Since its emergence from the domination of history painting in the 16th century, landscape art rose to high fashion in the 19th century and back to such relative obscurity that now the indexes of many art history books do not list it.
FAUXSCAPE – Virtualy Landscape
“…a shadow on a landscape, a memory of some scenery
you'll never get away with this, you'll never get the clearance
I work for the department, the department of disappearance..”
you'll never get away with this, you'll never get the clearance
I work for the department, the department of disappearance..”
Jason Lytle
Coinciding with the decline of landscape art our view of nature itself has
changed. The aesthetic of nature has
moved away from that of the picturesque through the sublime to a new and
unresolved dichotomy brought about by our reaction to science. The popular
definition of nature is still restricted to the realm of living things. The
word nature was originally derived from the Latin word ‘nasci’ (to be
born.). This romantic conception of nature is unsupported by science, revealing
that which was previously unseen and rendering the world uncanny. The
insistence that nature is ruled by invisible forces that obey mathematical
rules speaks of a world that for some people seems to come from a far place.
This has altered the way we feel about nature.
In a post-modern way, the 18th Century
literary sublime still operates at the same time as picturesque images of
nature are being made. The awe once associated with the sublime has been
deported to ‘outer’ space or abstracted by geology.
We could all be wiped out by an asteroid,
tomorrow, or in a million years. The potential super volcano underneath Yellowstone National Park could destroy the U.S.A. In a more positive sense, Carl Sagan
described the Voyager images of Jupiter’s churning cloud systems as “sublime”.
For everyday life: postcards, magazines, calendars and computer wallpaper
continue to display a reassuringly picturesque view of recognisable nature.
Images of nature
produced by science are different from those of art in that they are either
‘discovery images’ or they contribute to the steady accumulation of data that
hopefully leads to a conclusion. In the past, nature in art was often related
to a narrative that was already known. Landscape art often inferred moral
values related to ideas of naturalness and also concepts of taste historically
linked to high social status. At its most influential power in the 18th
Century, landscape art had a circularity of purpose. Landscape paintings
influenced the actual landscaped estates of the landed gentry who in turn
commissioned paintings of them. Humphrey Repton’s ‘Red Book’ was a catalogue of
landscape designs for the aspiring aristocrat. A feature of these 18th century
gardens was the 'Ha Ha’, a ditch with one or more walled vertical sides. The
device prevented cattle from entering formal gardens without creating a visible
barrier and disguised the distinction between the productive farmland and the
decorative gardens. From the viewpoint of the mansion the source of wealth and
the geometric expression of order were seamlessly blended together. In modern
mass media the link between production and nature is also largely concealed.
Advertising has hidden the realities of farming and food. The ordered
landscapes of leisure; beaches, ski-slopes, holiday resorts and golf courses,
are celebrated by advertising. Television documentaries present wilderness as
an armchair phenomenon – untamed nature as a televisual commodity for the
concerned consumer.
Any narrative, whether literary or visual, is as much about what
is left out as what is included. Landscape pictures are a kind of garden in
which some elements of nature are celebrated and others are ignored. A
representational picture is largely determined by the choice of what place to
represent and how much of it is included within the view. The production of any
picture contained in a frame is also determined by its boundaries. This
characteristic is shared by images as seemingly different as those of Thomas
Gainsborough and Barnet Newman. Even the Jackson Pollock’s ‘all over’ paintings
have swirls of paint that shy away from the edges. Previously fluid, the now
dried paint-trails are recorded trajectories. They are rather like the tracks
left by sub-atomic particles in a bubble chamber, made visible in photographs
and constrained by magnetic fields generated on the outside of the tank.
Visual art once
delighted in the overlap of science and art. John Constable, known for his
cloud studies, saw landscape art as a part of science. The impressionist
artists’ exploration of colour was originally associated with experiments in
the physiology of vision and the essence of colour. By the end of the 19th
century science moved on and nature disappeared into the laboratory as physics
studied electromagnetism, sub-atomic particles and forces that create radioactivity.
