, Robert
• Sonfist, Alan
• Tacha, Athena
• Turrell, James
• Walker, Peter
• Wines, James

Additional Links