Glenn Parsons, “Art in Nature”
1. Wide spectrum of env art
a. Large scale manipulations of natural sites, including earthworks by artist like:
i. Smithson’s Spiral Jetty (1970) 1500 feet long in Great Salt Lake
ii. Michael Heizer’s Double Negative (1969-70) (50 feet deep, 30 wide, 1500 feet long constructed with bulldozers and dynamite)
iii. Smithson’s Asphalt Rundown
b. Large scale temporary env art
i. Christo Surround Islands (1980-83)
ii. Christo Arkansas River Fabric Project (2014)
c. Small-scale, unobtrusive works that incorporate natural materials/sites and also are temporary
i. Andy Goldsworthy Sycamore Leaves Stitched Together (1987)
ii. Goldsworthy’s Red Pool, Scaur river, Dumfriesshire (1994-5)
2. Two questions about art in nature (env art)
a. To what extent is nature a part of env artworks?
i. And can we say we are appreciating nature when we appraise these works? (No? Yes?)
b. Is there something unethical about treatment of nature in creation of env artworks? (Yes says Parsons)
NATURE OF ENV ART
3. Environmental art incorporates nature as part of the art in two ways
a. Nature is a substantial part of the medium employed by artist
i. Fact that natural materials and/or sites are used in work are essential to the work
b. Nature is also part of artworks content
i. Not just made of natural materials (e.g., sycamore leaves) but about those natural materials
ii. Acknowledging the natural element of env artwork is vital for understanding the meaning of the work
4. Env art defined as art that uses nature as part of its medium to express something about nature
a. Are Chris Jordan’s works Running the Numbers env art by this definition?
b. Is Ansel Adams photography environmental art by this definition?
c. Is Edward Burtynsky photography env art?
5. So in answer to first question above
a. Nature is necessarily part of env art
b. And when we appreciate env art, we necessarily appreciate various natural forces and objects (though always within context of artwork)
ETHICS OF ENV ART
6. It makes sense to ethically evaluate env art
a. Env art involves artist intervening in nature and appropriating it for artistic purposes
b. If accept that our treatment of nature merits ethical evaluation then, we should ask if this treatment of nature in creation of env art is ethically acceptable or not
7. One reason the treatment of nature in env art could be wrong is if it caused serious ecological harm to nature
a. Serious concern with works of Heizer and Smithson
b. Less concern with works such as those of Goldsworthy (or Christo?), as they have little or no env impact
c. Parsons not interested in this (legitimate) critique of env art
8. Parson’s main ethical worry about env art:
a. **Env art constitutes an aes affront to nature
9. Aes affront = an insult, indignity, or slight to X based on interference with the aes qualities of X
a. P. 138 says it is a kind of “disregard, disrespect or contempt...an undue messing with something”
10. Two factors relevant to claim env art is an aes affront to nature:
a. Prior to intervention of artist, nature had a set of aes qualities which it had as the natural thing it is
i. E.g., Mountain face might look rugged and imposing; an aes quality it has as the natural thing it is
b. In creating env art, artist converts nature to art, thereby changing its aes qualities
i. Yes some (all?) of nature’s aes qualities changed?
ii. Is it (nature) changed into art so no longer nature?
iii. Might it not still be an aes affront if it changed nature’s aes qualities, but did not turn nature into art?
11. LHOOQ ANALOGY
12. Marcel Duchamp’s conversion of copy of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa into Dadaist work LHOOQ (1919) by adding mustache and goatee
a. Altered aes qualities of work
b. Object acquired new aesthetic qualities, such as looking ironic or discordant (qualities it lacked before conversion into Dadaist work)
13. If Duchamp had used the original Mona Lisa and created LHOOQ*, he would have been affronting the original work
a. Manifest attitude Mona Lisa not worthy of continued unmolested existence
b. Since deemed necessary to replace it with something else, namely LHOOQ*
14. **Note: Even if temporary, would be an aes affront
a. Even if erased the mustache and goatee after a few days, he would have affronted the work
15. Similarly conversion of nature into artwork comes at cost of nature’s aes qualities which are destroyed or obscured by new aes qualities imposed on it
a. Replacing aes qualities of a natural object with a different set of aesthetic qualities by converting it into an artwork can be seen as an insult, indignity or slight to aes character of original object
16. Env art can be seen
a. As manifesting the attitude that the original natural object is not worthy of continued unmolested existence
b. Because deemed necessary to replace it with something else (env art)
c. Note: True even if temporary alteration of aes qualities
17. Possible problems with argument
a. Does it depend on what Duchamp does to the Mona Lisa or what env artist does to env?
