“I hesitated about doing this show because I don’t want to be trendy, and I don’t like the fact that green is trendy now.” So said Mina Dresden when I spoke to her at her gallery in San Francisco’s Mission District a few days ago. Despite her misgivings, or perhaps because of them, the Mina Dresden Gallery is currently presenting (through August 22) a wonderful show called The EnvironMENTAL Paradigm. Curated by independent curator and writer Cecilia Nuin, the show includes pieces in various media by eight artists of various nationalities.
Maria Adela Diaz, Blossom, Video performance. Courtesy of MIna Dresden Gallery.
Jessica Resmond, Grass Billboard, Digital print. Courtesy of Mina Dresden Gallery.
Ana Labastida, Kun Li: Light sinks into the earth and is veiled, nonetheless it shines forth. I Ching 36. Photography, light box. Courtesy of Mina Dresden Gallery.
But as interesting as the works themselves is a question at the heart of this exhibit: What is environmental art?
This question has interested me for a long time, and especially as I’ve been writing this blog and seeing more and more work that calls itself “environmental.” To quote the show catalog, “The question still remains as to what constitutes environmental art in the twenty-first century. How do artists tackle ecological art when we seem oblivious to the urgency of ecological implosion….”
Does the fact that an art work depicts some aspect of the environment make it “environmental art”? Does the artist have to work with actual environmental materials, or in the living environment? Is it enough that the artist cares about the state of the environment and tries to express that caring in the work? And is “environmental” synonymous with “environmentally responsible”?
Comparing this show to some earlier works of Land Art, Cecilia Nuin writes that there is a difference in that the approach of these artists “is one of responsibility for the kind of materials that they use. This…allows artists to create inspiring works; not only because the materials serve as a medium, but they are also the end in itself.”
I’ve been struggling to understand what it means that the materials are the end in itself. I can see how that is the case with the works made from reclaimed materials (old milk cartons, scrap fabric). But others, such as the video and light box pieces, use an intermediary. And an intermediary that is in fact fairly energy-dependent so, although they are inspiring, can we say they are absolutely environmentally responsible?
Still, if art makes us see things in a new way, then perhaps it’s enough that the works inspire such a reaction.The stress on “mental” in the show’s title (EnvironMENTAL Paradigm) is significant: the way a work influences our thinking is what can make it more than simply a depiction of an environmental scene. And the materials—whether they are part of the actual environment or a representation of it or reference to it in some form—are a vital part of what stirs our thought.
But another question remains: Is it part of the definition of environmental art that it should inspire the viewer to take action for change? Mina, Cecilia, and I all agreed that we worry about what will happen when green is no longer trendy. “Doing a show about the environment isn’t enough,” Cecilia said. She wants to inspire people to think and talk about the art, so they will conclude that they have a responsibility that no other generation has had; otherwise there will be no more art. Mina told me that her 10-year-old son, looking at Hrafnhildur Sigurdardottir’s piece Greener Pastures
Hrafnhildur Sigurdardottir, Greener Pastures, Layered fabric materials
commented that maybe it showed all that would be left of green spaces in the future. Hopefully, now that he’s seen that image, he’ll want to help keep that possibility from coming true.
4 responses so far ↓
Anne Bishop // August 13, 2008 at 10:12 am
Reading this article makes me realize that we are all missing the point if we are “struggling to understand what it means when the materials are an end in itself” for environMENTAL art. First of all, art is an end in itself. It is a way to create something new…that will “in and of itself” entice the viewer to make a connection MENTALLY with what surrounds us: i.e. our environment. That environment is whatever we live with (computers as well as nature), and we might perceive a connection between all of this “environment”…and how we “live” in the midst of it. Provoking thought—that is what it is all about. And thought comes through feeling, whether it is shock, color, and idea—whatever material is used as an intermediary is all part of it. Let’s keep the “should/would/must” out of it, and introduce the “what if”. So “what if antlers made out of felt came out of the wall?” “What if billboards advertised grass instead of consumer objects?” “What if we looked at art with the wonder of children’s eyes?” Maybe we would see differently, and think differently. That is art for me.
Anne Bishop
Anne Bishop
Judith Hibbard // August 14, 2008 at 9:38 pm
So much to say about this–very thought-provoking. Thanks to the blogger and the first commenter for starting this dialogue. I would ask of Anne Bishop how it can be stated that “art is an end in itself” if “It is a way to create something new…that will [...] entice the viewer to make a connection MENTALLY.” Is that not already specifying a reason for art? Is something “art” if no connection is made? For example, to me the huge Koons puppy in Bilbao is merely decorative, an oversized, whimsical flowerpot. Maybe to someone else it makes a statement in the contrast of its organic forms to the sleek titanium behind it, but…no, I don’t get it. Is that art? Environmental art? However, I do agree with Bishop that perhaps art cannot be divided into distinct categories. She goes on to pose the fascinating question/game of “what if.” What if in some future museum all Picasso labels were lost and “Guernica” came to be renamed “Chernobyl.” The painting might then make viewers ask, in Weisberg’s words, “Is it enough that the artist cares about the state of the environment and tries to express that caring in the work?”–but can we not ask that question of the painting knowing of it what we do now, though it was not created as traditional environmental art, rather more in the mode of the environment being “whatever we live with” (including war)? In other words, applying the “what if” question can lead one to wonder if there are no sharp distinctions among categories of “environmental,” “political,” or other types of art, whatever art is!
earthsjourney // September 21, 2008 at 7:48 am
I’m sorry, but if you have a passion for something, let the other guy worry about if it’s trendy or not. My inspiration completely comes from the amazing talent out there, in the form of eco-art!
naturalworldmuseum // September 24, 2008 at 4:09 pm
So, earthsjourney, what is eco-art for you? –Susan