The article begins by referencing the cover of the May 1972 issue of Arts Magazine, a white cover with Walter de Maria's name and nothing else printed on it. The information given inside the magazine about the cover included information about De Maria's work in various deserts in 1968, and a quote from the artist himself saying, "Conceptual art need not be dependent on words or language." This quote definitely seems to fit with the bare and unadorned nature of the cover, and the fact that De Maria's "essays" of the time consisted of photographs only. What I'm learning is that he took his belief that Conceptual art need not depend on words beyond the pages of his essays. Apparently, De Maria was notorious for avoiding situations that would involve speaking about his work because he also believed that talking about one's art, or explaining it, is foolish.
This lack of language, speaking, and explanation seems to be related to the isolation he encountered in creating his works in the deserts of Nevada and other locations. Around that time, Walter de Maria remarked that you spend two or three hours driving to a valley, for example, and there's nothing there. Through his photographs, he wanted to emphasize the isolation and distance from the gallery. So far, what I'm learning from this article is something that I can't quite figure out how to phrase. It's about the nature of De Maria's work and how it lacks something that one might think it needs (text, explanation, gallery exhibition, etc.), but how it's not really lacking anything at all if it is taken as it is, for what it is. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I'm thinking and what I want to say, so I'm going to continue reading.
The fact that his work in 1968 was beyond the "limits of photography" seems to be an important aspect. This meant that not many people would or could see the work because it involved travel, and therefore, was not readily accessible to everyone. However, De Maria stated that he preferred it that way. He would rather have only 20 people see one of his works than have a large number of people see his work in photographs because he believed that that would be "partially seeing" the work instead of fully seeing and experiencing it.
This makes me question why photographs of his work entitled The Lightning Field (1971-77), such as the one we saw in class, exist, and so I'm wondering if the article will address this issue. If this work was intended to be viewed over the course of a 24-hour period, then why would photographs, that cannot easily portray the element of change that is crucial to this work, be taken? Wouldn't this contribute to the possibility of a partial viewing, something that De Maria did not want to happen? This is also making me think of the discussions we've had in class about photographs and how we believe that they are representations of truth, despite the fact that they might not necessarily be. This definitely seems to tie into De Maria's stance on photography as an only "partial" way of viewing, seeing, and experiencing. Also, it is interesting that the article includes a quote in which De Maria says that he does not like to photographed, even though the article also includes a photo of De Maria smoking a pipe, originally from his very own essay on Conceptual art.
Anyway, I've now decided that I want to find somewhere in this article an explanation as to why photographs of The Lightning Field exist and have been published and disseminated, if such an explanation also happens to exist. I am finding some answers, incidentally. What I'm learning is that although documentation, such as photography, is incomplete and inadequate, it's necessary. And apparently De Maria understood this role of media in his work, perhaps explaining why De Maria published a nine-page photographic essay of The Lightning Field in the April 1980 issue of Artforum. And because he wanted his audience to understand that there was indeed a difference between experiencing his work and viewing his work, he chose to publish this essay in Artforum, where he could carefully control the presentation of his photographs. I guess I'm getting something of an answer because the article concludes with a statement about how De Maria truly created art that viewers experienced, whether in the field or on the page.
McFadden, Jane. "Earthquakes, Photoworks, and Oz: Walter de Maria's Conceptual Art." Art Journal 68 (2009): 68-88.
No comments:
Post a Comment