The Earth as Art

September 6, 2012 in Uncategorized

Choose two of the six works in this post to compare and contrast (Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence 1976, the ancient Nazca Line Monkey in Peru, Surrounded Islands by Christo and Jeanne-Claude 1983 (click here to see Christo talk about his work), Richard Long’s Walking a Line in Peru 1972 (click here for a recent video review), Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door 1993 (where he carefully carves away to reveal the sapling within), and Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels 1973-76). Click on some of the links to find out more. Then think about the process used to create them (number of people required, time and energy taken, location, materials, etc…) and how this process relates to your understanding and interpretation of the works’ meaning(s). Consider at least two of the following concepts in your response: orientation, structure, sublime, minimalism, contrast, temporal vs permanent and collaboration. Click on the images to view them in greater detail.

And a few more video links for your enjoyment:
Ned Kahn: an artist who works with visualizing wind on the surface of buildings. Click this one for sure!
Patrick Marold: sculptor / friend who worked with Andy Goldsworthy for a few years.

61 comments

Comments feed for this article

September 6, 2012 at 4:13 pm

Brad Sparks

I chose to compare Sun Tunnels and Surrounded Islands. These two pieces are similar in the way that they take man-made elements (concrete and fabric) to pull out art from nature. They are also similar because they add a sense of wonder and contrast to areas that are naturally of little contrast.

The processes used are interesting and directly contribute to my understanding and interpretation of each piece. The location of each, as I wrote earlier, is naturally of little contrast. Therefore, the art exemplifies how man can pull out the beauty of nature by adding contrast or elements that are not natural. I think it exemplifies God’s command to be good stewards of His creation. By using man-made elements in the midst of God’s creation, it supplies with an aesthetic beauty that we might not be able to see otherwise. Looking deeper into each artwork it is clear to see the collaboration that went on with the artists and other professionals. Holt could not have lugged the concrete tunnels out on her own and Christo and Jeanne-Claude could not have created the polypropylene fabric by themselves. It speaks to the fact that there are many parts that contribute creating art: Architects, engineers, environmentalists, etc. Art is therefore a job of collaboration, and although many vocations are not the masterminds of art, most professions can be the creators of art.

September 6, 2012 at 7:49 pm

Justin Chae

The two pieces I was most drawn to were the Peruvian desert drawings and Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s “Surrounded Islands.” Both pieces are incredible in terms of their scale considering the immensity of the drawings and the sheer amount of fabric needed for the “Surrounded Islands” piece. Thinking about the number of people involved in the creation of these pieces. While the “Surrounded Islands” creation is well-documented, our knowledge in regards to the Peruvian piece is obviously limited. But considering our knowledge of the creation of “Surrounded Islands” and the massive number of people required for its creation it is reasonable to infer that the number of people involved in the creation of the Peruvian lines must have been massive. In both projects however, the community aspect adds to my appreciation of the pieces. While the inception of the idea may have been the responsibility of one or two persons, the actual realization was dependent on many people. The other significant contrast I observed was the temporal vs. permanent. The “Surrounded Islands” piece existed for a few weeks, while desert conditions in Peru have preserved the lines. I tend to appreciate the lasting beauty of work so I tend to appreciate the value of the Peruvian piece. Of course, an argument can be made that the “Surround Islands” piece has been preserved using photography. The thing I appreciate from both works is the immensity of both projects and the collaboration that must have been required in their creation.

September 6, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Jenny Snyder

I would like to compare the Nazca Lines and Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door. The Nazca Lines, are, doubtless, the work of many different people, most likely over a span of many years. In contrast, the Penone piece, with it’s fragility and limited space, was probably an individual or small group undertaking. It was a concentrated work, with it’s beginning and ending relatively close to each other. However, the two pieces have some similar qualities when one examines process. They are both consist of one natural material — the desert landscape for the Lines and a tree trunk in Tree Door. The location of these works is dependent on the material used — because the Lines are made out of the landscape, they are tied to the landscape. But the tree trunk is no longer attached to the earth, allowing it to be moved.

These pieces are both remarkable studies in contrast. In the case of Penone’s work, it is both the contrast between the empty, carved space in the middle and the contrast between the fullness of the trunk and the spry sapling within. The Nazca lines also exhibit this contrast, but in quite a different manner. While Penone’s work seems almost natural, like peering back in time at the tree’s younger days, the Lines show the contrast of natural occurrences in the landscape and distinctly human made occurrences. The Lines stand out sharply against the plain desert floor because they were made that way intentionally, against nature’s usual grain. Tree Door allows the viewer to ruminate on this natural grain.

This natural course is often perceived to be static. In some ways humankind looks at nature and sees the same old thing. Forests are forests, oceans are oceans, deserts are deserts. But both of these pieces remind the viewer that this is not so. Penone’s work is a reminder that every stalwart tree started as a sapling. What now seems virtually immovable was once shaken in the smallest breezes. The Nazca Lines communicate a similar message. It is not only nature that can change itself, but humans that can change nature. We, for good or bad, can make a permanent mark on the world around us. These pieces serve to remind us that what we view as permanent may in fact be temporal, and vice versa.

September 7, 2012 at 12:37 am

Hannah Barnes

The two pieces that impacted me the most were Nancy Holt’s “Sun Tunnels” and Giuseppe Penone’s “Tree Door.” While both of these pieces are intimately related to nature, the way in which they connect is crucially different. Nancy Holt uses four massive concrete tunnels, man-made structures that are rather unexceptional and commonplace in and of themselves. She places them in the Great Basin Desert in Utah, a remote location.
On the other hand, Giuseppe Penone’s work is composed from a part of a nature itself, a tree, that is taken into a more urbanized setting: a gallery. In this sense, the two pieces are reversed. Putting Penone’s work in a traditional artistic setting caused me to think more about the piece itself, while Nancy’s Holt’s use of the desert urged me to consider how her piece interacted with the area around it, particularly because of the contrast between the man-made structures and the natural setting.
Holt’s piece seems to be more minimalistic; it uses very large, basic shapes. Even the holes cut into the tunnels (oriented in the design of constellations) are simple circles. Though the “outside” of Giuseppe Penone’s sculpture is more simplistic, the carving of a young tree inside the trunk of the old one shows great attention to detail, with thin and delicate branches extending out. It is this subtle contrast between the older tree trunk and the younger one it contains that interested me, while the contrast between material and setting in Holt’s work also caught my attention. Furthermore, the relative orientation of “Tree Door,” where the young, growing life is contained within an old, dead trunk is important to the work. Each of the four “Sun Tunnels” are also oriented in an X configuration so that they interact and are aligned with the sun and light in different ways at different times.
All of these factors are important to the meaning of the pieces: Penone’s work seems to emphasize the life inside trees and the cyclical characteristics of nature, which grows and dies in order to spur more growth. Holt’s use of large, simplistic, ordinary, man-made concrete tunnels in a seemingly out-of-place setting underscores their presence, making them stand out and highlighting the interplay of the more urbanized world and the natural settings that give birth to this other “world.” Furthermore, creating constellations in the tunnels brings the sky to earth, simulating the effect of stars to light up the dark spaces of the tunnels.

September 7, 2012 at 4:15 am

Logan McRae

The two works of art that stuck out to me the most were Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door and Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels. Both pieces needed more than a couple people to complete the projects because they both have very large cylinder structures. Experts such as arborist, engineers, and astronomers had to go along-side both artists in unique and unusual locations for a great deal of time in order for their perfect vision to become a reality. For both of these pieces my interpretation was similar. For me, what is happening on the outside of the project isn’t as important as what is occurring on the inside. The tree shows vein like structures going to each part of structure which seem to be mandatory for the piece’s existence. As for the tunnels, the smaller holes allow the brighter, outer sunlight to be minimalized into more refined and substantial light. This can be evident in anyone’s life, how it doesn’t matter what someone is like on the outside, but what is most important is where there heart is.

September 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm

Emily Willson

I examined the two works by Christo and Jean-Claude– “Running Fence” and “Surrounded Islands.” On the surface level, both works appear quite similar. They both involve millions of feet of white fabric, used to take a natural landscape and turn it into something completely different. “Running Fence” allows the viewer to see the undulations of the country landscape and understand just how big the land really is. “Surrounded Islands” takes a slightly different approach. By covering the island with the white cloth, Christo and Jean-Claude reveal shapes and contours that are perhaps not visible when left uncovered.

Despite these different methods– one piece covering the world, the other simply snaking through it– both works of art serve to draw attention to the beauty of nature and allow humans to see it in a different (and more creative) light. Primarily, this occurs through the contrast created between the white fabric of the work and the dark browns and greens of the land. Pure white is a color not often seen in nature (except, perhaps, in the clouds of the sky or the snow of the winter). By choosing this color for the medium of their works, Christo and Jean-Claude ensured that the art would be startling enough to draw attention, yet natural enough to remain believable. White is, after all, the color of purity, so perhaps they meant to emphasize the purity of nature through their choice of this color. The color white used in both of these works also speaks to the minimalist style of the artists. By choosing but one color with which to complete their whole work (although using many colors might have made a different, more striking impression), the artists ensure that the attention is focused on the land, not on the cloth itself. Minimalism ensures focus on what really matters, especially in these two distinct pieces.

