Having had my mind changed when visiting some massive and site-specific art, my recommendation to those who say from photos that they don’t like it: withhold judgement until you’ve been there. Immersion in something of this scale, in a setting like this, in a place so remote that getting there is a journey, is likely to have an effect on you that aerial photos you look at on your phone do not.
That's how I felt about the Rothko color wash paintings.
Not gonna say the prestige around them (aka, the dollar valuations that contribute to the hype surrounding those works) didn't influence me. I'm sure it does on some level (but other hyped-up works of art don't really do it for me, like stuff that Koons & Damien Hirst make).
But seeing Rothko's paintings in a huge room, as a series, is very imposing, ominous, and for lack of better word, cool. Felt like a sensory immersion experience that taps into other parts of you that you didn't expect, not unlike looking at a vast beautiful landscape.
If you only see it as a jpeg/ png that's like, 4-6" on your monitor, or as a 8" x 11" print in a coffee table book, it'll pale in comparison. Even if the discrepancy sounds utterly obvious, the in-situ experience is so vastly different, that even if it doesn't hit you like it does for others (i.e., me), it's still worth it to go see it as is, just to see how you'll respond to it or not.
Had similar experiences with van Gogh. On a screen it's just some swirly images and color. On paper, the colors are better, but still just some swirly images. But in person, woah. You get to see the real colors. And those subtle differences between RGB and CMYK and reality do end up mattering. And the way he used his brush. It wasn't so much that he was painting, he was more sculpting with paint. The swirls aren't swirls, the strokes aren't strokes. They're glops of paint that get smoothed and cut into the right places. To do the color mixing with that much paint off canvas is really tough, especially in the sunlight. In person, I finally got to experience the technical mastery of painting that van Gogh had, something I never knew was there before.
Exactly. It’s literally the core concept to consider when considering art. You have to actually see the real thing to experience it.
That doesn’t mean you’ll like it there’s an excellent chance you won’t. But experiencing art in real life is fundamentally different than seeing images of it, and this is doubly true for larger scale or more installation oriented pieces.
A good example that’s a little closer to home and easier to experience for many is DIA Beacon outside of NYC.
The "I don't like it, therefore it's crap" rude comments are so disappointing.
I'm no art buff at all, my personal definition of art is "useless & captivating". I'd like to visit this one. The creator must be obsessed and crazy, which is like it should be. I expect it to give otherworldly, abstract melancholic vibes when being on-site. Case in point, during the years I lived in Mexico City, I went several times to the Teotihuacan site, a great experience when there are few visitors: https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/9c44c543a72dbe187...
Thanks very much for posting, I get a much better appreciation for the potential impact of the work at scale than I did just looking at the individual pics in the article. I think it's really cool.
I think this looks pretty. Complex One has some Cold War and Hyperion Time Tombs vibe to it, and the whole thing feels like the garden of the drone Hassipura Plyn-Frie in the Hydrogen Sonata.
It generally reminds me of what the Banksian Culture allowed by its post-scarcity: exploration of grand artistic endeavours for no other reason than that's what the artist wanted to create.
I've always had a soft spot for architectural and land art. Though this kind of brutal sterility has its beauty, Arcosanti[1] has a more human appeal.
Separately, Salvation Mountain in California is worth a look too.
I've always wanted to see people do something similar to Wavefield in a desertscape. I'm travelling from the other side of the planet to be reasonably close to City in a month or so, and even "reasonably close" makes it a 4-5+ hour detour. :(
Storm king is great fun. The one Near me when I lived in white plains NY was the PepsiCo headquarters sculpture gardens. Smaller and the hours are limited to weekends and you can’t go inside the offices, but free!
Dia Beacon is modern art in a old cracker factory that is huge and fun to explore. I have a love/hate relationship with modern art, but in the context of this giant building it was fun.
I liked the Crawick Multiverse by Charles Jencks, located south of Glasgow. Sort of like this City thing, but smaller, more varied, much more accessible, and most importantly, cool, green and inviting.
It’s like he designed it for humans, not despite them.
