You create a large piece of naturalistic “earth art” in a natural setting — using the setting, in fact, as part of the art, acting in contrast to it.
Three decades later, the natural setting is slowly but surely changing your piece of art.
The question: what do you do about it?
For nearly three decades Robert Smithson‘s “Spiral Jetty” lay underwater in the Great Salt Lake. Since 1999, as drought has lowered the water level, this famous American earth sculpture — a 1,500-foot coil of black basalt rocks — has slowly re-emerged. Now it is completely exposed; the rocks encrusted with white salt crystals are surrounded by shallow pink water in what looks like a vast snow field.
In 1970, when Smithson built the “Jetty,” which is considered his masterpiece, the giant black coil contrasted starkly with the dark pink water of the lake. But time and nature have left their marks.
Subject to the rise and fall of the Great Salt Lake, and encrusted with salt, the “Jetty” now looks quite a bit different than it did when created. Conservators aren’t sure whether it should be left alone, whether future rising water levels might wash off the sale, or whether it needs to be raised further to protect it.
At what point does such art preservation — or recreation — need to be undertaken? Especially on a naturalistic piece like the “Jetty.” It seems to me one thing to take something that is solely an artifact — an oil painting, for example, or a fresco — and decide whether to restore it to its previous glory, or else preserve it from further damage.
But for something that is part of the landscape itself — it seems to me that the evolution of the earth art in this case, is at least as artistic as the original piece.
(via Cronaca)