Poll: Is environmental art valid?

[Gennaroc]

As a community, the Escapist seems to be, on the whole, quite intellectual, so I pose this question to you; Can environmental art be considered a valid form of artistic expression? These are art pieces that intentionally decay and disappear with time, using natural elements such as wood, leaves, rocks, sand, ice, fire etc.
Can a message and varying statements about the environment be enough to justify it as art? If there is no message or social commentary, is it any different to a child producing a sandcastle? Where do stop or start when we define art?

Represented in particular by artists such as Andy Goldworthy: http://www.sculpture.org.uk/AndyGoldsworthy/portfolio/
Robert Smithson: http://www.robertsmithson.com/earthworks/ew.htm
and John Dahlsen: http://www.johndahlsen.com/

 

[Disgruntled_peasant]

Yeah, why wouldnt it be?

I dont really see the argument saying it isnt, yes you can compare a sand sculpture to a sandcastle but only in the same way you can compare the mona lisa to a scribbled picture a kid did of his mum.

'environmental art' can be damned mindblowing, and the fact that they are made from inexpensive materials is really inspiring especially in a world where there is very little you can do without money.

 

[plugav]

Sure. If only because, without maintenance, traditional art also decays over time.

 

[DEAD34345]

is it any different to a child producing a sandcastle?

A child's sandcastle is art, I don't understand why anyone would not consider it as such.

In my opinion, pretty much anything that anyone has put effort into making can be considered art. That could be painting a picture, crafting a tool, or arranging leaves. I could take a dump in a bucket and call it art, the only real question is whether or not it's good art.

 

[HumpinHop]

is it any different to a child producing a sandcastle?

A child's sandcastle is art, I don't understand why anyone would not consider it as such.

In my opinion, pretty much anything that anyone has put effort into making can be considered art. That could be painting a picture, crafting a tool, or arranging leaves. I could take a dump in a bucket and call it art, the only real question is whether or not it's good art.

It would be good enough to land in a museum, knowing today's 'modern art'.

Art doesn't always have to comment on the world or have a message (insert hippy "maaaahhnn!!!" here), it can just be enjoyable to look at. 'Art' is almost entirely subjective, so it's really difficult to say something isn't art and not appear to be a dick.

 

[Lionsfan]

Of course it's art, why wouldn't it be? Art is subjective, not every bit has to be world changing, not everything has to look a certain way in order to be considered art. I'm sure someone would consider it not art, but that's why it's so great. There's no right or wrong answer

 

[zephae]

Of course it's art even if it decays and uses natural elements. As Plugav noted, other art decays overtime as well and it seems odd that temporality should be a concern in artwork. Countless pieces of priceless art have been destroyed through the course of human history - does that disqualify them from being considered "art"? Art is about whether a given creation has an impact on you in some way. Whether that's a beautiful piece by Hieronymus Bosch or one of those stupid colored lines paintings that they have so many of in the MOMA, if that created experience makes an impression on you that you wish to call "artistic," then what you just experienced was art.

 

[Chemical Alia]

It's not the medium that determines if something is art, it's the intent of its creator.

I thought you meant something totally different when I clicked on the thread though. I'm an environmental artist, but a completely different kind.

 

[II2]

Of course it is. It's the product of human manipulation/creation/expression. Environments in of themselves are not art, until someone snaps a photo, paints a landscape, writes a story or poem about it, arranges rocks and twigs, etc. Basically once the human mind has filtered and expressed it.

While nature can be beautiful, it's not art, until someone makes it so. Just walking into the woods, spreading your arms and yelling "ART" won't make it so... unless considered under the purview of performance art, but that's also a good example of why performance art is considered a dirty word.

 

[Yokai]

Yeah, it is, because even though it's not permanent, it still has aesthetic value and can certainly have some sort of message or purpose behind it.

 

[Gennaroc]

Thanks guys, just wanted to see the general opinion on the concept. Really doesn't seem to be much of a logical argument against, is there?