Andy Goldsworthy is described as “a British sculptor, photographer and environmentalist” who produces site-specific art pieces out of natural materials. His photographs are full of colour, and generally very aesthetically pleasing as a result of direct manipulation of natural materials into a specific shape, to produce certain lines, etc. I remember stumbling across his work when studying for an A Level in Art & Design, but little did I know the relevance of his work in the discipline of cultural geography!
Within geography, there have been many recent debates regarding materiality and matter. Previously the material study of things was focussed primarily around their consumption and production, but more recently there has been various calls to re-focus our attention in other areas. One of the key academics doing this is Tim Ingold, of the University of Aberdeen. His approach is to consider materiality and it’s production. Whilst previous literature had focussed how human consumption altered the identity of an object, Ingold argues that we mustn’t disregard the potentials of the non-human in the process of materiality. Talking about so-called ‘weather-scapes’, he refers to how matter is subject to change not only by direct human interference but also through climatic factors such as heat, moisture levels, and wind direction. This is exactly what Goldsworthy’s work represents.
Within the art world, it is common to want to conserve artworks for as long as possible. We see this in cases such as the Mona Lisa, which is protected with a bulletproof layer in between the viewer and the piece itself, and is even shown through the fact that universities such as UCLA and Northampton offer degrees in ‘art preservation’ and ‘fine art conservation’, to name just two. This is exactly what I like about Goldsworthy’s work, as it celebrates the temporariness of matter, which is currently off-trend. Understanding that identity, even of inanimate objects, is only temporary, he allows the natural process of decay to occur – the moment in time being captured only by coloured photographs. His work explores materiality as a process, acknowledging the currents of the lifeworld whereby both human and non-human direct and non-direct actors play their own significant parts.
Personally I feel that there needs to be movement away from the obsession with preserving art. The question of whether art is in the ‘process’ or the ‘product’ is long debated, but drawing upon ideas of the fluidity of object identity, I would argue that Goldsworthy’s work ends this argument with great clarity. However, it simultaneously raises interesting questions about what the implications of representing the temporality of his work with still photographs might be. If he is attempting to expose the temporality of art as a constantly flowing, non-static phenomenon (or never-ending process) then surely photography contradicts this? Realistically, the use of photography is likely to make his work easier to distribute to larger audiences, and therefore spread this celebration of temporality more widely. However, this digitalisation of the sculptures opens the work up to a whole range of other potential actors, both human and non-human, which have the potential to alter the object biography of a specific piece even further.
I’m aware that this is just a splurge of thoughts on materiality and art, but if you’re interested then I’d definitely recommend giving Andy Goldsworthy a quick Google search for sure! There’s a whole bunch of his work shown on ArtNet also!
Daniel Jones 