The different processes by which these works were created (as revealed through the videos) really helped me to understand them better. Seeing the political conflict Christo and Jean-Claude had to deal with as they tried to erect their “Running Fence” enables me to view the piece less as just a random stretch of white fabric, but more as almost a declaration of victory. Their white fabric billowed proudly over the plains both as an ode to nature and a nod to their triumph over those who doubted the artistic value of their work. “Surrounded Islands,” although surrounded by much less controversy than “Running Fence” (perhaps because it was later on in their career), took great manpower to completely cover the island itself. This work of man conquering and subduing nature (rather than just putting fabric over a few rocks) helped me to better appreciate the complexity of this piece and the significance it holds for us as Christians, who have been called to “rule over” the land God has given us.

September 8, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Matthew Ference

The two pieces I chose to examine were Christo and Jeane-Claude’s “Running Fence” and Giuseppe Penone’s “Tree Door”. I found these two pieces fascinating, because where Chrsito and Jeane-Claude put something into nature, Giuseppe took something out. Also, there is aspect of size and magnitude. “Running Fence” covered miles and miles and land, and could only be seen in full from above, where as the the beauty of the “Tree Door” was in the details and fine craftsmanship.

The materials used in the creation of each piece are also very interesting. Man made materials were used for the construction of “Running Fence,” having the affect of beautiful white sails billowing in the wind upon ridges. The “Tree Door” appeared as a miniaturized version of what the tree once was. It was like looking into a window of potential, or rather the past. Both pieces interacted with nature on fascinatingly different levels, producing two insightful pieces of art.

September 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Josh Holler

I chose to compare the sun tunnels and the Nazca Line Monkey. Both of these works seem to have a common characteristic in that they are not first perceived as the art. The sun tunnels are an enhancement of both the sun as a way to bring contrast and focus on the beauty of its natural light in the middle of a quiet dessert, as well as being a way to observe and correspond to some astronomical occurrences. It is very interesting and would seem quite odd if you did not know what these tunnels were for and if you stumbled upon them in the dessert. Their arrangement, which is purposeful for the winter and summer solace, would not be so obvious. The holes that are cut in precise arrangements make these tunnels almost appear as a wind flute. One of my first thoughts is that they resembled a giant phonograph-the audio device that is rotated to hear a composition of sounds as a needle is ran over its surface. These sun tunnels are kind of like a phonograph for the sky, something that only requires observation.
The connection between these pieces and the Nazca Sun Monkey I think is quite odd. Without knowing the creator’s intent (which you can discover after watching the video of the sun tunnels) is a guess-an inference about materials, their arrangement, their location and then hopefully a revelation about purpose. The Line Monkey remains a mystery to most-because the creator could not have seen his final work in the way we do. I like the idea that it was never meant to be temporal and that we don’t understand it. We know (at least we think we know) that these lines must have a purpose, and because we don’t know the purpose, well, I think that makes this art, (or whatever it was meant to be) all the more meaningful, because it forces us to reflect upon meanings, purposes, how, why and what these lines in the dessert represent. I don’t think these lines are really forming monkeys and geometric shapes as much as it is a mirror to the human condition. A piece of work to reflect internally upon ourselves-and I think that is awesome!

September 8, 2012 at 6:54 pm

Alyssa Leonard

The way in which Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door and Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels both depict nature and aspects of nature as an ongoing process immediately drew me to them over the other four works. From my perspective, these pieces were significantly more interesting and worth examining, as it was obvious that their artists had invested much time into formulating a design for them and in creating them.

However, after further research, differences between the two pieces became clearer. Penone’s Tree Door, for example, was much more a one man creation process than Holt’s piece. Though he may have needed some helpers to remove the tree from its original environment and bring it to a studio, he performed the majority of the carving by himself. This was relative to the meaning of the work, as the lifespan of a single tree (as displayed in the sapling carved out within the larger tree) is generally a small, individual process, helped along by some other components of nature. The concept of contrast and space between the branches of the sapling tree and the background color behind it further the idea of the difference between the young tree and the old, forming the concept of life as a process.

Holt’s Sun Tunnels, in contrast, would have required a large amount of people to move and position the art forms in the correct orientation, as well as to calculate and understand just where the sun’s rays would create the desired effect of light. This reflects the meaning of the work as it reveals the nature of the seemingly constant and all-powerful sun, rising and setting regardless of whatever activity or processes occur on the earth beneath it. The collaboration involved in the creation of Sun Tunnels reflects this idea. We are all merely bands of organisms living and working together beneath a constant power greater than ourselves. This power is represented by the sun in Holt’s piece.

September 8, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Rachel Merrifield

The two pieces that I would like to contrast are Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door and Nancy Holt’s sun tunnels. These pieces are both concerned with nature but have little else in common.

Penone’s Tree Door was created by carving a small sapling out of the center of an older tree. This was probably done by Penone himself without much help from other craftsman and he smaller scale of this project allows it to be transported to museums for a large audience to see and appreciate. Even though the sculpture is made from hard, sturdy wood and will last for quite a long time, it feels very temporal. It is almost as if the artist peeled back the layers of time, year after year of growth, to reveal to small sapling that this great tree used to be. Looking at the small tree I am reminded how quickly time passes and how soon that sapling will be gone. The large trunk of the small tree alone would not be very noticeable but the contrast between the two is what brings about the sense that time is fleeting.

In contrast to the Tree Door, Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels uses man made cement tunnels. This sculpture required many people to build and to move. Since the art depends on the location it is not as accessible to people who wish to see it. The sharp, straight lines and perfect circles of the sculpture stand in sharp contrast to the natural bumps and rolls of the land and vegetation. The large size and foreign nature of the tunnels seems to dominate the landscape and when the sun is along one of the solstices it almost seems like the tunnels capture the light coming from it.

September 8, 2012 at 8:20 pm

Beth Loudon

I found both pieces ‘Running Fence’ by Jeanne-Claude and ‘Walking a Line in Peru’ by Richard Long to be rather intriguing pieces of art. Both are similar in that they change the way an individual views a landscape. They both lead the individual somewhere other than where they are – ‘Walking a Line in Peru’ almost pulling the observer in, and ‘Running Fence’ leading the viewer toward the light at the other end. It is also interesting to note that both pieces divide their respective landscape into two parts. However, because both pieces are temporal, they are not meant to permanently change the land, but rather give the viewer a different perspective on the land that is already there. Thus, seeing the land in two parts, (rather than just one), gives the observer a new perspective.

The processes used to create these works must have also been similar. Both required a certain amount of collaboration between land-zoning officials and the artists. However, ‘Running Fence’ would have required much more funding for materials and guards to protect the fence. ‘Walking a Line in Peru’ would have been significantly cheaper to create, and simpler to ‘install’.

September 8, 2012 at 8:21 pm

Andrew Lindquist

I chose to compare Running Fence by Christo and Jeanne Claude, and Walking a Line in Peru by Richard Long. Both of these art pieces were highly controversial at their time and for similar reasons. Both pieces had their artistic value questioned. Each is able to take a simple concept and capture it through rather unique ways. The Running Fence had to deal with property rights and getting permission from people who owned the property. This was a strenuous task that took a great deal of time and energy, while Walking a Line has a different approach. But it would still take a great deal of time to form that straight path for that amount of distance. So each one is able to have a look of simplicity even though the process was much more complex than they appear. Each picture uses contrast between the darker shaded landscape with the white path of the fence or the trail for each piece.
Both of these pieces use very natural landscapes with different layers of hills and mountains to give an appearance of depth and wonder. In the Running Fence, the looseness and randomness of the fence direction seems to express the free spirit of the artist. The way the straight line in Walking a Line in Peru is structured right down the middle almost makes it stick out of the rest of the landscape even though it is in fact apart of it. This complexity is only observed through a close detailed observance of the two art pieces.

September 9, 2012 at 1:09 am

jacques.ntahoturi

I want to compare and contrast the Running Fence and the Tree Door. Both of the art has to do with the nature God has created and I apriciate. But, what I to say about these art work is that they take long and that is what they have in common. I understand that it is they spaciality but, the running fence had to much time and the proccess of doing the work and to get started problably tooke long. I know that they love what they do, In my opinion, I think the cost of time, money etc, ended up being more than what they got.

September 9, 2012 at 4:18 am

Philip Fillion

I’d like to discuss the Nazca Monkey and the Surrounded Islands project of Christo and Jeanne-Claude Javacheff.

Both created something beautiful and new that did not exist before in the landscape. The Surrounded Islands project added a man-made embellishment to the beauty of the Biscayne Bay, without disturbing the islands at all. The Nazca monkey actually altered the landscape in its construction: a layer of red pebbles was removed to reveal the white ground underneath.

Both are excellent examples of visual contrast: the lines of the monkey are starkly marked against the dirt. The pink plastic stands out from the water, and draws the eye to what it contains: the island.

The materials used had a big impact on both the permanence and the labor involved in the creation of these artworks. While the Nazca drawings required a massive workforce, the actual work ultimately involved the digging of four-inch trenches in the ground. Huge amounts of plastic had to be manufactured and carried into the sea to set up the Surrounded Islands. The plastic could not be left in place forever, so after six months, it was removed. Since the climate of the Nazca desert is so stable, and there has not been competing human activity, the Nazca monkey could last indefinitely.

September 9, 2012 at 4:58 pm

Jake Waterman

I really like the Tree Door and the Sun Tunnels. These two pieces of art are similar in the fact that they did not require many people to make them, they are cylindrical in shape and relatively the same size, and they both capture something in nature in a way that you do not always recognize. The Tree Door exposes the sapling inside of a tree and the Sun Tunnels expose the beauty of the sun. The two pieces are different in that the Tree Door always looks the same, whereas the Sun Tunnels change with the location of the sun. Also the art of the Sun Tunnels is not just the concrete cylinders themselves, but it is the nature surrounding them. The Sun Tunnels really bring out the beauty of the colors, mountains, and sunlight in the desert.

I think I like these two pieces of art because it is clear who the artists are. These pieces were created pretty much single hand-idly by Giuseppe Penone and Nancy Holt. It makes me appreciate the art a lot more knowing that it is the creation of just one person. I feel like it is a bigger accomplishment to have created something so beautiful on your own. The materials used also draw me to these pieces of art because they are things I see everyday. I see many trees but never think about the sapling within and I see concrete everywhere but never think about how it exposes the sun. Now when I see these things I will constantly be thinking about the art they can create. Moreover, I really like the location on the Sun Tunnels. I think that putting them in the desert really enhances their beauty. It also brings out the beauty of the desert.

The orientation of the Sun Tunnels is brilliant. The way Nancy Holt positioned them to capture the summer and winter solstice’s is fantastic. It must have required a lot of scientific knowledge to position them in this way. It is amazing how the specific orientation of an object can change the appearance of an object so drastically. These two pieces of art also demonstrate the temporal versus permanent forms of art. The Tree Door is permanent and always looks the same. The Sun Tunnels however, may have a permanent location, but they do not a have a permanent picture. The Sun Tunnels are temporal in the fact that they change with the time of the day and even the seasons.

September 9, 2012 at 7:20 pm

Reece Butler

I choose to compare and contrast Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door 1993 and Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence 1976. I think both pieces are very unique and draw attention to the beauty that God has already created.
Tree Door was made by carving into a tree trunk. By using natural material it has a real element of authenticity. I enjoy that the material comes from what it was sculpted to make. It is obvious that alot of time and effort were needed to create such a detailed work. The fact that the carving was done withing the trunk draw our attention within the rectangle that is created in the carving.
At first look I did not really appreciate Running Fence. To be honest I saw it as putting man made structure into what God had already created as naturally beautiful. It took alot of collaboration to create and my thought was that it must have been important for all that work to go into it. Once I dug deeper I enjoyed how it gave you a new view of the land. The ups and down and ins and outs were all visible because the fence was put up. It alowed you to see more of the land and provided contrast of one hill from another. This piece is more meaningful than I fitst thought.

September 9, 2012 at 7:57 pm

Nicole Barnes

I chose to compare and contrast Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s “Running Fence” and Richard Long’s “Walking a Line in Peru”. Both these works, though at first seemingly odd and/or pointless (to me, at least), serve to magnify our perception of God’s creation and make the observer see the beauty of the Earth through contrasting lines and contours in a large magnitude.
“Running Fence” creates a contrast of the contour against the land through the opposite colors, pure white on dark earth tones. Yet, though the colors are so different, the running white curtain actually serves as a compliment to the earth, leading our eyes to see the beautiful crests and troughs of the hills, which we would not be able to appreciate otherwise because the dark shades of the earth make the edges of the land blend together.
“Walking a Line in Peru” also creates a contrast, but in a different way. The simple straight line cutting through the land makes a leading line to the mountains and leads our eyes to the immensity of the rolling land. The plain structure of the line, rather than distracting me, leads me to appreciate the non-uniformity and erratic beauty of God’s Earth. The contrasting structures serve to enhance the majesty of His creation and creative nature.
Both of these works, controversial in their purpose and magnitude, are beautiful masterpieces that give attention to God’s earth, and not the work itself.

September 9, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Alannah Rebekah Taylor

Penone’s Tree Door looks as though it only required one person (Penone) to carve out the “sapling” from the “tree.” This sculpture seems rather permanent (although wood in and of itself changes with the weather, expanding and contracting, so that could play a role in the meaning of this piece, as well). When I look at this piece, it makes me think of the sapling that the tree used to be, as well as the many little saplings that will come from the grown tree. It only takes one person to change another’s life, to help bring out the potential in that person, to believe in them and give them motivation. In the same way, it only took one artist to carve out the sapling from this tree, revealing both what was and what can be. The tiny little branches are so fragile, so easy for the artist to accidentally snap. Yet with time and care, the artist was able to leave each little piece intact, creating this beautiful structure. The same time and care given to relationships can leave each little piece of a person intact, allowing their potential to shine through.

Long’s Walking a Line in Peru seems to be a more temporal piece, in that it could be easily destroyed by humans/ animals/ weather factors (since it is land art, rather than a museum piece). When I look at this photograph, I immediately realize from the structure that someone had to walk that line over and over again to create the visible path. It seems so amazing that one person can have such a huge impact on the earth. Long could be commenting on this from an environmental standpoint: it only takes one person to make a difference (just like Penone’s piece). It could also be showing how it is possible for us to leave behind things that will be helpful for future generations. It is also interesting to note the differences in the landscape, to imagine the journey from the artist’s point of view. Each step of the walk would reveal another beautiful aspect of this landscape, and even after walking it so many times, things would be different and new. We can find beauty and novelty in even everyday things, things that seem trivial. Something as simple as a walking path can be a thing of immense beauty and pleasure.

September 10, 2012 at 2:42 am

Katie Van Doren

I chose to compare “Running Fence” and “Walking a Line in Peru.” Both works create a sort of path or line through a landscape, although in very different ways. Walking a Line uses a much more minimalistic approach to art, adding nothing to the landscape except a path carved out by repeated walking. Running Fence uses material on a much larger scale, where the curtain the artists hang travels for miles, through many residents’ land. The cost of their art is much more significant, and it required much more collaboration due to the requirement for permission from each landowner. The video showed just how controversial and challenging gaining that permission was! This large-scale collaborative requirement can be compared to Long’s Walking a Line, where the landscape was not as much a shared residential area, and the line can be created by many fewer people.

The works share a common feature of temporality. Running Fence was installed for only a short period of time, and Walking a Line is the kind of work that, without continual maintenance, will over time disappear due to shifting grounds and regrowth of grass and other foliage. Additionally, both works raise similar questions to the public about what art is, and whether these pieces are actually art. Understanding and interpretation will certainly vary according to personal taste and experience with art, although it is hard to deny that each work is a distinct mark on the earth, even if only for a short time. Personally, I find Walking a Line especially striking against the mountains!

September 10, 2012 at 7:15 pm

Samuel Lee

The two artworks I would like to compare are “Tree Door” and “Sun Tunnels.” I chose these two mainly because they both impressed me with creativity that instantly made a part of the natural world regain their significance.

I could not exactly tell how the Tree Door was made even after watching the video of the interview with the artist, but I could tell just by looking at it that it required a very careful carving work on the block of wood. It is a creative idea to plant a tree inside a tree, because any viewer can instantly see what it is trying to highlight. Although a block of wood can be found anywhere, it sublimates the life of a tree by revealing the sapling. The change in orientation(from a tree on the ground to a tree inside a tree) now communicates a host of ideas – the long time it takes to grow a tree, the reminder that trees are biologically precious, and that it can also be easily destroyed – especially when it is fragile like the sapling, or like the apparently cut piece of wood. By taking a life form as mundane as a tree and making it a little bit unnatural, the artist sublimates the ordinary.

I definitely would not have appreciated Sun Tunnel as much if i did not see the documentary about it. I was mind-boggled about the artist’s thought to place two pieces of concrete tunnels in a way that breathtakingly invites a view of the sun at specific times of the year. It took me a while to at least begin to empathize with the artist’s appreciation of the desert surrounding, the quietness of the wilderness and the sun that fills up the empty space. Moreover, the precise measurement of the holes in the tunnel that signifies the constellation was a brilliant idea to enjoy the night sky during daytime. I would like to talk about the concepts of contrast and collaboration on this piece. The view of the constellation during the day inside the tunnel gives a viewer a fresh contrast – a change in normal thought of watching stars by night and the sun by morning. It reminds us of the creation that can be so easily forgotten because they are so “out there” – especially during this technocratic society where there is virtually no night. Also, the four pieces of tunnel that points to the direction of the sunrise at winter and summer solstice collaborates to make the glory of the sun come alive as it completes the brilliant symmetry of two circles. You can only glimpse what it must really feel like in the video, but there must be a sensation of awe as one beholds the contrast between two man-made circles and the perfect sphere of fire in the middle made by Someone out there.

Both Tree Door and Sun Tunnel sublimate and highlight ordinary features of nature – one on earth and one outside of earth. Just a slight change of orientation causes us to see them in a different perspective, and that makes all the difference. The profundity of the tree outside of our house and the rays of light that the heavenly bodies share despite their incomprehensible distance retrieves their mystery and awe through these art pieces.

September 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Bridget Oslund

The two pieces of art that caught my attention were Running Fence and Surrounded Islands. In both pieces, it was the contrasting colors — the neon pink against the ocean and the stark white against the dark land – that made them stand out. They both bring very large amounts of fabric into nature to create a contrast of color and material that catches the audience’s eye. The simplicity and size of both pieces create a dramatic effect. I think Running Fence looks a lot more natural than Surrounded Islands, probably because of the difference in color.
When I first saw this art, I did not think about how much time, effort, and money it took to make them. Artists who create such large-scale pieces of art in nature have to do a lot of work to create such impermanent results. The collaboration with the community and government to create these pieces is extensive, and it makes me question if the temporary art is worth all the money and time it takes. However, I really enjoy and appreciate Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s work.