If the invisibility of nature presents a challenge to visual art then the
incomprehensible scales of its operation present a similar difficulty to
language. The idea that nature is ruled by mathematics, which is also the basis
of engineering, is a paradox. Actual
landscapes were once meaningfully confused with landscape pictures. Now it is
the disparity between nature as described by science and the popular definition
of nature that is significant.
This difference
occurs at a time when science has revealed that we are entering a new
geological age called the
Anthropocene. Whereas in the past assemblages of
species were affected by geology we have reversed the relationship with nature
by altering the Earth. In the Anthropocene our own human species moves more
material than erosion and rivers, affects 75% of land through agriculture and
is altering the atmosphere with emissions from burning fossil fuels. These
processes will create rates of change so great that some populations of plants
and animals may not be able to evolve or move fast enough to survive. It may be
necessary to engineer whole ecosystems. Designing a kind of nature V2 may be
attempted but past experience with replicating the natural world suggests that
large scale manipulation of the biosphere will be difficult. Attempts at
creating closed system analogues of the Earth, such as the 'Biosphere 2'
project, demonstrate our lack of knowledge. The experimental system of
artificial biomes was intended to replicate the ecosystems of the Earth and to
be occupied for two years. All food, water and air was to be provided by
sections divided into desert, marsh, savanna and rainforest as well as fresh
water and salt water. The seal had to be broken when diminishing oxygen levels
threatened the health of the researchers.Boston - U.S.A. |
The failed attempt at creating a world-in-a-bottle raises
questions about the possibilities of changing the world to deal with the
consequences of our disruption of the environment. Genetically engineering not
only crops but also plants to be released into the wild or geo-engineering the
atmosphere to mitigate global warming are being considered. Even if these
interventions are possible do we want to live in a world where there is no
longer any distinction between the natural and the artificial? If we believe
that it is not possible to reduce our impact on the planet it is as if we
accept that the sum total of human activity is a kind of ‘technological sublime’ that is as given as
nature itself. Although journalism will examine the contested facts of the
situation there needs to be a modern equivalent of landscape art to allow us to
test our feelings about the possibility of a world without wildness. This
already happens to some extent with land art. From Robert Smithson’s intriguing
Spiral Jetty to Walter De Maria's quasi-scientific Lightning Field, land art
has re-imagined the tradition of landscape art through the medium of civil
engineering.
These constructions are situated on remote sites, partly to reduce
costs, but also because they need a tabula rasa to fulfil their
minimalist style. Land art is genuinely frameless art. The viewer could travel
away from the pieces, circumnavigate the world, and return to the other side.
It is art for the space age, not quite as distant as the magnetopause currently
being explored by the Voyager 2 probe, but equally esoteric. Land art reverses
the flow of image from nature to the city. The
artist/designer exports the
project from the studio/office to the site where the concept is realised. It is
part of the same industrial ethos that is creating the Anthropocene. Land art
is off the tourist trail and it is more likely to be seen in reproduced images.
There is still a need for a form of a contemporary art that relates to nature
but finds the type of focused audience that might choose to view it either in
an art gallery or in a book form. The art should continue the tradition of
landscape art by creating the opportunity for contemplation of our newly
ambiguous relationship to nature while exceeding the expectations of the
amateur landscapists' obsession with nostalgic views.
'Partially buried shed' by Robert Smithson. |
The pictures in
this book are unfinished works. They are mostly scanned images of found items
or accidental bi-products of spray painting that are being upcyled into
collages. The completed semi-abstract pieces I produce relate to the tradition
of landscape art. The finished compositions are analogous to the creation of a
cultivated landscape, an ordered space which is achieved within the limits
imposed by nature. I use discarded items and the remnants of technology to
create imaginary landscapes. This process is a rhetorical question. My artwork
reflects a tension between the picturesque tradition of landscape art and the
possibility of allowing a new awareness of nature influenced by science or the
technology of seeing.
No comments:
Post a Comment