Week 5

Levitated Mass

It is universally accepted that the natural world is beautiful, an inspiration to art and life alike. There is almost some primordial instinct within us that makes humans marvel and care about the land we stand upon. This land is part of nature, created by time and enormous geologic forces far beyond the power of humans. For artist Michael Heizer, the natural world is not beyond being designated as and deemed art. In his piece commissioned for LACMA, Levitated Mass, Heizer challenged the widely accepted notion of what constitutes a piece of art. Like any good artist, his work brought up a host of questions: Is a boulder taken from a quarry with no alterations or modifications able to be claimed as an artist’s piece of art? Does art include the way it is displayed? Does the art of a piece include the process to where it is displayed? What is the role of the public in a piece of art? I find it utterly fascinating when people are able to challenge preconceived notions. In art, this ability to go against the norm truly speaks to an artist’s conviction and belief in their own vision, especially for projects similar to Heizers that required insane amounts of time and manpower. Making one’s ideas into a reality on this vast a scale also requires practical knowledge and endless doggedness. This piece brings up the idea that to an artist, the whole world can be art.

I also kept pondering about the fact that the documentary created to show the creation of Levitated Mass is its own form of art. Creating a film about a single stagnant art piece seems like quite a challenge. I was impressed by how for the most part the film was able to keep my attention. There were definitely parts that felt repetitive, over-long, or just outright dull, but the journey of the film and evocation of the huge emotional arc of each individual who was a part of this colossal process - the strain, stresses, joy, and relief - was conveyed quite well. There are so many elements that go into a film and I found the music in this particular documentary to be horribly repetitive to the point I wanted to turn off the sound. This can be a good lesson to pay attention to details and ensure that all aspects of a film are up to standard, rather than focusing on just the visual element. I also personally found Michael Gorvan less than appealing and I think they made a bit of a mistake by making Michael Heizer out to seem less than appealing in the last bit (I personally found him to seem pushy, rude, and a bit uncaring). Nevertheless I was impressed by the ability to turn one rock both into a piece of art and then into an entire film. This documentary reminded me quite a bit of the film Sky Ladder, focusing on the life of Cai Guo-Qiang, which is the best artist documentary that I have watched to date. This relates to what I plan to do in the future because something can be learned from filmmaking of all kinds. Although I aim to make narrative films, I think that blending the lines between doc and narrative can create some unique and interesting works. I am completely fascinated by the ideas that Heizer created like the use of negative space in sculptural art or the use of nature’s creations as art. These transformative ideas can carry through to breaking bounds within filmmaking as well. How does one create negative space or absence in film? How can nature stand as art? I want to challenge myself to think of art always as the process rather than the product and to challenge the conventionally accepted bounds of what can be called art.

Response to A Monument to Outlast Humanity

It can be interesting to use history as an inspiration for art. Most often this is seen in period pieces such as historical films, plays, or fine art, but the work “City” by Michael Heizer reminds viewers that historically influenced art exists in the sculptural world as well. I remember from one of the freshman year plenaries talking about how every artistic work interacts with time. I thought that was such an intriguing concept that I hadn’t really considered before. Time is after all just a social construct to give shape to our passage through life. Nevertheless, the idea that there is an interaction between when something is created, how long it takes, how it changes over time, its place within specific eras, etc. and the art itself is such a wildly fascinating concept. For Heizer, time is another medium to be played with rather than forgotten and left as an uncontrolled element, as can often be the case for sculptural art. Heizer is able to envision time as a span reaching out far into the future.

It is so interesting how art can become involved with social and political issues even when that was not the original intent of the artist. Inherently by working with the earth, art of the earthworks movement interacts with the environmental destruction that has been going on for many decades into present. I know someone who once said that all good art touches on life, death, and love in some way and I think that is an interesting idea. Heizer’s work touches on death by the amount of risk he takes in building it, and the very placement of it straight upon the earth links it to life, love then must be the interaction with its viewer. Is risk an important factor in making something unique? Should one let their art consume them? Where is the line between passion and conviction versus all-consuming and destructive.

Hearing about low points in Heizer’s life like how his ribs got broken and his leg and lungs hurt from working with the materials for City, how he lost so much weight, and his wife divorced him remind me of the devotion being an artist takes. You should not be in it for the money or you will not be able to create anything truly extraordinary. If you can put your life and soul into it, then if luck is on your side incredible pieces can be made. That being said, there is a fine line between devoting oneself to one’s work and giving up oneself entirely to the work. I do not think one should give up on oneself for the work and let it overhaul one’s life completely, but there is such a fine line. Balance is incredibly hard to achieve, but perhaps possible. What are you willing to sacrifice to create something? Does all art require a sacrifice of some kind?

Heizer also brings up the idea of artistic audience. Who is art being made for? If no one sees it is it still art? He also calls into question the idea of ownership of art. What is copying versus stealing? Hearing about Mary Shanahan reminded me that art is rarely created by solely one person - it takes a village. Having someone to support yourself and your work can often be a necessity. Additionally, the importance of having good relationships with people that can fund your work.