i guess it’s old news but i saw a documentary last night called rivers and tides about artist andy goldsworthy and was just blown away. i’ve been aware of his work, but by no means versed in it. the film was one of the most inspiring art documentaries i’ve ever seen. it captures something beyond goldworthy’s work in particular, something idealistic about the functions of art, it’s place in the world, and it’s lack of permanence. “earthworks” are extremely poetic and i’m embarrassed to admit seeing goldworthy’s so vividly represented had me revisiting old fantasies about leaving everything behind and moving into the mountains somewhere.

the work conjured up of many associations for me. the materials- stones, icicles, leaves, twigs, put me in mind of primitive art, or more pointedly what i imagine are the ancient root inclinations of art: to create, to re-order, to manipulate, to mold, to play. there is something so pure about work of this kind. stacks of stones, a lattice of twigs, a pile of leaves. to see mr. goldsworthy, walking into a stream, collecting iron rich rocks to pound into pigment, right there in the river… well it’s wonderful. the processes of art removed from all the accumulated carbuncles of the studio. and then to see the art take shape right there and rest in the midst of some field or shore rather than in the all too familiar, antiseptic, white room. it’s extremely moving. it’s what art might be were it nomadic, truly personal, and stripped of the suffocating culture which surrounds it.

the ephemeral nature of earthwork in general and certainly goldworty’s work in particular, put me in mind of eastern philosophy. even as he is assembling an elegant icicle which seems to snake in and out of a stone outcropping, you are acutely aware of it’s ultimate fate. when the sun rises to illuminate it the piece can do nothing other than melt and collapse. it is shimmering and gorgeous in part because of its impermanence. it’s as if the artists efforts are simply one more of the natural processes, compelling the ice into an extra form on it’s inevitable path back to liquid.

it’s much the same with other works represented in the film. for example a stone mound on the shore which at high tide is totally submersed, only to reappear at low tide. small pools of water filled with flower petals or pigment. spirals made from colorful leaves. all of these works are acted upon by the nature around them. in most cases they will eventually be transformedand ultimately, like all else, decay. some of the works in the film collapsed before they were even completed underscoring their delicate, ephemeral, quality. it’s a very rich and poetic way of working. after all every artist’s work will disappear, whether physically or metaphorically, given enough time. goldworthy’s work does not resist this eventuality but rather embraces it.

unfortunately another thing it brought to mind was… oh boy… the gates. with all the words i’ve wasted trying to explain why i disliked the gates so much, a film like rivers and tidesmakes it plain to see. site specific work can have a harmony and poetry that makes it almost magical. it can be subtle and moving at the same time. it can seem to grow right from its surroundings. it can be surprising and thought provoking without being disruptive and gaudy. it can be grand without being big and obvious. it can be elegant! though they are very different artists in form and function the film drove home for me how ineffective the gates really was as an outdoors site specific piece of art and had me imagining all the art that might have served central park better.

in any case, as stated, i’m no earthworks scholar. i don’t know the first thing about robert smithson or richard long, and i haven’t expressed a quarter of the interest i found in goldworthy’s work. i have found a few interesting relevant links though if your interested-

here is a particularly good essay on goldworthy and the “elemental” quality of his work called the beauty of creation.

here is a short film from the roland collection called nature and nature.

here is a piece about the man and the movie via world socialist. here’s another piece on the film via documentary films .net

here is the movie site via roxie cinema.

here is a site dedicated to what was, at the time at least, the largest artwork ever to be commissioned in Britain called sheepfolds.

here are some more images which i hope you check out since the images included in this post are video captures right from the film, and certainly not the best examples of his work.. via artnet, via smithsonian mag, and 2kj.

at my most cynical i’d likely call the whole “man in nature, working with the land, using only found materials, poetic nomad artist thing” a shtick, and perhaps it is. but to see the man’s hands in the film, always bruised, taped, filthy, i’d say it’s the kind of shtick i can get behind. in todays art world i can’t think of anything more welcome. see the film!