September 10, 2012 at 8:30 pm

Brady Neill

I gravitated towards the Running Fence and Monkey. Both of these pieces were created with very different goals. The work done in Peru (Monkey) was created hundreds of years ago, and is still in existence. It is permanent. The Running Fence, however, was created in the mid 1970’s by numerous workers. The work spanned over 24 miles. The work as ephemeral. It was completed and left standing for 2 weeks before it was removed.
I think the Running Fence was created to show the distinct boundaries found all throughout society. It uses two colors: White and Black to show division.
The Nazca Lines have ambiguous origins. Many believe that they were created for their sky gods. The Nazca Lines are huge. They span many miles and depict many other animals. There are many subliminal messages that were inserted into the works. I appreciate both of the works. Their magnitude of the works and the time that they took to plan and carryout truly show how much the artists really cared about their works.

September 10, 2012 at 9:09 pm

Juyoung Kim

I chose Richard Long’s Walking a Line in Peru and Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels to compare. Both works reflect the power of the nature in which the works are created. In Walking a Line in Peru, a vertical line of pathway is drawn somewhat abruptly and artificially, surrounded by the huge landscape, stressing the vastness of the field and grandness of the mountain toward which the line is extended and disappears. In Sun Tunnels the sunlight is passing through the holes and forming the lines of light that are not necessarily natural but collaborating with the nature and emphasizing its beauty, especially that of the sunlight (and sunset.) Both works seem to be presenting the smallness of human invention that can barely keep the beauty of nature, but at the same time expressing the methods through which human works collaborate with the nature and appreciate its beauty.
However these two works differ in ways that they were created. In Sun Tunnels, the material through which the nature reveals its beauty is not the nature, whereas the in Walking a Line in Peru the sculptor is actually engaged with the nature itself to reveal magnificence of it.

The artist is achieving contrasting effect of Black and White color in Walking in Peru, making only the lines on the picture grayish white and everything else dark. In Sun Tunnels, Nancy used sunlight to contrast the color of the light and the rest of the things, conveying the concept of warmth and coldness, again emphasizing the beauty in the nature’s warmth.

September 10, 2012 at 9:12 pm

Susie Lee

I want to compare the Running Fence and the Sun Tunnels. Running Fence is a very powerful artwork that expands throughout the entire landscape of the mountains. Though it is created by white sheets, in a bigger picture, it outlines and highlights the connectivity and integration of all lines that create the mountains. The contrast between the fences and the mountain immediately draws our attention to the fences and really brings out the whiteness of the curtains. The contrast between colors are not only used in the Running Fence but it can also be seen in the Sun Tunnels. The tunnels themselves are made out of concrete with a couple of holes carved towards the sky. During the day, sunlight comes through the holes and allows light into the concrete tubes, showing strong contrasts between the lines of the circle and the light. These works both illustrate minimalism but in very different ways. Running Fence conveys minimalism through its simple material and color but it often gives the impression as a grand work because of its scale. The Sun Tunnels are very minimalistic in its materials as well. However, it illustrates minimalism with its orientation on the land and its shapes. All shapes involved in the Sun Tunnels are circular and this gives it a very simple and unified theme and idea of the work.

September 10, 2012 at 9:43 pm

Marie Morton

Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels were interesting because of the setting. I live in very near the desert so I was very skeptical of this art work having a good reason of being somewhere where it did not fit in. But after watching the youtube video, I began to appreciate it more, especially after learning that the holes in the tunnels made star constellations when the sun was high overhead. Having the constellations checked out by a team of astronomers seems to make it even more realistic. Also, when the narrator of the video said that he was “walking over the stars” made me think that I was bigger than the ant that I usually feel like when looking up into the sky. It is somewhat weird that a thing added to a landscape that is usually not traveled by humans, could make me think that way.

Giuseppe Penone’s says that “the act of touching is an act that helps understanding the reality of things” things “missed by the glance.” Though Giuseppe does not talk about his work Tree Door in the youtube video, I his draw to the physical world seems evident in some of his other pieces. Yet he connects the inward self to the physical. For his Tree Door work, he shows the inners of a tree that has been carved away to revel a young tree. My thoughts immediately went to a youthful spirit lives in everyone.

To compare Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels with Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door is difficult. Holt’s work is additive and Penone’s is reductive; Holt’s works with the sun and stars while Penone’s works with life on earth. These two artists are different in almost every way.

September 10, 2012 at 9:56 pm

Jessica Parsons

The two works which strike me most are Surrounded Islands by Christo and Jeanne-Claude and Tree Door by Giuseppe Penone. Though very different, these two works highlight common things in nature which are often overlooked. Surrounded Islands uses bright colors rarely found in nature to draw attention to the islands . The contrast between the bright pink and the deep blues and greens in nature is unusual to see. The viewer’s eye is drawn to the shape of the island and it’s actual existance, rather than allowing the water to be the focal point. Contrastly, Tree Door also highlights a piece of nature but in a much more natural way. The sculptor carves the log, revealing a small sappling which seems to have been hiding just inside. I think that the technique that Penone has used reveals a sense of minimalism. Instead of adding something to nature in order to make it stand out, he simply uses tools that he has to enhance something in nature. Though this artwork is anything but simple, the overall effect is seemingly minimalistic, specifically in comparison to Surrounded Islands. Just looking at the two works together one really sees the different paths artists can take when working to highlight things found in nature. One can either highlight by using additive styles or one can highlight by taking pieces away to show a piece of nature in an entirely new way. Both works cause the viewer to take a step back and think hard about what the artist is attempting to convey and also examine how they themselves have grown blind to the beauty found in nature.

September 10, 2012 at 10:25 pm

Akonwi Ngoh

The two pieces that I enjoy the most are the Running Fence and the Nazca Line Monkey. The Nazca lines are really impressive because of their large size and the time period in which they were made. If the lines were made a couple thousand years ago, then they would have required a massive amount of primitive manual labor and time. These images must have taken a lot of time to plan because there was not an easy method to see the image in it’s entirety.

The fence is a bit simpler to build but impressive nonetheless. It stands out to me because it turns the valley and fields into something more; an image. One man made something that catches the eye by adding one simple piece to it. Many people didn’t agree with or endorse it but I regard it as art.

The Nazca lines are obviously more permanent than the running fence of cloth but I like how big they both are and to me, there is a bit of minimalism(which I really enjoy) in them. The Running Fence is simply a white line on a canvas or area of land. The Nazca lines are similarly also just simple lines on the earth’s surface. Neither of the pieces has any other colors, objects, or obstructions.

September 10, 2012 at 10:44 pm

emily chan

My attention is immediately drawn to the parsimonious display of objects- especially in art. The minimalism presented by Richard Long’s Walking a Line in Peru 1972 makes me admire the artist so much more. Such simplicity in itself draws much attention and displays such a powerful message to those patient enough to understand the beauty of such time and consistency spent with the earth. Through this photograph and unique process, Richard Long has made it possible for viewers to share his experience and feeling of the site. The fact that it is temporal art also evokes the audience to explore their imagination as they think of what exactly went on at that site and are reminded that it will soon only be accessible through their memory and imagination.
Surrounded Islands by Christo and Jeanne-Claude 1983 also stirred my imagination as I try discover the meaning and process behind this temporal piece. The more I learned about their process and vision, the more I am in awe of the effort put in to a piece that exemplifies such minimal qualities. The interaction and boldness is holds with its surroundings is what makes this work so impressive to me.

September 11, 2012 at 12:44 am

Safia Livingston

I choose the ‘Tree Door’ by Guiseppe Penone and ‘Walking a line’ by Richard Long.

Giuseppe Penone leaves his finger prints all over his work the ‘Tree Door’, as he combines nature and sculpture. The sculpture is a great example of contrast; the difference in girth, and the presence or absence of branches. The materials used are minimal and all natural. A door is normally used for the purpose of making a transition from one environment to another; this piece depicts the past, present and future. The observer has a chance to see to progress and developments the lanky, skinny bark made to develop and survive to become a large, healthy tree. The sculpture is also a depiction of what the tree has the potential for; the ability to give rise to new life.

The other piece of Art that fascinates me is ‘Walking a line’. This piece is all about contrast; contrast between the grass and the path, the contrast between the curvy, winding river bed and the straight path. I like the fact that the piece of art does not disrupt the environment, decades from now people can still choose to acknowledge the work of art by continuing to use the path. This adds a permanent element or it may be lost to nature leaving it a temporary work of art. The viewers may choose to enjoy this art from a distance, or have a hands on, interactive role in enjoying the path by walking down it themselves.

September 11, 2012 at 12:54 am

Luke Simpson

I decided to compare the ancient Nazca Line Monkey with the piece, Walking a line. The Nazca Lines are a very interesting set of land drawings, amazingly only comprehensible from the sky. While there methods of creation and reason for them is not well known, it seems that it was created simply by pushing away the top layer of rocks to expose a whiter layer of rocks below that. The fact that it is so large and that they would not have had a way to view it properly from the ground makes it more amazing and more mysterious as these drawings are out in the desert, away from anything that could disturb. While it has lasted for about 2000 years, its seeming permanence is amazing. The small change in climate as well as small population around it seems to keep it as a permanent structure, although slowly it has begun to deteriorate either by small weather changes or by more people moving into the area. the minimalistic view of this work is amazing too as it is nothing more than a shape made by moving rocks. No color, no canvas, no exploration into 3-D. Simply a large drawing in the sand.

Walking a Line was also a masterful work of art as it speaks to the power of repetition. Made by only one man by simply walking a line, it is amazing the perfection that is seen by its straightness, as well as the lasting permanence of one man’s consistent action, making his own path in the wilderness that will seemingly be there for many years to come. That process speaks so much to its understanding and interpretation. However, it also could be eventually deteriorated, just like the Nazca Lines, but not for a long time to come. It is a seemingly permanent drawing. It is interesting though that Walking a Line is even more minimalistic than the Nazca Lines. Whereas the Nazca Lines at least had a shape, a figure which they drew, a monkey. Walking a Line is a simple line, nothing more, turning the focus nearly completely on nature and the one thing within it that sticks out. While they are both very minimalistic, Walking a Line is so simplistic, so minimal, that it makes it perhaps even more awe inspiring than the Nazca Lines/

September 11, 2012 at 1:08 am

Tory McKay

I chose to compare running fence and surrounded islands because they are both works of art that highlight a substantial amount of landscape. Both pieces are done by the same artists (Christo and Jeanne-Claude) in that they are also done in the same medium (curtains).
Running fence at first glance may look just like curtains over miles and miles of land. But the way the curtains are positioned allows the land to be seen in a different way. By placing the curtains in this way, the beautiful mountainous geography of Sonoma California is made more apparent. The way the mountains are landscaped is now visible.
Surrounded islands is different in that it only stretches around an island. Yet in the same way the outline of the island is more clear once the curtains have been placed around it. Emphasis is on the location and position of the islands.
Another major difference is the colors used in the fabric. Surrounded islands was done in a neon pink whereas Running Fence was done is white. I believe this was done because the locations are dramatically different. The white against the mountains provides much contrast whereas white curtains against the ocean would probably not be as dramatic as the pink color.
At first glance I was disappointed in these works of art. They seemed boring and without much thought. But examining the photographs more and more I begin to see the beauty in what these artists have done.

September 11, 2012 at 2:12 am

Joshua Melby

I chose the two pieces, the Running Fence and the Monkey from the Nazca lines, because I thought that they had a good amount of differences and similarities. The fence is interesting because it seems to represent the silliness of man’s arbitrary boundaries while the monkey is a representation of nature imprinted in nature. So there is this difference of nature and humanity. The fence was only around for a few weeks while the Nazca lines have endured over millennia. This is important because nature is enduring and humans are this temporal blip on the scale of time. They both took many individuals to complete. After researching it, I was intrigued by the role the environment played in each work. The running fence required an environmental impact assessment that was over 450 pages long while current environmental degradation endanger the preservation of the Nazca lines. The purpose of the fence was art while the origin of the Nazca lines are shrouded in more mystery. The process of building also varied. Ditch digging was essential for Nazca lines while linens and hooks were used for the fence. Also, the monkey is seen from an aerial perspective without a lot of height while the fence has height.

September 11, 2012 at 2:36 am

Mary Elizabeth Goodell

I find myself most enamored by Richard Long’s Walking a Line in Peru and Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels. Both were incredibly striking and provoked a lot of thought. In addition to the obvious comparison of being human manipulations of nature, the pieces both rely heavily on the power of observation. The pieces also foil one another in that one is additive while the other is a result of conquering the nature and (literally) bending it to man’s will.
Both pieces are minimalist but are still complex enough to spur on the viewer to think about their meaning. Negative space is an important component in both. In the Sun Tunnels, the use of the tunnels and holes serve to frame the surrounding nature. The line in Peru divides it instead. In both situations though, the basic shapes of the line and the cylinder draw the eye to study the environment that encompasses the works. Immaculate precision is also vital to the overall effect of the work. First the straight path of the line seems to stretch on forever and ever and then the sun tunnels were specifically crafted to the centimeter to channel the light of the sun and stars perfectly. Both utilize the importance of the accuracy to achieve a sense of strength and power in the art. The lines almost make the works feel harsh or impersonal but their placement in such organic locations are a great juxtaposition that lend more potential for meaning. The walking a line in Peru makes the viewer wonder what Long was thinking about on his countless trips up and down the way. It also makes me wonder what onlookers thought of the man as he would make the same journey, back and forth, never seeming to arrive anywhere except to turn around and leave again. The basic structure of the tunnels too seem very ordinary. Dull, lifeless bits of concrete but they too are beautiful frames that display the glory of the heavens both night and day. Anything more ornate would have taken away from the majesty of the mountains and any color on the concrete would have lessened the colors created by the natural light.
While both pieces are minimalist and cause the viewer to ponder the wonders of nature, the two works also have differences. In Holt’s Sun Tunnels, she brought in man made material to heighten the experience a passer by in the desert would have. The tunnels also took a team of astronomy experts and doubtless many a construction worker to build and place the giant cement tunnels. Long took a different approach and required no outside help nor excess materials. He simply left his mark on the landscape. His work is more representative of the power of man’s touch on the earth while Holt attempts to point our attention upward.
Both pieces of art are breathtaking and certainly hold different meanings for different people but each is important and serves to make the viewer think of more than his or herself.

September 11, 2012 at 3:19 am

Haley O'Hora

I chose to compare and contrast Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels and Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence. Both of these works involved adding a human aspect to a natural setting, additionally both artists take upon a minimalist type of artwork as both works of art are quite simple, yet provide a sublime effect, by enhancing an aspect of the nature in which they are placed in.
The Running Fence appears to be a simple piece of work, however the time and the effort put into creating this seemingly simple piece was immense. The artists had to work against those who fought this piece of artwork, had to invest large amounts of money, and put immense time and effort into this project. The piece created not only enhances the fence created, but the fence creates a sublime effect within nature, outlining and enhancing the landscape that it wraps itself through. I think the artists desired to use this minimalistic art piece to create a much more complex result enhancing the natural beauty, and were willing to put forth such great efforts to allow others to appreciate the natural beauty related to the earth that surrounds us.
Similar to the Running Fence, Nancy Holt, in her art piece Sun Tunnels is very willing to put forth much effort to create her work of art. She also uses minimalism to create an enhanced effect of nature, and while she also focuses on the beauty of the earth, she brings in a celestial aspect that was not seen in the Running Fence. Holt focusing much on the structure of her art piece to create light images when light hits the tunnels in certain ways, thus creating a sublime image of both the sun and celestial bodies, such as the arrangement of the stars. Again, a simple looking piece was configured with much effort, in collaboration with astronomers, to create a placement so exact that the art is able to magnify the natural beauty.
Both artists use minimalistic art to enhance the nature that surrounds it, creating a sublime effect. This reflects the way the art was created; the art stands so simple amiss a complex world around it, similar to the complex work that created it, and in return intensifying the view of the complex natural world surrounding the art.

September 11, 2012 at 3:42 am

Debbie Landeros

The two pieces that I was instantly attracted to were Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence and Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door. Both pieces are very different from each other, but the artists’ used the nature around them to create the pieces. Both pieces are wonderfully made. Although it took more people to create the Running Fence Penone’s Tree Door is made with as much passion as Christo and Jeann-Claude’s Running Fence. Both pieces are also different in size, but the artists use so much thought on how to make them. Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence had to be thought out thoroghly because of the land that they were using and how they were going to use it. Penone”s Tree Door, although smaller than Running Fence, it was thought out carefully so he could gently carve out “the sapling within.” Both pieces show the glory of God and how magnificent and beautiful He has made the earth. They both show how art can be interpreted to praise and glorify God.

September 11, 2012 at 3:48 am

Kristin Rauh

I decided to compare Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s works, “Running Fence” and “Surrounding Islands”. These two pieces share similarities but are also very different. In both pieces, Christo and Jeanne-Claude used nature as their canvas and used cloth to enhance the natural beauty of the landscapes. In both artworks, the cloth that was used to show the land in a different way than normal was stretched to extend and cover a very large area. Also in both works, the art was used to contrast with the background . The white in “Running Fence” and the pink in “Surrounding Islands” contrasted with the dark backgrounds to make the beauty of the earth more obvious. Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s style or art is a little controversial because many people do not appreciate it as art and they think it is wasteful and pointless. Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s works are also very different. “Running Fence” was completed in a rural land setting in Sonoma, California, while “Surrounding Islands” was completed in urban water setting in Miami, Florida. “Running Fence” weaved throughout the hills and grasses of the earth, while “Surrounding Islands” covered water that surrounded and island. Christo and Jeanne-Claude got a lot of grief from their first work in 1973, but authorities were more cooperative when they started “Surrounding Islands” in 1983. In the first work, the artist used white cloth, but in the second, they used a bright pink material. You can come across white much more easily in nature than you can come across pink. I think they probably used pink the second time because people were more acceptable of them as artists and their art as real art. In “Running Fence” they used one continuous sheet, but in their other work, they used several separate pieces that worked together in a set. I cannot imagine how many people were needed to complete these projects – from approving the job, to constructing the art, and even to the physical and emotional support. The entire process took a long time to complete, but the construction and tear down were done quickly. The video showed the process of Christo and Jeanne-CLaude trying to get their work approved. It looked like a long and tiring process. The location of the works required working around the land and homes as well as in the water. Christo and Jeanne-CLaude used minimalism and the idea of temporal vs. permanent in their works. In both works, the designs only represent the necessary and bare minimum elements, with neat lines and simple materials. The fact that their art only is around for a couple of weeks makes people question whether or not it is art since it is not forever. All things will go away someday, so I support them and their appreciation for simple, natural art. Since the art is made out of a material that is so vulnerable to destruction, it will not be replicated. Christo and Jeanne-Claude are unique artists with even more unique, simple, and beautiful art.

September 11, 2012 at 3:52 am

Reenie Erwin

I decided to compare and contrast Guiseppe Penone’s Tree Door and the ancient Nazca Line Monkey. While both incorporate nature and then by definition are finite there is a more permanent feel to the Tree Door. The large wood tree infers strength while the inner sparse tree shows the fragility of nature. By carving what is normally on the outside on the inside it provokes thought of how we view the forest in and of itself. The Line Monkey is located in Peru and may be a symbol of their native animal life and perhaps of their culture. Engraving it into the soil shows the relatedness culture to ecosystem and unlocks something greater from a simple line. There is something to be said about the ability of the wind to erase the lines, but the sheer size of the monkey allows the strength of its symbol to shine through. The monkey must have taken a long time through collaboration, perhaps lots of participants from the community or culture worked together to express themselves; while I imagine the tree to have been done by a soul artist with a certain vision. Both are interesting, but can more easily see the craftsmanship that went into the trees and therefore can appreciate it more. The sheer scale of the line monkey is impressive, and must have taken extensive planning to see the larger picture within the dirt, and therefore is worthy of admiration as well.

September 11, 2012 at 4:17 am

Rebecca Russ

I find Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door Nancy Holt’s Sun Tunnels to be complementary, but opposite. Both emphasize the beauty of nature, but in very different ways. Penone carves a sapling into the inside of a tree trunk, emphasizing the tree’s natural beauty in a more human environment where viewers will admire it. Holt does the opposite: bringing clearly man-made tunnels far into the desert, she adds a human element to the landscape which not only alters but magnifies the beautiful colors and shapes of the earth, sky, sun, and stars. Penone places his tree vertically, as trees naturally grow, pointing toward the heavens. Holt aligns her tunnels on the ground, perhaps indicating the felled grandeur of humanity when compared with the natural (God-created) world. The only vertical components to her art are some of the holes in her tunnel, also drawing the viewer’s eye upward toward the heavens. Both works have a fitting permanence about them, which provides a way for their art to be experienced by others over a long period of time and allows them to also communicate their messages to others, rather than simply creating a work simply to watch it come apart.

September 11, 2012 at 4:27 am

Kyle Williams

The two pieces that I chose to compare are the two by Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Running Fence and Surrounding Islands. I chose these two pieces because they seem to be almost opposites of each other in terms of their range or focus. I think the contrast in the limits that are demonstrated in the two pieces is what makes them remarkable. It is interesting that the same couple can create two totally different pieces of art. The first piece, Running Fence, seems to last forever because you can not see the end of the fence, whereas the piece Surrounding Islands looks like a finite number of finite loops around the islands.
The structure of the Running Fence is interesting because it looks like a normal fence from a distance and with its surroundings looks like it fits in. The structure of the rings around the islands are definitely out of place and unnatural because of the material and the color. Overall, these two pieces are very contrasting, despite both being minimalist pieces of art.

September 11, 2012 at 4:38 am

Emily Dao

It seems like the Running Fence was a controversial project to approve. The resistance shown in the short supplementary video provided a context for the artists’ life dream/passion and a public’s opposition/inability to recognize its purpose. To erect a structure as long and out of place as this curtain in the farm lands of California was an unconventional form of “art” (as speculated by the residents), which claimed the earth as a natural canvas to build upon. Similarly, the Surrounded Islands was an unconventional yet ambitiously imagined piece. These two works demonstrated the intentional use of massive space & unexpected material outside of the conventional mediums of crayons or paint to express man’s ability to create. It also conveys the temporal influence that man has on earth, because these structures were later put away.

September 11, 2012 at 4:41 am

M. Lynch

the two pieces that really struck a contrast in my mind were Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence and Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door. In the Running Fence, they only add to the environment, drastically, too, for the fence stretches for miles. In the Tree Door, the artist is merely taking away nature, not adding. Running Fence must have taken many people and much time, where Tree Door appears to be the handiwork of one artist.

In my interpretation, Running Fence makes me think of how broad and vast the universe/world is, and how small I am. On the other hand, Tree Door almost seems like the tree is captivated and unable to move, which makes me feel really claustrophobic and cornered.

September 11, 2012 at 4:47 am

Alyssa Williams

I chose to compare the Nazca Line Monkey and Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door because of the similar mediums that they used as well as the difference in the community it took to create this art. In Line Monkey, the native peoples who created the earth art fashioned a piece straight from the earth, not adding something unnatural to the earth like some of the other pieces. They used the ground that they had to make a mark on history, and to portray their religious and cultural beliefs. Similarly, Tree Door is created directly from nature by just carving a tree trunk, and not adding anything else to it. This art does not represent a culture, but it is clearly meaningful to the artist and will be looked upon in generations to come as a significant piece of art from this era. The orientation of Line Monkey is in the middle of an area that could have been used for valuable farming, just like the tree could have been used for wood, but in both cases, the orientation helps to portray that the earth is for more than just work and labor, but is a work of art itself.
Both Line Monkey and Tree Door are minimalist pieces of art, but they show that no matter if a tribe or a single artist creates the piece, it can still have a lasting effect. Line Monkey was probably created by many people that collaborated to form this masterpiece, and we can clearly see the meaning of the art held true for many people of the time. In Tree Door however, one artist put himself into this piece and is leaving the viewer to interpret if it holds meaning for our culture, or just a few. The minimalism of Tree Door allows for this interpretation because very little of the piece suggests an what the viewer should think. Line Monkey and Tree Door were made in different cultures and eras, but both pieces hold a lasting meaning.

September 11, 2012 at 5:08 am

mattahrenholz

I’ve decided to comment on the Nazca Lines and the Running Fence for the simple reason that I find them the most beautiful/impressive. I am particularly stunned at the amount of work it took the artists to create Running Fence. It wasn’t a particularly intrusive installation and farmers put up longer fences all the time. Perhaps that one guy was right when he said that the artists were having trouble because they were strangers. However, the effort that it took to put together the fence pales in comparison to the work that would have been required to create the Nazca Lines. It would have taken hundreds of people many decades, if not longer, to accomplish what they did in Peru. Another difference between the two artworks is that while the fence was a temporary installation, the Lines were built to last. The Video talks about how they were supposed to be there for about two millennia. A similarity of both installations is that they are best viewed from above or far away. The artworks would mean nothing if one stood right next to the Running Fence or on top of the Nazca Lines. This interesting use of perspective fascinates me, especially in the case of the Lines. It’s amazing to think that such an ancient civilization could have created such huge drawings, and having such perfect proportions, without seeing the final work.

September 11, 2012 at 5:30 am

Jessie Mohkami

These two pieces share many similarities but differ in significant ways too. Both pieces are situated in Peru, and use the natural landscape as their canvas. The minimalist designs complement the earth and its natural state.
The Nazca Lines Monkey is very old and has stood the test of time. Due to its size and design, it likely included the participation of many different people. As a project that spanned many, many years, this piece involved the collaboration of multiple generations. The piece isn’t very intricate in design however its sheer size is an achievement. It appears to have been carved into a mountainside or some sort of other rockhard ground. Since it was carved into the ground the lighter brown of the monkey’s outline presents a nice contrast with the dark brown of the landscape. This piece has proven to be permanent, seeing as how it was created between 200 BC and 700 AD. This piece seems to suggest a deep fascination with creatures of the rainforest. Perhaps the people who began it lived among monkeys and wanted to channel their energy and playful spirit into a work of art that many could appreciate for years to come.
Walking a Line in Peru by Richard Long is another minimal piece. It is very simple, so simple in fact that at first glance it appears to be a fold in an old photograph or something similar. This path would have likely taken a very long to time to create. However, I don’t know if Richard Long had collaborators, but I assume that he did it mostly by himself. While the Monkey piece has truly been around for a few thousand years, and this piece only a few decades it is hard to say if it will be permanent or not. It is most definitely more than temporary, it’s just difficult to say how temporary it will be. Both pieces are done on such a grand scale, and are likely only appreciated from far above or far away. This way the whole work can be viewed completed. Walking a Line in Peru is much simpler than the Money, seeing as how it is one linear path, whereas the Monkey is made up of much more swirls and shapes. This piece seems to suggest loneliness but at the same time there is a deep peace in that loneliness that can be translated through one simple, straight line.

