The best.

Finally we come to what I consider to be the best in art today. For this we need to venture into the world of Andy Goldsworthy whose art I find thrilling and amazing. He really is my favourite artist.   His work embodies the type of living that I hold most dear. He is a sculptor, photographer and environmentalist who lives in Scotland. He produces site-specific sculpture and land art in both natural and urban settings. He can use natural and found objects to create works that are permanent. But he also often creates ephemeral works using his bare hands and found tools. His photographic skills help him capture these works at when he considers them to be at their most alive.

Goldsworthy prefers to make his art on-site, with the very elements of that particular spot.  He said that "A long resting stone is not merely an object in the landscape but a deeply ingrained witness to time," and then went on to say, "My work does not lay claim to the stone, and is soon shed like a fall of snow, becoming another layer in the many layers of rain, snow, leaves, and animals that have made a stone rich in the place where it sits." 

Goldsworthy at work

All of Goldsworthy’s works use only the materials in which were found in the place of creation. In doing this, he draws the attention of the people today back to the bare basics of nature and what really is important. Nothing is added into the environment and no waste is created. Some works stand only long enough to take a quick photograph of where as others rely on time and nature for it to slowly disappear back into the environment.  Choosing one of Goldsworthy’s works was very difficult. All of his works are outstanding and make you wonder how it is ever possible to construct them without any other materials other than the ones found at the scene.

“Rain Shadow 1984” by Goldsworthy playfully captures his goal which is to understand nature by directly participating in it as intimately as he can. To create this work he lay down on the earth during rain to create a shadow-like impression of his body.

"Rain Shadow 1984" by Andy Goldsworthy

The second work I would like to bring your attention to is “Incredible Serpentine Tree Roots”. Goldsworthy has used sand to create the roots of the two trees where the actual roots of the trees are under the surface. He has sculptured the sand so the two roots appear to intertwine with each other. To me this symbolises the strength and natural bond nature has. Both of these works have been created by using natural materials.  Goldsworthy’s works may seem simple and almost childlike but therein lies their power to take the viewer to a place of joy and appreciation of the wonders of our amazing, living breathing world. 

"Incredible Serpentine Tree Roots" by Andy Goldsworthy

My favourite quote from Goldsworthy is “I enjoy the freedom of just using my hands and found tools- a sharp stone, the quill of a feather and thorns. I take the opportunities each day offers: If it is snowing, I work with snow, at leaf-fall it will be with leaves; a blown over tree becomes a source of twigs and branches. I stop at a place or pick up a material because I feel that there is something to be discovered. Here is where I can learn.”

Alright, so if you have been following from the beginning of this topic you would have read through a post on the good, the bad and now the best. All of these artists and their art works mentioned over the last three weeks really express the lows and highs of art in today’s society.  I have alerted you to the fact that not all art is friendly to our beautiful planet. I would also like to leave you with these questions? But I warn you to think carefully before you answer them because the fate of our earth may depend on your answers. Should an artist’s work be considered art if it contributes to the pollution and clutter and eventual destruction of the planet we call home as I feel Ron Mueck’s does? Should our society redefine the definition of art to include only those works that use our waste and clutter to delight but challenge us as Pascale Marthine Tayou has as well as those that respect and play with the natural elements and objects of the earth as has Andy Goldsworthy?

Hope you enjoyed and that you have taken something away from this.
Your greenie with a voice,
Eartha24-7

The bad.

Now let’s venture to the bad! For this I nominate the work of the Australian artist, Ron Mueck. You might be shocked at this as he seems to be regarded highly by many in the art world today. When we look at his art we see big, bold bodies of ultra realism. However what we don’t see is the amount of waste created and what chemicals and products are used to make these creations. As an avid greenie I cannot condone the process in which Mueck makes his so called art works, no matter how realistic and overpowering they may be.  

I recently watched a video on Ron Mueck, which primarily featured the making of “Pregnant Woman 2002”, along with reference to some of his other works of his. The video, written and narrated by Colin Wiggins, gave an insight into how Mueck created these “master works” and the difficulties into producing each one. However I took this opportunity to investigate the environmental repercussions of the materials he uses and was disgusted with what I discovered. Mueck first used plaster studies to fine-tune the mould of his final sculpture of “Pregnant Woman 2002”. He then made a large clay maquette which was given great detail. Mueck created a frame of scaffolding tubes on which the artist roughly defined the forms of the woman using chicken wire and bandages that were soaked in plaster. This was then covered in layers and layers of clay until the silhouette of the pregnant woman was complete. This is all fine! No chemicals, no harm to the environment, until Mueck began to, how can I say it? He began to “get fancy with the spices,” although in this case, not spices but chemicals! He applied Shellac varnish to the clay mould to prevent it from drying out and from cracking. It is can be highly toxic when inhaled and must be disposed of properly by being sent to authorised disposal plants or for incineration under controlled conditions..

“Mask II 2002”, “Pregnant Woman 2002” and “Mother and Child 2001”, as with most of Mueck’s works use silicone, fibreglass and resin. The mould for “Mother and Child 2001” was created by using liquid silicone which was put directly onto the clay sculpture. On the much larger “Pregnant Woman 2002”, the silicone layer was supported by adding towelling, then fibreglass and resin.

Ron Mueck at work- coating "Mother and Child 2001" clay sculpture in silicon- notice the mask!

Applying Silicone to "Pregnant Womab 2002"- again notice mask!