Far as much discussion as there is here about how this was a colossal waste of time and resources, I’d be curious how many people here work for a company that’s net profitable. It’s very easy to be moralistic about other peoples money, especially when it comes to art. However, I wonder if it’s a bit hypocritical.
A lot of people feel this way about modern art in general. At some point along the way, art stopped being about trying to bring beauty and happiness and clarity into the human condition. Since then, art has become a pure signalling death spiral.
What passes as “good art” these days is completely relegated to the art community and utterly unintelligible to regular people. Is there any wonder that people dismiss it as a waste of resources? It’s every bit as bad as NFTs, academic turf wars, and Twitter purity spirals [1]. It’s yet another warning sign of the impending decline of civilization, if Toynbee’s thesis is to be believed.
While I agree with the larger point you're making here, asking whether or not the company people are working for is net profitable is a poor counter here, specifically because it centers "meaning" purely around monetary amount. There is value to be derived and created that has nothing to do with the dollar amount that ends up in your's or someone else's bank account at the end of the day.
> Visitors will also need to get themselves to Alamo, Nev., a nearish town. They’ll then be picked up, allowed to roam “City” for a few hours and, because there are no lights on the road and no cellphone service, they will be driven back before dark, meaning they won’t get to see the sun rise and set, prime hours.
I feel this is such a bad decision, hope they reconsider.
Well, it looks like an art object, definitely - idea, style, composition. But it will only look good in a desert.
Real cities should be green.
In Barcelona, we have a place called “Parc del Fòrum” - a huge area covered by asphalt (14 acres, 5.7 ha), with just a few buildings. Looks great, for sure (you can ride a bike/scooter here with a wind). Mostly being used for music festivals.
But before every festival, organizers put artificial grass to create the areas in front of the stages. And the rest of the time you can find just a few young souls riding here (2-5 persons). There is only one place in Forum Park where you can always find a lot of people - the children's playground. Because it has trees, grass, and shadow.
What might look great and stylish isn’t always comfortable. I love Parc del Forum because I like to ride and it has spectacular sea views, but I think it was a great experiment to highlight the importance of trees in a city design.
I like it. It's big, abstract, depressing. I imagine walking there alone at night, must be something.
Edit: also, i dont think 50 years of one person is a lot of time. 50 persons startup working for one year and then closing is also a waste of 50 years, not yet talking about the vc money.
> It’s also a great reminder of what you can achieve if you focus a considerable amount of time on something.
Is it? 50 years for a bunch of cement? Is it a great reminder? I'm so confused by the positivist tilt on every piece of grey meh that exudes from the armpits of these supposed apex artistic cogitators. We are allowed to just say how rubbish it is, right? This artist has projected it into the world of public opinion. And while I respect his autonomous ambitions and sheer willpower, I don't believe this is an exemplar of achievement, and I struggle in good faith to see how such a perception is arrived at. FWIW I guess nobody here has skin in the game. I get to sit here like you and froth on the sidelines. I best get back to my own toils.
Ok. I would kind of like it, but environmental impact of that needs to be insane. I guess 50 years ago people were not that concerned about it. And then how much energy they will have to spend just removing sand. Seems like a pretty pointless job for someone.
This provides some perspective to our paleoarcheology of today. Imagine we find something odd from a past civilization that we can't explain (like a large complex of concrete with rolling forms and sharp angles in the desert). The natural tendency would be to assume this was a collective thing, a place built by many for some mysterious purpose. But humans have been doing art almost as long as they have been around.
I would guess it's just as possible that we sometimes come across something from a single individual, built with the express purpose of making people think. It's kind of interesting.
Why not build things, and interesting things, things that get us to talk about these things with each other? I love the energy this project creates among us.
Edit: having read the NY Times article, clearly inspired by the ancient neighbours in the south.
> City will soon begin to receive visitors on September 2, 2022. Only short day trips will be possible for a maximum of six visitors, with prior reservations only, and only in favorable weather. City is on private property in rural terrain, and it has no habitable structures. Visiting without a pre-arranged visit is thus potentially dangerous, and it is strictly prohibited and is trespassing.
> Visitors will be accommodated on a first come, first serve basis, and visitations will end for the 2022 season on November 1. The price of a visit is $150/adult, $100/student...
