Lloootus
Movie response:
I have seen and walked under Levitated Mass multiple times. I grew up going to LACMA, attending art camps and field trips, and just normal visits. Never once have I thought about/ learned about the actual effort that went into this piece. To be honest, I was not extremely excited about seeing this documentary, because to me I just thought it would be about bringing a rock to LA (which it technically was, but there was so much more involved than I had previously thought).
One thing that spoke to me was the quote (referring to the rock): “It signifies both the significance and the insignificance of man. The significance of man that can make something like this happen, but then to see yourself overwhelmingly dominated by this creation of nature- it puts things into perspective”. I was thinking about this quote a lot during the rest of the doc; as humans we regard ourselves as the top of the food chain. We control virtually everything on our planet, and continually change and mold it every single day. We’ve managed flight above the land and have gone under the sea, but this one rock created such an issue for us that it became almost virtually impossible. One thing that also spoke to me about this was that in order to create the significance of a piece of earth, we had to destroy it in the process. The mountain was blown up, and the time and manpower put into it definitely wasn’t great either-- I can imagine it took a lot of gas to transport it 150 miles.
I was inspired by the people it affected on the travel from its original location to Los Angeles; it existed as a unifying factor for communities who have never seen anything like it. The fact that people came out in their pajamas at 4 in the morning to see something like this inspired me to create something big in my future- I’d like to affect people like this. The critics did make a great point though-- a lot of the time they were travelling through areas deeply affected by the recession where thousands of people had lost their jobs, and they were forced to witness this 10 million dollar (maybe more) project inching its way through.
I was curious as to why the artist did not want to participate more in the actual transport of the rock-- I understand he was diagnosed with medical issues that could impact this ability, but seeing the work he did on location at LACMA made it seem like he was totally fine and capable of doing so. I think that he should have been made to see the people he was affecting, and not only the positive viewers, but especially the critics as well. I have a lot of issues with artists that don’t actively participate in their ongoing projects (i.e. Jeff Koons, etc) who just like to pay workers and have it done for them. Every artist should be an active participant in their work.
Article response:
My first response to this article was that it was written extremely well; the author brought me into their world and allowed me to feel like I was really there, witnessing everything Michael Heizer had to say. The second response to it was my overwhelming dislike of Michael. I had felt that way while watching the documentary on Levitated Mass, but this just made my dislike stronger. I have a bias towards white male artists who treat the world as a punisher, and that everything is out to get them. Don’t get me wrong, I relish and deeply respect dedication to a person’s craft, but when it starts to embody itself in a negative brooding personality it begins to annoy me.
I’ve had teachers in the art program who act kind of like him-- that we (the students) are burdens to them. Why are they doing it then? What’s the purpose in making other people feel bad about themselves just because you feel that way? I admire his pieces, but just as much as I enjoy them I dislike him.
One quote from the article stood out to me: “ “It takes a very specific audience to like this stupid primordial shit I do,” Heizer told me. “I like runic, Celtic, Druidic, cave painting, ancient, preliterate, from a time back when you were speaking to the lightning god, the ice god, and the cold-rainwater god. That’s what we do when we ranch in Nevada. We take a lot of goddam straight-on weather.”” Why does he feel like a wide audience of people who don’t necessarily ‘enjoy’ classic art or even just enjoy art recreationally can’t access his artwork? This type of gatekeeping is what bothers me the most. Once a piece is made it is out of the artist’s hands. You cannot control what or how the audience thinks of it-- ‘the death of the author is the birth of the reader’ (Roland Barthes). This is a classic lesson we learn in art school.
I realize I’m being quite cynical about the artist’s character; I do appreciate the actual works of art, though. One thing that inspired me was that Barack Obama declared the land surrounding Michael Heizer’s City a national monument. This gives me hope that we can protect more public land in the name of art.