I am for an art that takes into account the direct effect of the elements as they exist from day to day apart from representation. The parks that surround some museums isolate art into objects of formal delectation. Objects in a park suggest static repose rather than any ongoing dialectic. Parks are finished landscapes for finished art . A park carries the values of the final, the absolute, and sacred. Dialectics have nothing to do with such things. I am talking about a dialectic of nature that interacts with the physical contradictions inherent in natural forces as they are – nature as both sunny and stormy. Parks are idealizations of nature, but nature in fact is not a condition of the ideal. Nature does not proceed in a straight line, it is rather a sprawling development. Nature is never finished. When a finished work of 20th-century sculpture is placed in an 18th-century garden, it is absorbed by the ideal representation of the past, thus reinforcing political and social values that are no longer with us. Many parks and gardens are re-creations of the lost paradise or Eden, and not the dialectical sites of the present. Parks and gardens are pictorial in their origin – landscapes created with natural materials rather than paint. The scenic ideals that surround even our national parks are carriers of a nostalgia for heavenly bliss and eternal calmness.
Apart from the ideal gardens of the past, and their modern counterparts – national and large urban parks, there are the more infernal regions – slag heaps, strip mines, and polluted rivers. Because of the great tendency toward idealism, both pure and abstract, society is confused as to what to do with such places. Nobody wants to go on a vacation to a garbage dump. Our land ethic, especially in that never-never land called the „art world“ has become clouded with abstractions and concepts.

robert smithson ‚cultural confinement‘ im katalog documenta 5, ‚befragung der realität – bildwelten heute‘ kuratiert von harald szeemann, kassel, 1972. reprinted in ‚the writings of robert smithson‘, ed. by nancy holt, new york, 1979.

parks & gärten im film: maryon park in ‚blow-up‘ von michelangelo antonioni

The oblong patch of rough grass and strip of woodland where Thomas [David Hemmings] the fashion photographer inadvertently stumbled across canoodling lovers and a grisly murder are still there. The fence has disintegrated, but the wind still hisses through the trees just as it did in the haunting opening sequence of the cult movie Blow-Up, back in 1966.

Down some steep steps lie the tennis courts where the flower children – student extras recruited from nearby Goldsmiths College – acted out a silent game of tennis without a ball. But the simple plaque commemorating the filming in the summer of 1966 has been wrenched away.

Welcome to little-known Maryon Park, Charlton, location for Michelangelo Antonioni’s ground-breaking art-house film, whose fans arecelebrating its 40th anniversary. To mark the event, the Photographers‘ Gallery in London is staging an exhibition of rare images connected with the making of the movie.

robert nurden, ‚on the trail of the swinging sixties‚ in the independet

blow-up revisited‚ auf youtube