I applaud the vision and perseverance of the artist, although it's not necessarily my cup of tea. But I dislike the exclusivity aspect often present in the art world. It's not high brow in this case so much, as it is manufactured scarcity. The artist probably thinks a crowd would destroy the feeling of isolation he wanted to achieve, but only 6 visitors at a time???
I think this is really cool. I'm tempted to pony up the $150 to go see it, but it'd have to be in winter; I live in Nevada and there's no way in hell that'd be a pleasant experience in summer. Zero shade, zero plants, just heat, for 1½ miles on foot. Even in spring/fall, I'd definitely hydrating beforehand and bringing lots of water.
[+] [-] doctorhandshake|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deebosong|3 years ago|reply
Not gonna say the prestige around them (aka, the dollar valuations that contribute to the hype surrounding those works) didn't influence me. I'm sure it does on some level (but other hyped-up works of art don't really do it for me, like stuff that Koons & Damien Hirst make).
But seeing Rothko's paintings in a huge room, as a series, is very imposing, ominous, and for lack of better word, cool. Felt like a sensory immersion experience that taps into other parts of you that you didn't expect, not unlike looking at a vast beautiful landscape.
If you only see it as a jpeg/ png that's like, 4-6" on your monitor, or as a 8" x 11" print in a coffee table book, it'll pale in comparison. Even if the discrepancy sounds utterly obvious, the in-situ experience is so vastly different, that even if it doesn't hit you like it does for others (i.e., me), it's still worth it to go see it as is, just to see how you'll respond to it or not.
[+] [-] Balgair|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPLX|3 years ago|reply
That doesn’t mean you’ll like it there’s an excellent chance you won’t. But experiencing art in real life is fundamentally different than seeing images of it, and this is doubly true for larger scale or more installation oriented pieces.
A good example that’s a little closer to home and easier to experience for many is DIA Beacon outside of NYC.
[+] [-] jeffrallen|3 years ago|reply
FTFY. ;)
[+] [-] ttapp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spaceman_2020|3 years ago|reply
https://preview.redd.it/3bnqb0cali771.jpg?width=640&crop=sma...
[+] [-] cousin_it|3 years ago|reply
https://placesjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Hanson-...
They often have quite interesting shapes, too.
[+] [-] dathos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorgoiler|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeulike|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timnetworks|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adhesive_wombat|3 years ago|reply
It generally reminds me of what the Banksian Culture allowed by its post-scarcity: exploration of grand artistic endeavours for no other reason than that's what the artist wanted to create.
I've always had a soft spot for architectural and land art. Though this kind of brutal sterility has its beauty, Arcosanti[1] has a more human appeal.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcosanti
[+] [-] jonah-archive|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|3 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/19/arts/design/m...
[+] [-] acomjean|3 years ago|reply
They made the valley it’s in a national monument to prevent the yuca mountain nuclear storage from being readable:
So:’ “City,” because it was now part of the national monument, would have to admit public visitors.’
Here is a “gifted article” link for those without a subscription:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/19/arts/design/m...
[+] [-] bondarchuk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|3 years ago|reply
https://collections.stormking.org/Browse/objects
Separately, Salvation Mountain in California is worth a look too.
I've always wanted to see people do something similar to Wavefield in a desertscape. I'm travelling from the other side of the planet to be reasonably close to City in a month or so, and even "reasonably close" makes it a 4-5+ hour detour. :(
[+] [-] acomjean|3 years ago|reply
https://www.pepsico.com/sculpture-gardens.
Dia Beacon is modern art in a old cracker factory that is huge and fun to explore. I have a love/hate relationship with modern art, but in the context of this giant building it was fun.
https://www.diaart.org/visit/visit-our-locations-sites/dia-b...
[+] [-] Kaibeezy|3 years ago|reply
It’s like he designed it for humans, not despite them.
https://www.crawickmultiverse.co.uk/
[+] [-] sickcodebruh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dereg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chongli|3 years ago|reply
What passes as “good art” these days is completely relegated to the art community and utterly unintelligible to regular people. Is there any wonder that people dismiss it as a waste of resources? It’s every bit as bad as NFTs, academic turf wars, and Twitter purity spirals [1]. It’s yet another warning sign of the impending decline of civilization, if Toynbee’s thesis is to be believed.