September 11, 2012 at 5:48 am

Luke Taylor

Christo and Jeane-Claude’s Running fence took over three years to complete. Those three years were spent planning, sketching, and mostly convincing the ranch owners of Sonoma California that this would be a good idea. To me, the enormous amount of work it took to complete the fence was not worth the effort. It seemed as though the people in the video were divided over the issue. It may have brought tourists, but it caused argument in the local community. In the process of making this project happen, the artists divided communities. I, therefore, interpret the work as a divider, literally and symbolically. It separated land from land and it caused division among the locals. The running fence’s structure was flimsy. It was created purely out of cloth strung up on poles. What made it impressive was its magnitude, 24 miles in length and 18feet high. The piece is minimalistic, it’s color is pure white and its concept is simple: a long white fence. The minimalism, however, gives it power. Instead of detail, the minimalistic nature of the work makes us focus more on the magnitude of the project. It’s pure white color makes us think of it as pure or peace-loving, yet it serves to divide. Thus its minimalism makes us think of broader themes, division, purity, magnitude, rather than thinking of the details.
Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s “Surrounded Island,” 1983 was similar in magnitude, yet seemed to have much warmer an outcome. The project consisted of huge red lengths of fabric surrounding a number of islands off the coast of Miami Florida. The process took team work. People on the beach pulled ropes while people in the boats arranged the fabric. This project took a lot of planning. The artists first sketched out their ideas in great detail before beginning to implement them. Instead of dividing private property, this project was done in the ocean. The islands that the artist surrounded are oriented one after the other in the bay. Once surrounded by red clothe, the project is oriented in such a way that it almost looks like the footprints of a giant. The contrast between the blue of the water and the red of the fabric is sharp. With the bright red clothe around it, the islands suddenly feel more important, more real, and definitely more visible.

September 11, 2012 at 6:37 am

Daniel Cummings

I was originally drawn to the Running Fence because the debate regarding “what is art?” intrigues me. The cloth material of the Running Fence led me to be drawn as well to the work of Christo because it appears as though both pieces use similar mediums. After thinking about Running Fence and Christo’s work, I had concluded that one was most certainly art, while the other struggled to achieve that distinction. Running Fence, rather than art, struck me as a publicity stunt, while Christo’s Surrounded Islands, as well as his other pieces, seemed to be quite artistic. I believe a significant aspect of public art, which both of these pieces are, is that it causes one to wonder in awe about something, or have sublime qualities. While Christo’s work leads one to consider the beauty surrounding it and the accentuated lines of various pieces, the Running Fence simply leads one to wonder why there is a giant, flimsy fence stretching for 24 miles. Christo’s work contrasts sharply with its surroundings, while Running Fence seems dull and boring. As I continued to criticize Running Fence, however, I had a change of heart in that I realized the work had me pondering the question, “what is art?” After still more consideration, I concluded that both pieces serve as art, but for two very different reasons. Christo’s work is art because it causes one to dwell on the beauty of its surroundings, while Running Fence is art because it creatively causes one to turn inward and consider a rather deep question.

In terms of the minimalist aspects of the pieces, both do achieve a certain level of minimalism. The simple white cloth leads one to ponder the grand scale of the project rather than the fence itself, as well as the big question regarding what makes something art. Additionally, it points the viewer to something much bigger than the piece itself—it forces one to search deep within. Its impressive size draws attention to the grandness that is the question, “what is art?” and perhaps this was a goal of the artist. The video explained the long legal process and the numerous people it took in order to build the piece. I find it quite fascinating that, in a way, the controversy over whether or not it was indeed art served as a way to show that it was art. The long process to achieve legal authority to build Running Fence closely relates to the journey that one goes through to decide what art truly is. Christo’s Surrounded Islands is also a minimalist piece in that it uses the simplicity of red cloth to draw attention to the beauty of the natural world. I find the amount of thought and work that Christo puts into his planning—the sketching of details such as shadows—to be in fascinating contrast with the apparent simplicity of his piece. Additionally, the amount of effort it took for an entire team to work together to surround the various islands seems to be in interesting contrast to the pure beauty of the blue water next to the red fabric. Overall, both pieces use simplicity to call the viewer’s attention to various types of beauty—one focuses on the beauty of internal exploration, while the other dwells on the external beauty of the world.

September 11, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Kelly McBride

The two pieces of art that I would like to examine are Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence and Richard Long’s Walking a Line in Peru 1972. During class, I often question which pieces are really art, or what the definition of art actually is. Though I have still not come to a conclusion on this topic, I can see the different attributes that draw a person to these works. Both of these works create a sense of division in the land, yet in different ways. Christo and Jeanne-Clause’s Running Fence separates the land with a long white sheet that curves over the surface of the land. On the contrary, Richard Long’s Walking a Line in Peru 1972 is one straight, direct line that splits the photograph in two.

For the Running Fence, the total cost of the project was 3 million dollars, which he raised through the sale of his drawings. Running Fence was important because of how much planning it took. Some of these factors might include environment impact statements, obtaining the agreement of all the landowners, and having to raise the money. Each of these aspects correspond to the interaction of humans with the landscape. One other interesting factor is that, when removed, his project leaves no trace that any intervention was ever made. For Walking a Line in Peru 1972, the interaction between humans and the landscape seems to be on a different scale. Rather than seeing a large scale relationship, this photograph seems to focus on the personal relationship between the artist and the land. While Running fence appeared to merely follow the topography of the land, Walking a Line through Peru seems to have a purpose and a drive behind it. All in all, the two pieces seem immense, but minimalistic, which is an interesting combination in my mind. Though they seem to follow a similar mind set, the thoughts that some to mind for each are vastly different.

September 11, 2012 at 2:59 pm

darrenmfaber

I chose the sapling within the tree (the tree door), and the tunnels of light in what I perceive to be a winter wasteland. It seems to me that there is a connection between the life within the life of the trunk, as if without the exterior trunk, there could not be an interior life growing within. The two pieces together remind me of the connection between light and life. With the other piece, though it is in a barren wasteland of ice, the light still shines down and illumines the shapes below. I imagine that if the two images were to blend together into a a whole piece. The tree has become white, and the light is shining through the branches. The Cylinder on its side in the image on the right is transformed into a fallen tree, with the light shining through the branches. But if I leave the two separated, the two metaphors still blend together- one of life, the other of light. The edges of each blurring into the other. The Tree supports the sapling within, protects it, and also is the means by which the sapling finds its expression. The Tunnel is the means by which the light finds its focus. This is beautiful

September 11, 2012 at 4:34 pm

C. Bridgwater

I found “Sun Tunnels” and “Tree Door” most intriguing. Both works use sculptural elements to highlight and reveal aspects of nature. As I think on these pieces, it almost seems as though the object of their concern is “coming through”: as if the pieces are receivers specifically designed to capture and display both the glory and essence of a particular element of the natural world. In “Sun Tunnels”, of course, that element is the sun. Although the concrete medium could lend itself to creating a sense of harshness and austerity, those are not the impressions I feel from this piece. Rather, it seems that the receiver—the sculptural pieces themselves—are so intentionally crafted that they are able to ‘get out of the way’ and allow the ephemerality of the sun to become what is most seen and felt.

While the main trunk of “Tree Door” also strikes me as a receiver of the sapling it encompasses, it interacts with the sapling in a manner quite different than “Sun Tunnels” interacts with its object, the sun. While “Sun Tunnels” receives the light and then sends it away, “Tree Door” encloses its object and seems to have stopped the sapling in time. Interestingly, while “Tree Door” makes use of a much warmer material (wood) than does “Sun Tunnels”, one might say that its setting in a gallery—as opposed to in direct interaction with the earth and it elements—lends to the piece a sort of coldness that might almost be more expected from “Sun Tunnels”.

Overall, I found these two pieces beautifully profound in their simplicity and reflective qualities.

September 12, 2012 at 4:09 pm

Madeline Ley

Running Fence and Tree Door are similar works because they both are tied to nature, but their connection to nature is different. Tree Door came from nature and was re-shaped by the artist, Running Fence was added to nature. Both are minimalist works; very simple in design. Both are approached in different ways. For Running Fence, the artist was completely dependent on others for his art to be possible (collaborative). Tree Door was formed from a man’s appreciation of nature and was created without the need for others.

September 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Kayla Slagter

I was drawn to the comparison between Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence and Richard Long’s Walking a Line in Peru. Both play with the idea of line, and I think, of the simplicity of it. Running Fence is a piece of much greater magnitude, and implies a greater amount of work force to create the fence. The great expanse it stretches across the landscape draws one’s eye to the topography of the land. The contrast of the pure white, sail like fence against the stark landscape draws one’s eye to the playfulness of exploring earth.
On the other hand, Walking a Line in Peru explores the idea of minimalism and the impact of one man on the earth. Whereas Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s piece required much man power, Richard Long’s piece required just himself and the land. His process of continuously walking back and forth across the land brings a methodical, repetitious, simplicity to the piece. Therefore, both Walking a Line in Peru and Running Fence idealize the use of simplicity, but through completely different processes in their art.

September 14, 2012 at 9:35 pm

danielpuknaitis

The two pieces of artwork that caught my attention first was Surrounded Island Christo and Jeanne-Claude, and Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door. The Tree Door drew me in because of specific detail the artist shown in his artwork. I was focused on the idea of how he started this. Penone started talking about how “nature has been forgotten for 50 years.” This stirred up my mind and made me think more of his personality. When he said that I knew he was not the type of guy who went with the crowd. Penone was not the type of man who did something because it was popular. It did want he wanted and gave the people artwork that hasn’t been shown in a while. He also started talking about a photo he took with a man that was wearing mirror contact lenses. As I first saw the slide show of this man getting closer and closer I didn’t think much of it until they showed the closet view of the man. They zoomed up on his eyes and you could really see the reflection in front of him. As I looked deeper into his eyes I started to see the path in front of him, his journey. He was about to embark on a quest of a narrow route that was outlined with high and thin trees. As I stopped the video to look into this photo, I saw a decision he had to make at the end of the road. His road was split into two paths and a life decision had to be made. This was odd and abnormal for me to spend that much time staring into a photo, but I guess that is what art should do to a person.
The next piece of artwork I saw was the Surrounded Islands. This image struck me mainly because of the hot lively color of pink engulfing this tiny island. When I started to look at this I was confused what was really going on until I saw the video and was shell-shocked. I couldn’t believe the artist, Christo and Jeanne-Claude had the idea to take a curtain like material and drape it over rocks and the water. I would love to see more close up pictures of this artwork and see the different angles this island had to offer. The amount of people, not only to move this curtain around, but also to stitch this, it took to successfully accomplish this massive island, as art astonished me. I couldn’t imagine the relief and happiness the artist felt after this project was done and he saw the pictures. Those two works of art left me speechless after looking into the time and effort it took as well as the depth of the projects.

