Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lee Nellis's avatar

"Couldn’t we instead be happy with nature’s own natural stories? Why should we listen to Smithson rather than the undisturbed shoreline?"

Isn't Smithson, the artist, a product of nature (as is Clayton, the artist writing this excellent little story). making this art just as "natural" as the shoreline?

What he did was a "disturbance" by definition. But isn't the history of that shoreline, even more than most places, a history of disturbances as the lake has receded and filled again over time? And isn't this just one more, as was the construction of the pier you saw or the railroad causeway that altered the lake long ago?

Philosopher John Dewey says that human experience (and he definitely does not confine this to those who see themselves or are seen by others as artists) ends (or at least should end) in art. Untangling what that means isn't easy, but what I have been wondering about lately is time. How long did it take Smithson to build the jetty?

Economics (as normally practiced) asks how many commercially marketable widgets could he have manufactured in the same time, and that puts us all on a certain rather sad path. But the jetty and the elaborate quillwork I recently saw on a parfleche at the Eitlejorg Museum suggest another path. Unlike the jetty, the parfleche is inarguably utilitarian. But it would have held whatever it held in its working days just as well without any decoration. Why spend what has to have been many hours adding the quillwork? Is it possible that that is what's "natural?" I know that I like a vision of life in which the jetty and the quillwork are what counts.

Expand full comment
David Lehnherr's avatar

Great story. Interesting read!

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts