close
more_vert

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.academia.edu/keypass/d3JYNTBTL05UMUhkd2hYN0MwSEk3blkxVFhBK3A3MmM5bEd5czFoTkdhND0tLWRqMHNVcXBVYUhPMzdqd3FUSzFhaUE9PQ%3D%3D--125ce1f386af8652c3038ad355834a012d70617c/t/CTjLy-SptdscE-bazo7p/resource/work/127648416/Sustainable_art_should_not_be_installed_at_natural_sites?email_work_card%3Dtitle&source=gmail&ust=1739716012245000&usg=AOvVaw3Cj6UyMNdA8-YEG9BQMpnA

This article published yesterday asserts that what was (arguably) good for the Neolithic goose is not good for the contemporary gander, and that land art despoils natural environments. I found it an interesting read, but to my mind riven with contradictions.

That article's argument seems to wander all over the place. I wasn't particularly convinced. I guess if the art is done well then it gets less complaints! Def seems like a weird thing to get riled up enough to write an article about.

Reading it made me think of Nimis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimis_(artwork)
That might be relevant to the discussion, although it's hard to know exactly how big it is.