Careers >> Browse Articles >> Fine Art
From Smithson to New Media
John Haber
Robert Smithson liked deductive logic and formal systems well enough, so long as others took care of them. His spiral of earth, slowly sinking into the Great Salt Lake, could almost parody a Sol LeWitt wall drawing. But had he foreseen a digital universe, would he ever have entered the gallery? Robert Smithson’s Red Sandstone Corner Piece (estate of the artist/James Cohan gallery, 1968) Nonsite as rupture
Smithson did enter the gallery, of course, where his work has a notably low-tech and strikingly physical presence—even in the mirror. His Enantiomorphic Chambers, like his arrays of mirrors amid salt and rubble, could almost make a mockery of conceptual art. As for fancier algorithms underlying digital art now, better bury them with an old-fashioned steam shovel before they get out of hand.
It takes chance, in the collision of millions upon millions of molecules, to produce his beloved entropy and the arrow of time. It takes a serious rupture of gallery and museum walls to create earthworks, the mark of the creative artist on the landscape. It takes a more subtle breach to invent nonsites, the presence of the landscape within a gallery. It takes a certain permeability between artist, object, nature, and human history to suffer either then to take its course. Spiral Jetty now makes its reappearance from time to time after many years underwater, and I hardly know whether to thank happenstance, patterns of water use, or global warming.
For those more attached to round numbers, however, Robert Smithson would have turned seventy with the new year—or, more exactly, January 2. (The law of large numbers means some slippage.) He will have died thirty-five years ago this July. Gordon Matta-Clark, another site-specific artist who labored hard to destroy a site, was born and died precisely five years after him. Both also had retrospectives in the last three years, at the very same New York museum, and it might disappoint them both to spot a trend, rather than mere coincidence. Sites and nonsites are where the action is.
When MOMA reopened in 2004, it displayed the film of Smithson’s Spiral Jetty. When the Met added a small gallery for contemporary photography in 2007, it included Matta-Clark. Worse for those who insist on sites as open communities, their Whitney retrospectives came with a sense of closure. A pier that Matta-Clark illegally helped dismantle is giving way to more space for salmon and a park along the Hudson. The Floating Island that Smithson planned, a barge of still more rubble, circled Manhattan. More to the point, their influence is everywhere.
Continue reading on next page.

jhaber31
about 1 year ago
824 comments
BTW, glad Valerie found this interesting enough to want to run with it. It's one of my attempts at, you know, theory, so I was sure it'd bore everyone silly. I promise I'll have criticism about shows and news about events and openings, too.
jhaber31
about 1 year ago
824 comments
Good point. I wonder where the boundaries of the museum are going! The rules do keep changing, and we'll see. Funny thing, as I say is that it's not at all the end of art objects. And you know, I shouldn't even talk about globalization as a kind of leveling. Maybe it's like they say about America, that we're not a melting pot so much as a quilt, and it'll just mean more cultural niches, hybrids, and collisions.
joeychips
about 1 year ago
84 comments
Your examination of site and nonsite runs true also for comic books and comic strips, which increasingly are going from print (site) media to webcomics. This includes my own comics.