Upon receiving the Linda Weintraub reading I must admit, I was less than elated to read a half inch thick stack of papers. But when i finally sat down to thumb through the reading I was pleasantly surprised to see examples of a wide range of ecological art sub-sections. As a painter I am constantly considering aesthetics, and in creating art that is poetic and ambiguous in a sense. Throughout this semester I have struggled to fully appreciate some of the work we have looked at because aesthetics are not the main concern of all ecological artists, for many the informative aspect is more important which makes it difficult for me to acknowledge those pieces as successful works of art, when they appear to me to be more like science projects. Linda Weintraub's article was incredibly informative, both in the information provided but also in the exercises proposed, they helped me to better appreciate ecological art that I had originally dismissed.
Weintraub has a really open attitude in regards to the art that she is discussing, not dismissing aesthetic eco-art just because it is not bettering the environment, and not preaching about the amazing-ness that is science based eco-art. And I must say, although I know we have discussed him greatly in class, Andy Goldsworthy is the artist discussed in the reading that I really respond to, the abstracted, simple nature of his work is something I truly admire.
She did come back in the lecture to unabashedly say that art that is responding to the environment, but only existing in the realm of aesthetics (i.e. Goldsworthy), is unethical, considering our current environmental conditions and the gravity of the problems we face. She also said to me on our drive home that "art" that isn't metaphorical or poetic in some way (i.e. only a science project as you mention) isn't really art. Both of these arguments are compelling and I hope to generate some discussion on these issues when we return from spring break!
ReplyDelete