i. LHOOQ* was an insulting change
ii. Some env art might be an insulting change (Smithson’s Asphalt Rundown or Heizer’s Double Negative)
iii. Some might not (Goldsworthy’s Stitched Sycamore Leaves)
b. Problem with this suggestion is that any change to the Mona Lisa insults it
c. Is it true that any change of nature’s aesthetic qualities insults it?
d. This might seem plausible if we are changing a natural wonder (which is analogous to a great work of art like the Mona Lisa), but perhaps not true if we change aes qualities of more mundane nature
i. Adding some colors to Yosemite’s Half Dome
ii. Versus adding color to a pool along a river as in Goldsworthy’s Red Pool, Scaur river, Dumfriesshire (1994-5)
18. DEFENDING ENVIRONMENTAL ART
19. Perhaps some env art has special character that makes it immune to effrontery charge
20. Three features of these env artworks that mitigate charge of aes affront
21. One: Some env art shows regard for nature’s aes qualities
a. In some works, env artist pays careful attention to original aes value of nature and develops env art in way acknowledges and relates to that value
b. E.g., Goldsworthy’s use of natural materials and incorporation of natural forces (heat of sun or winds and tide)
i. His works might get us to pay closer attention to nature; to the look of leaves or subtle effects of wind and tide
ii. Emily Brady: “Artist’s role enables or increases attentiveness to nature’s qualities by pointing to them and working with them creatively”
c. These types of ephemeral artworks show aes regard for nature
d. Unlike “macho aggression” of certain of Heizer’s works
22. Two: Env art can bring about aes improvement
a. Env art can be aes valuable and even more valuable than undisturbed natural sites in which it is situated
b. This is a positive feature for nature, as well for ourselves, as the natural site is aes improved through creation of the artwork
c. E.g, Goldsworthy’s sycamore leaves are a powerful, vivid and bold arrangement of nature’s materials and this is a benefit we ought to weigh against cost of nature’s original aesthetic qualities
d. Or consider Red Pool, Scaur river, Dumfriesshire as an aes improvement on nature
23. Three: Env art can help advance environmentalism’s agenda
a. E.g., It might get us to pay closer attention to human/nature relationship
b. Lintott: “Env art has potential to unite humans in the inclusive and progressive mind set of environmentalism”
24. Conclusion of this defense of env art
a. Given these 3 factors, charge env art constitutes an aes affront to nature is overblown
b. Extreme cases may be an affront
c. Conversion of nature into art can be done in way shows regard for nature’s own aes qualities, improves aes value of env and is env beneficial for nature
d. Note that Duchamp’s LHOOQ* has none of these 3 feature
i. Does not show respect for Mona Lisa’s aes qualities
ii. Does not improve on Mona Lisa aes qualities
iii. Does not benefit the Mona Lisa
iv. So while LHOOQ* is clearly an aes affront, env art with these features need not be
25. PARSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE OF ENV ART
26. Gussy up your living room example (to gussy up = to fancy up, dress up, to embellish)
a. Come to your house for a visit and while you’re in kitchen making tea, I rearrange furniture/paintings in living room
b. Clearly an aes affront
i. “Manifests attitude that what is originally there is not worthy of continued unmolested existence”
ii. “As deemed it necessary to replace it with something else”
27. So it is not only the wholesale and casual obliteration of nature’s aes qualities that is an aes affront, but so too is a milder treatment of nature that preserves or “enhances” its aes character
a. For it is a kind of gussying up of nature and this is an aes affront
28. In living room case, none of the 3 mitigating factors defeat charge of aes effrontery
a. Gussying up you living room constitutes an affront even if
i. It is respectful of your living room’s aes qualities
(1) I notice harmony of furniture and paintings and bring this out a bit more by careful adjustment of sofa position
ii. Improves on aes value of the room
(1) I’m an interior designer and improve the look of your room
iii. Benefits your living room
(1) You and your guests enjoy it more
b. It is an aes affront as it manifests attitude that what is there originally is not worthy of continued unmolested existence since it is deemed necessary to replace it with something else
29. So too, the 3 mitigating factors do not defeat the charge of aesthetic effrontery toward nature resulting from env art
a. Still manifest the attitudes that what is there originally is not worthy of continued unmolested existence
b. If it were worthy of such existence, the artwork in question would not have been created (135)
30. Worries about Parson’s language/argument
a. Both with the living room and nature, changing its aes qualities does not commit one to the idea that it is “not worthy of continued unmolested existence”; nor that it is “necessary to replace it”
i. Rather if commits one only to idea it is permissible to change those aes qualities and perhaps that it is desirable to do so
b. Might it be the case that only for things intentionally created a certain way (art or living room aesthetics) can changing their aesthetic qualities be an affront?
i. Since nature’s aesthetic qualities not been intentionally created, changing them would not be an aes affront?
