Land-based art is a difficult subject for me because my work does not deal with place, space or negotiated territories. I recently attended a symposium on the subject not expecting to get much from it. I did not feel there were likely to be aspects of the discussion that had direct relevance to my practice, interesting as they might be. I am more interested in the interior spaces psychological, emotional, forgotten things/feelings even.
The artist giving presentations had quite varied approaches to the topic and of course, their outcomes were very different. I asked one question of two artists but I did not think it was understood and therefore the answers were not helpful. The question was ‘If these spaces have had an impact on you, what impact do you think your intervention (or presence) has had on those spaces?’ I asked it because I do wonder whether there is a reciprocal impact with this type of art, almost regardless of the type of outcome. By that I mean that even if nothing is physically altered or left behind in the landscape, then a impression is left in the people who see the outcome or discussions of it, which I think may leave its own traces on the land, albeit, not physical ones.
I also have a lingering concern that there often seems with artistic interest in space, place, ‘splace’ (and this was largely true with all the discussions or outcomes concerning land-based art) to be an over preponderance of focus on the marginal or liminal (I hate that word so much) spaces and I wonder why that is? Why also is there not more focus on the spaces that are central to our existence, our homes, cities, places of work, and places of leisure? I know that all of these are topics that space and place deal with, but they are often marginal spaces when land based art is discussed.
Whilst I do not want to sound negative about this topic, I find the artistic obsession with the outside rather dull and perhaps even a refuge of those that do not want to look at what is central. I do no buy-into the notion as expressed by Foucault (although I once did) that the extremities define the norm or the centre. I also have an almost visceral dislike of the word ‘liminal’ which artists use to season all manner of works, discussions and exhibitions and most of all artist statements. I suppose I should ask myself why I have such a strong reaction to the word and its use – it is just a word after all, but it is I think a lazy shorthand for all manner of other discourses which the intellectually unwilling cleave to in order to give their work a semblance of conceptual underpinning. There, I’ve said it and I don’t particularly want to retract it as a statement just at the moment.
There was nothing wrong with any of the speakers, in fact what they talked about and what they showed, as artwork was interesting, it is just that I remain untouched by land based, socio geography inspired art.
gregoryhaymanartist 