September 17, 2012 at 3:23 am

Taylor Anthony

My eye was immediately drawn to “Monkey” and “Tree Door”. “Monkey” is just amazing, to my mind, that these people – some may call them primitive – created this easily recognizable monkey on the ground that is only seen from above and they had no ability to see it from above. They could neither “enjoy” it nor see it as they built it. The simplicity of the structure: earth, adds to its beauty. Their creation, whatever its meaning and/or purpose, will exist till the end of the earth, and it would be fascinating to ascertain whether they knew this fact or not.

“Tree Door” is another example of a single-substance work of art that uses the method of removing what is already there in order to change what is seen. Both are minimalistic in materials but neither involve simple means of construction. The dedication and ability needed to create both are different in process but similar in amount. I think the meaning of “Tree Door” is much more introspective, possibly an invitation to look within one’s self or maybe into some else to what lies beneath the surface or maybe to look at the potential within where as the meaning of “Monkey” is unclear and there are many theories but it is meant to be loud, though probably not directed at humans.

September 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Isaac Kawate

The two pieces of art that initially attracted my attention were Giuseppe Penone’s Tree Door and Surrounded Islands by Christo and Jeanne-Claude. The Surrounding Islands color is what caught my attention. This style of art is very interesting to me as it would have taken so many people, so much time, and a lot of material to actually surround these islands with color. By surrounding the island with color, the island itself is emphasized as new attention is drawn to the natural formation of its trees and body. This piece is not a permanent piece as the forces of nature will eventually destroy it but it complimented natures beauty very well.

The art work, Tree Door, caught my attention because of the simplicity of the piece. I love how the artist made a tree out of a former tree, illustrating the importance of nature. This project probably took a long time as well, although the materials used and the amount of people that worked on it were both probably a lot less than Surrounded Islands. The artist took a minimalist approach to this piece as he made a beautiful piece of art out of a simple log. The way the log is hollowed allows light to pass through, making it easier to see the actual tree inside the log. Although different, both pieces of art incorporated nature and illustrated natures natural beauty.

September 20, 2012 at 3:25 am

Lauren Gin

The two pieces that stood out to me were Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Surrounded Islands and Guiseppe Penone’s Tree Door. Because they are accomplishing the same purpose with almost opposite methods. Christo and Jeanne- Claude are revealing the earth as art by covering the landscape to show the shape, while Penone is revealing the earth as art by carving- creating a tree within another tree. Although these pieces are so different in many ways- in size, color, number of people required, permanence, they are both minimalist works and they both reveal a piece of nature that is otherwise overlooked. When we look at a tree trunk, we typically do not think about the sapling that that particular tree once was. Likewise, when we see islands, we look at the shape of the island, but do not see the topography or elevation.

These pieces draw our attention to these elements of the earth by causing our eye to see things differently than we otherwise would. The large scale of Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Surrounded Islands brings our attention to the variation in elevation because it covers an area that we would otherwise be distracted by. On the other hand, the small scale of Guiseppe Penone’s Tree Door draws our attention to the small beginnings of any large tree. The small details of the branches of the sapling are a reminder of the time it takes for anything to become large and strong.

September 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Ana Akin

I would like to compare/contrast Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s Running Fence 1976 with the ancient Nazca Line Monkey in Peru. Both of these pictures feature some sort of sprawling landscape that gives the viewer a sense of rugged adventure. The Nazca Line Monkey, though foreign in name, reminds me a bit of midwestern farmland from a distance. Running Fence on the other hand, reminds me of the pictures of landscape that we are looking at in my Romantic Literature class because there is an element of wild freedom and sensuality in the asymmetrical curves and lack of manmade boundaries. The perspective of both pieces exudes reverence towards the patterns and designs found on Earth’s beautiful face.

September 25, 2012 at 3:59 am

Felicity Stombaugh

I chose the first two images to compare because I believe they are so different. (The white fence by Cristo and Jeanne Claude; and the Mazca Line Monkey) The first project must have taken many people to set up. It was done purely as: art. Something beautiful to help people see the land in a new light. It must have cost a fortune to execute the project and it was driven by the artists’ passions. The second earthwork may also have taken many workers to complete it, it probably also took a lot more time to create, possibly months or years. It was also most likely created without technology and for religious purposes, though not necessarily. Both works are art and both can be appreciated but the history and setting make them remarkable in very different ways. The monkey seems to tell a story, perhaps it is symbolic of something. The white fence, show the curvatures of the hillsides and the bends and dips of the land.

September 27, 2012 at 6:37 pm

Eric Andersen

The two works that stuck out to me were the Running Fence and the Tree Door. The levels of intricacy are very difference but the amount of time invested into both of them must have been great. Also, both works have a sense that God’s initial creation trumps any kind of “creation” man can conjure. And really, man’s creation is only a re-presentation of what God has already produced.
The Running Fence is very beautiful. The fence is cool and I’m sure it’s a great fence but the landscape is breathtaking. I’m sure many would see the fence as vandalism to (God’s) nature’s vast, rolling hills. But taking the construction into consideration, I see a representation of man’s attempt to partition that which cannot be divided.
The scale of the Tree Door makes you think a bit about what you’re looking at when looking at it through a 2D picture. But what stands out is the irony, if you will, of representing a small version (a tree) inside the base of that very object. The fact that you can see inside of that makes me think of the future of that stump, seen through an imaginary cross-section of the trunk of the tree, if you could imagine the trunk whole. It also makes me think about the minimal uniqueness of the work. The artist not only stole the medium straight from God’s creation, but he took the inspiration for the subject from God’s creation as well.

September 28, 2012 at 5:26 am

Nicole Eklund

I chose to compare Giuseppe Penone’s ‘Tree Door’ and Jean-Claude’s ‘Running Fence’. These two pieces contrast in several significant ways, especially in their relation to nature. While ‘Tree Door’ is created entirely out of natural wood, ‘Running Fence’ is made completely out of man-made materials such as nylon fabric and steel cables. Penone takes his material out of nature while Jean-Claude superimposes unnatural matter onto nature. Each piece appears out of place in its surroundings, which places greater emphasis on both works.
The temporal and permanent natures of each artwork also serve to accentuate their differences. ‘Running Fence’ lasted for two weeks before it was taken down, while ‘Tree Door’ was created to be permanent. This distinction opposes the number of people used to create each piece. Many people worked to construct the fabric fence while only Penone created his work. The permanence of ‘Tree Door’ accentuates the image produced of the new tree born from the old. The cycles of trees and life continue on forever just as time persists. ‘Running Fence’ divides the landscape it rests on in an attempt to control nature with segregation.

October 3, 2012 at 5:09 am

Charlotte Sperl

I am going to compare Jean-Claude’s ‘Running Fence’ and the Nazca Line Monkey. In comparison, they are both immense artworks. There scale is very grand. ‘Running Fence’ spans many miles, while the Nazca Line Monkey is visible only from the air. Also, they both seem to show a simplicity of line. They seem minimalist.
In contrast, the ‘Running Fence’ involves adding to the landscape elements that are not found in nature. It is unusual to see gigantic fabric sails running for miles along the rolling hills. The Nazca Line Monkey seems much more natural as if the Monkey belongs on the vast expanse of the desert and was created only through the removal of dirt. Ironically however, ‘Running Fence’ follows the flow of the land as it travels up and down over the hills, while The Nazca Line Monkey creates on the flat desert a new image.

Both images are very visible from the sky. They both seem to communicate a message to the sky about the land on which they rest, something that was not visible until it was outlined.

October 20, 2012 at 2:09 am

Shyanne Bennett

The two pieces I chose are Nazca Line Monkey in Peru and Nancy Holts Sun Tunnels. Little is known about the Nazca lines, but it was probably created by several people working together . I would suspect this because of the magnitude of these pieces. These large geoglyphs were carved into the earth thousands of years ago and still remain because of the arid quality of the Nazca desert. The setting made the difference in turning this art from a temporal pieces to a permanent installation.The orientation of the viewer to the piece is important because most of them are only discernible from the sky. This also helps us to speculate that the Nazcas were trying to communicate with the gods.
I also really like the Sun Tunnels. These are large concrete tubes that had to be manufactured and brought to their location in the middle of the desert. The piece is minimalist and does more to accentuate the beauty of the nature around it then drawing attention to itself. The orientation of the tubes are important because they point in the direction of the sun during the summer and winter solstice. This way the sun is framed. Another nice feature of the tunnels is that there are holes in in them that line up with star constellations. When the light shines through the holes, you are literally seeing a map of the sky.

The Earth as Art

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

61 comments

Leave a reply to Alannah Rebekah Taylor Cancel reply

The Earth as Art

Share this:

Related

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

61 comments

Leave a reply to Alannah Rebekah Taylor Cancel reply