31. IS ENV ART NECESSARY TO SAVE PLANET?
32. Parsons response
33. Even if it were true that env art was necessary to save the planet from being destroyed by humans, it would still be an aesthetic affront
34. Parading natives in European capitals example
a. Capturing and parading native individuals through the capitals of Europe to increase awareness of their plight was an indignity, an affront to them, even if it was necessary or helped indigenous peoples
35. **“That fact that people in our time are so ignorant and apathetic about nature that it takes a glowing red pool of water (Goldsworthy’s Red Pool) to interest them in nature does nothing to mitigate the effrontery of such frumpery (=abuse)”
36. Similar to updating the Mona Lisa
a. By loving adding new patches of color here and there, inserting a few items of interest into the background all in the interest of enhancing works continued interest to contemporary viewers
b. Could be well intention, aes successful and even necessary in a barbaric age
c. Still an indignity to the work of art
37. TWO OBJECTIONS TO EFFRONTERY CHARGE
38. One: Can only affront (insult) persons, someone who can think, feel, and respond to those actions in some way
a. Can’t affront nature (e.g., a desert mesa)
b. Just like you can only form a contract with a person and not a lake
c. If env art affronts, it can’t be an affront to nature but only to other people (who get upset about what env art does to nature)
39. Parsons reply:
a. Parsons thinks some forms of affront/insult do require the recipient have mental capacity
i. “You’re a failure” for example as an insult makes sense to address to a person (with mental capacities), but not to a river (that fails to make it to the sea)
b. But not all affronts require recipient have mental capacity
i. The kind of affront involved in env art does not require this
ii. Namely thinking “piece of nature not worthy of continued unmolested existence as deemed necessary to replace it with something else”
iii. Consider: Putting a party hat on an elephant
c. Manifesting a particular sort of disregard, disrespect, or contempt for an autonomous thing
i. An undue “messing with it”
(1) But notice that this does not fit well as a description of Goldsworthy’s work (probably does Heizer’s)
d. This type of insult/affront does not require object to have mental capacity
40. Two: If env art is an aes affront, so too are benign practices like farming and building homes
a. To survive we need to intervene in nature to get food, water, shelter
b. Obtaining these requires we take attitude that nature needs to be replaced by something (agriculture, houses, wells)
c. We are messing with nature’s aes qualities
d. But it is absurd to think these practices are an aes affront to nature
41. Parsons reply: Difference between env art and using nature for the practical necessities of life
a. Since it is not possible to avoid using nature in these ways, we can’t fault someone for “messing with nature’s aesthetic qualities” by drawing water or growing food
i. Since ought implies can
b. But env art is not necessary in this sense; we don’t have to do it
i. We will not die or suffer pain w/o env art
c. So we can be faulted for messing with nature’s aes qualities by making env art
d. To avoid this response need to argue that w/o env art, human life would be radically impoverished (and so in that sense is necessary)
a. This seems to lead us to the conclusion that agriculture and home building (using nature for practical necessities) is an aesthetic affront to nature, but one that is justified or can’t be faulted
i. Parsons seems to indicate he does not want this conclusion for he says (139) “any line of thought that renders drawing water, building houses, growing food as affronts to nature is absurd and unacceptable”
b. Maybe Parsons can avoid this by claiming that using nature for necessities does not involve contempt, disregard, and disrespect for an autonomous thing, whereas using nature for non-necessities (things whose lack would not radically impoverish human life), like env art, does
i. But then he seems committed to the idea we should only use nature for what is necessary to avoid an impoverished human life, which seems too weak and limited a view of permissible human use of nature
Questions on Parsons, Ch 9, Art in Nature
1. What is Parsons’ definition of env art? Is Ansel Adams photography env art on this definition?
2. What is Parsons’ main criticism of env art? Does he object to it because it causes serious env harm?
3. Explain with examples the notion of an “aesthetic affront.” Explain why and how Parsons thinks env art is an aes affront to nature.
4. How does Parsons use the example of Duchamp’s LHOOQ to make his criticism of env art?
5. How does Parson respond to the argument that env art that is temporary is ethically unproblematic.
6. What are the three reasons (“mitigating factors”) that Parson’s considers which weaken the charge that env art is an aesthetic affront to nature?
7. How does Parsons use his living room example to respond to this defense of env art?
8. How does Parsons respond to the defense of env art that such art is necessary as a way to help protect the planet?
9. What is Parsons’ response to the argument that one can only insult/affront persons, not mindless entities like nature?
10. How does Parsons respond to the claim that if env art is an aes affront to nature, so too are agriculture and home building?
11. Explain why Parsons approves or disapproves of environmental art. Do you agree with him?