In the heart of Iowa, a storm brews, not of wind and rain, but of artistic turmoil. At the center stands Mary Miss, a pioneer of land art, facing the potential dismantling of her renowned work, "Greenwood Pond: Double Site." This isn't just about aesthetics; it's about the very essence of site-specific art and the responsibility of institutions to preserve artistic legacies.
The Des Moines Art Center (DMAC) recently informed Miss that "Greenwood Pond," commissioned in 1989, has become a safety hazard due to deterioration. Their solution: "deinstall and remove" it. But for land art, removal often signifies destruction. Its essence lies in its inseparable bond with the landscape.
This decision has ignited a firestorm of criticism. The Cultural Landscape Foundation, a leading advocate for preserving artistic landscapes, published scathing letters decrying the DMAC's action. The New York Times ran an article titled "A Leading Land Art Installation Is Imperiled. By Its Patron," further amplifying the outcry.
DMAC Director Kelly Baum, facing the heat, released an "Open Letter" detailing the history of the installation and its maintenance struggles. The wood used, with a lifespan of 10-12 years, and harsh weather, proved problematic from the start. Recent inspections revealed dangerous dry rot, necessitating removal.
Baum argues the DMAC has diligently maintained the work, spending over $1 million. However, restoring it to its former glory would require substantial resources – an estimated $8 million. Their annual budget, at $7.7 million, simply can't bear such a burden. Additionally, the city of Des Moines owns the park, holding the ultimate power to order the removal.
This becomes a clash of ideals. Purists argue the DMAC has a moral obligation to preserve the work, regardless of cost. Pragmatists counter that financial realities and safety concerns demand action. Both viewpoints have merit, creating a lose-lose scenario.
The loss of "Greenwood Pond" would be a devastating blow. Described as one of the finest examples of its kind, it represents a significant artistic achievement. However, this tragedy underscores a crucial lesson: the need for upfront planning for longevity and maintenance in site-specific art commissions.
Astonishingly, despite knowing the wood's limitations, discussions about potential removal only began in 2011, 15 years after its creation. This lack of foresight led to reliance on temporary fixes, ultimately failing to safeguard the artwork.
Moving forward, artists and institutions must collaborate on solutions that ensure the long-term sustainability of site-specific works. Brainstorming during the commissioning phase needs to extend beyond aesthetics and include practical considerations like material selection, environmental impact, and maintenance plans.
Baum acknowledges this need, stating, "we believe there is much to be learned from this experience." Open dialogue and learning from past mistakes are crucial to preventing similar situations in the future.
The fate of "Greenwood Pond" remains uncertain. While its physical form might be dismantled, the discussions it has ignited offer a valuable opportunity to reshape the future of site-specific art. This conversation may yet salvage a small win from a situation where, for now, all parties stand to lose.