[1] https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
[+] [-] gizmo385|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dade_|3 years ago|reply
Over 13,000 nuclear warheads exist today and nothing is more crazy than that.
[+] [-] TaylorAlexander|3 years ago|reply
https://documentation.beamng.com/official_content/levels/gri...
[+] [-] shrx|3 years ago|reply
> Visitors will also need to get themselves to Alamo, Nev., a nearish town. They’ll then be picked up, allowed to roam “City” for a few hours and, because there are no lights on the road and no cellphone service, they will be driven back before dark, meaning they won’t get to see the sun rise and set, prime hours.
I feel this is such a bad decision, hope they reconsider.
[+] [-] EugeneOZ|3 years ago|reply
Real cities should be green. In Barcelona, we have a place called “Parc del Fòrum” - a huge area covered by asphalt (14 acres, 5.7 ha), with just a few buildings. Looks great, for sure (you can ride a bike/scooter here with a wind). Mostly being used for music festivals.
But before every festival, organizers put artificial grass to create the areas in front of the stages. And the rest of the time you can find just a few young souls riding here (2-5 persons). There is only one place in Forum Park where you can always find a lot of people - the children's playground. Because it has trees, grass, and shadow.
What might look great and stylish isn’t always comfortable. I love Parc del Forum because I like to ride and it has spectacular sea views, but I think it was a great experiment to highlight the importance of trees in a city design.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parc_del_Fòrum
[+] [-] just-tom|3 years ago|reply
Edit: also, i dont think 50 years of one person is a lot of time. 50 persons startup working for one year and then closing is also a waste of 50 years, not yet talking about the vc money.
[+] [-] baxtr|3 years ago|reply
It’s also a great reminder of what you can achieve if you focus a considerable amount of time on something.
[+] [-] padolsey|3 years ago|reply
Is it? 50 years for a bunch of cement? Is it a great reminder? I'm so confused by the positivist tilt on every piece of grey meh that exudes from the armpits of these supposed apex artistic cogitators. We are allowed to just say how rubbish it is, right? This artist has projected it into the world of public opinion. And while I respect his autonomous ambitions and sheer willpower, I don't believe this is an exemplar of achievement, and I struggle in good faith to see how such a perception is arrived at. FWIW I guess nobody here has skin in the game. I get to sit here like you and froth on the sidelines. I best get back to my own toils.
[+] [-] maciekpaprocki|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beowulfey|3 years ago|reply
I would guess it's just as possible that we sometimes come across something from a single individual, built with the express purpose of making people think. It's kind of interesting.
[+] [-] twobitshifter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] braingenious|3 years ago|reply
I am not familiar with this artist or what this is intended to evoke, but I don’t think I’m the intended… audience?
[+] [-] tastemykungfu|3 years ago|reply
If you don't regularly buy paintings for 100k+, I don't think this is for us :)
[+] [-] bergenty|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] telesilla|3 years ago|reply
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/414/
Why not build things, and interesting things, things that get us to talk about these things with each other? I love the energy this project creates among us.
Edit: having read the NY Times article, clearly inspired by the ancient neighbours in the south.
[+] [-] istjohn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glitcher|3 years ago|reply
> City will soon begin to receive visitors on September 2, 2022. Only short day trips will be possible for a maximum of six visitors, with prior reservations only, and only in favorable weather. City is on private property in rural terrain, and it has no habitable structures. Visiting without a pre-arranged visit is thus potentially dangerous, and it is strictly prohibited and is trespassing.
> Visitors will be accommodated on a first come, first serve basis, and visitations will end for the 2022 season on November 1. The price of a visit is $150/adult, $100/student...
I applaud the vision and perseverance of the artist, although it's not necessarily my cup of tea. But I dislike the exclusivity aspect often present in the art world. It's not high brow in this case so much, as it is manufactured scarcity. The artist probably thinks a crowd would destroy the feeling of isolation he wanted to achieve, but only 6 visitors at a time???
[+] [-] yellowapple|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onionisafruit|3 years ago|reply