Hacker News Reader

Comment by ram_rar | Hacker News Reader

Can someone with eye for art enlighten me on whats so good about this? Feels like a skateboard park in the dessert.

One of the reasons 'City' is notable, is because it is just so big.

The first time I heard about was in a video "Monumentality" [1], which explores why humans throughout history have tried to make monuments; big things, skyscrapers, pyramids etc.

Michael Heizer will die one day, as will we all. But by its nature of being a huge complex made of rocks and dirt, 'City' will continue to stand for thousands of years probably.

[1]https://youtu.be/bwGKqiOyIAM&t=46m43s

it's a largely flat construction in the desert. it might "stand" for thousands of years, but it'll be covered in sand or other blown debris to the point where it's unrecognizable in ten without constant maintenance. the article quotes $1.3mm annual budget, and i'd guess most of that goes to sweeping.

the average mid-rise building in a real city is much more of a lasting monument than this is.

I don’t know. For me personally if I were building something like this for 50 years, I’d be thinking about its fate in 1000 years. Someone will dig this up long after it’s forgotten, and that person/group will experience this art anew, in a completely different way people experience it today. Perhaps that’s part of the intention?

We see how much delight people take in speculating about Nazca lines. As an artist creating a work like this, I might intend to cause that speculative delight for future generations. Maybe in 1000 years people will flock from around the world to see it because of how mysterious it is.

Look up Roden Crater by Turell, which is a similarly insane project, but maybe easier “to get”.

These artists are both obsessed with shape, size and light. The art is partly environmental. It is exploring how the desert light (harsh bright white at noon, dark violet/orange at sunset) affects the simple shapes.

It's an art tourist attraction. It's inaccessible, so it's good conversation/blog post fodder afterwards.

Made-for-Instamatic

Some guy enjoyed building it for several decades. I think that's good!

Totally. But, what's with everyone in the article being so grandiose about it.

I never felt like I just "didn't get art" until reading the quotes in this article.

Is that not enough? This guy had some vision and then spent 50 years figuring out how to make it work and how to look after it after his death.

There’s a thread about running Diablo in a browser that has positive remarks. But if you think about that a bit it’s also ridiculous.

When I’m around certain artsy friends, I sometimes feel like the kid from “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.

There is a lot of art whose major criteria is “does it make the uninitiated feel that way”. Anything that makes you want to say “My kid could do this!” probably falls into this category, and it is probably attached to an absurdly large price tag that makes you start wondering how much of its value is simply as a tax dodge for some obscenely rich person.

"My kid could do this!" "Your kid did do this, Mrs. Twombly."

99% of them hate that you just like it or not. Sometimes the analysis is pointless. Stick to your guns. In the best possible sense and with no intended patronising notes: "you do you"

Articles are mostly promo pieces. The artist’s press team sends some quotes they want writers to use, and they tweak the wording.

Same with launch articles about any other content—movies, games, whatever.

I think it is something you can only really experience in place. The scale, the desolation and the absence of anything commercial while being in a human-built landscape I think would be an unusual experience.

have you ever experienced positive feelings after visiting a landscape ? this artist is able to synthesize these feelings. And it's not trivial, it requires large scale logistics

Most golf course architects are able to do this in much less time than 50 years.

You mean if they have a plan ? Or you mean any golf course architect can create a landscape that touches the soul ? because obviously golf landscapes don't provoke emotions

Clearly you haven't played a nice golf course. Or if you have, you haven't stopped to appreciate it the same way you would landscape art. If you did you would think otherwise. Some of the nicest golf courses in the world provoke far more emotion than you would imagine. Look at some photos of bandon dunes; those holes were designed by master artists.

You trying to tell me this "touches the soul": https://imgur.com/a/GahY00u

But this doesn't? Where every tree, every mound and turn of the landscape was an intentional alteration of the landscape serving the purposes of both provoking emotions and enabling the game of golf : https://imgur.com/a/E2jwz2x

Sorry but you would have to be delusional to think that. There is a reason people come from all over the world to enjoy bandon dunes. Michael Heizer spent 50 years making a junkyard and you fell for it.

Finally a quote:

“Most of their projects were on beautiful rolling parcels of land, and the geometric shapes which they created contrasted with the rolling topography...This yin and yang would draw the golfers’ attention to the target and create a very interesting or thrilling space to hit to. Raynor’s Fishers Island is a very good example of using geometric shapes to draw one’s attention to the target, while highlighting the beautiful surrounds. The shapes of the targets, putting surfaces, are very similar but the grading of the surrounds and the surfaces themselves varies from hole to hole. The grading conforms to the site and space and the lines draw one’s eye in a very subtle way to the powerful landscape surrounds.

Golfers enjoy beautiful natural surrounds but also are very stimulated when their target is well defined. Geometric features create these types of situation. This is why I believe most golfers respond favorably to this. Pete Dye used hard and straight lines on several of his designs. While some felt that at times he went too far and did not harmoniously blend his design with nature, his targets were well defined and created stimulation and thought.”

Sound somewhat familiar?

On the contrary, golf course greenery in the desert should provoke rage.

On the contrary contrary, some of the best most thought-provoking course designs are in the desert. Check out red rock golf trail. But yes, it probably invokes rage as well :).

If you're trying to tell me that this somehow "invokes emotion": https://imgur.com/a/GahY00u

But this does not "invoke emotion", where every tree, every piece of grass and turn of the landscape was intentional: https://imgur.com/a/3EY3A99

I'd say bologna.

the ground is not paved , definitely not good for skating.

you could maybe do an offroad skateboard though

Scale is important. Artists used to try and represent things, the invention of perspective was mind blowing, Skill up to hyperrealism stage. But the camera did away with a lot of that endeavour and artists began trying to explore emotion, sensation, paint for paint's sake, the ACT of painting and mark making itself. Jackson Pollock is a great example of a road marker along the way. The act of the brush, the removal of 'the artist', the canvas size growing. In 1970 the year this was started Robert Smithson created 'spiral jetty' - artists making statements more grandiose and more timeless. In some ways there's similarities with the more ancient works like the Nazca lines, but I think this work is best described by the term Magnus Opus in the article - The greatest single work of an artist, writer, or composer. It's an endeavour, a feat, and literally great in scale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com