The clay sculpture was taken out, or more like destroyed, as it was taken out of the mould. The sculpture was made by the use of many layers of polyester, resin and fibreglass and the face was cast separately in silicone, which took several tries to perfect. The clay sculpture, mould and the silicone tests for the face created much excess waste material. As polyester resin is basically a plastic it takes many years to decompose and can release toxic chemicals into the ground as it does so.  Burning would unfortunately produce the same result. On the other hand, even though fibreglass isn’t a toxic or non-biodegradable material the process through which it undergoes makes it environmentally unfriendly. Most methods of fibreglass production use styrene which causes hazardous air pollution that is harmful to breathe at excessive levels and therefore has the ability to create acid rain.

I would now like to draw your attention to the sculpture of Ron Mueck’s “Mask II 2002”, made from polyester resin, fibreglass, steel, plywood and synthetic hair. It measures 77 x 118 x 85 cm. As it is such a large work and it stands alone, it really is hard to narrow down a focal point. The sculpture is so realistic it looks as if you are staring into the face of Ron Mueck himself. Is this work not the opposite of what Flood advocates? Why do we need this likeness of the sculptor occupying space? I agree with co-curator of the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York, Massimiliano Gioni, who believes that artists need to carefully consider what they create to occupy space that is already overcrowded with goods, commodities and waste.

"Mask II 2002" by Ron Mueck

James Fox, an art history lecturer at the University of Cambridge in England, likens the mask to the busts of Amenhotop and Raemesses and the Easter lsland sculptures. He asserts that this scale manipulation is part of humanity’s desire to transform our likeness into idols and humans into deities. He also goes on to state that “history confirms that the “hubris” of constructing monumental likenesses is all too often followed by the “nemesis of their downfall” 

How appropriate to be bringing up these points when discussing Ron Mueck’s work. It is this very God- like attitude that we are the most important life form on this planet and can do whatever we like without consequences that will eventually, as history has shown, bring about our downfall. We must wake up to ourselves and start treating our planet with respect and adopt a greener, more sustainable life style. Sculptures like this do nothing to encourage humility in mankind.

Ron Mueck’s sculptures are, yes magnificent, very realistic and take much time and effort to create. However from an environmental perspective I feel strongly that the chemicals used and the waste created makes them not worthy to clutter up the precious space in our galleries. At least Ahenhotop and Raemesses were created in a more environmentally friendly way. 

Keep checking for the last post which I feel is the best of art today.

Hope you enjoyed.
Your greenie with a voice,
Eartha24-7

The good.

Bags, bags and bloody bags! They are just plain UGLY. They cannot be reduced, they cannot be decomposed, all that can be done is either to recycle them or the easy option is to just throw them away. Many people today resort to the easy option of just throwing them away *tut, tut, tut*. Such a selfish response is creating many problems in our environment. 

Plastic bags covering a farm in the US in 2009

According to the Australian Government Department of Sustainability “in 2002 around 50 to 80 million bags ended up as litter in our environment”. This statistic is appalling and although it was nearly ten years ago and the pollution rates may have decreased; there is still a significantly large amount of plastic bags today still circulating around our planet. Plastic bags create visual pollution problems and can have harmful effects on aquatic and terrestrial animals. Plastic bags are particularly noticeable components of the litter stream due to their size and can take a long time to fully break down. BUT… *deep breath* Who ever thought that bags could look actually decent?

An art work that is a body of thousands and thousands of plastic bags is Pascale Marthine Tayou’s “Plastic Bags 2001-2010.” This is a site specific work commissioned for the ‘21^st Century Art in the First Decade’ exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane. It consists of thousands of cheap coloured plastic shopping bags and looks absolutely magnificent. The work draws your eyes from the top to the bottom which is inevitably its focal point. Its large form, at first is over powering, but you begin to realise that it takes the shape of a somewhat upside down “curved” triangle, that is rocking on its tip. However the work hangs precariously from the ceiling in this droplet like state. It seems that there is a danger that the large droplet could spill its contents onto the gallery floor at any moment. If that were to happen it would be similar to what our consumer society is doing to the planet right now- saturating it with commodities, many of them unnecessary. 

"Plastic Bags 2001-2010" by Pascale Marthine Tayou

This is the “good” that I mentioned before as this artist is using waste that we, as a species have generated, and created a beautiful, awe-inspiring work to make us think about the detrimental effects of our out of control consumerism.

Stay tuned for next week's post on what I consider as "bad" in the art world.


Hope you enjoyed.
Your greenie with a voice,
Eartha24-7

The good, the bad and the best of art today.

Hey all,
For those who have followed me from the very beginning, you all know that I love the earth and I will do anything to promote environmental ways. Well, this month's topic will targeted at the world of visual art. 

I want to present to you what I consider to be the good, the bad and the best of art today. The lens through which I choose to make these judgements is the green perspective by which I try to live my whole life.           

As a greenie myself, I feel that art today should contribute to or help the environment in some way.


Over the next three weeks, I will compose three new posts- one for each week- which de-construct three artists and some of their works which represent the good, the bad and the best. 


Richard Flood, the curator of the New Museum of Contemporary Art In New York argues that, “Our time demands the anti-masterpiece and works with fragmented precarious forms often made with materials redeemed from rubbish heaps as the most rational response to an art world obsessed with monuments and masterpieces” 


We will start off with the good, then venture to the bad and then finish with what I consider to be the best. 


I hope you enjoy.
Your greenie with a voice,
Eartha24.7