This week I was fascinated by Robert Smithson’s “Tour of the Monuments of Passaic, New Jersey.” Despite its short length, this essay repeatedly stresses the notion of time. For example, there is the fact that Smithson writes his essay as the thoughts come to him (i.e. He describes coming upon a car lot and then suddenly shifts attention to his hunger). It gives the impression that he is writing these thoughts as they come to him. Yet, at the same time, the tour he is describing has taken him much of the day to complete as Smithson describes the event of his journey.
Time is also present in the description of the “monuments.” (I put monuments in quotation marks because he seems to be describing ordinary aspects of suburbia). Indeed this seems like a critique on what can be considered monuments especially since at one point he compares Passaic to Rome. However, where Smithson really emphasizes time is when he says that the construction going on in Passaic seemed to him to really be “ruins in reverse.” I think this is why he brought in the Rome comparison. Although Rome is now thought of as an ancient city, its ruins are still things that hold wonder for many people today. These ruins have made an impression. Smithson seems to wonder whether there are things in cities today that will be able to garner that same distinction. Are we quick to call these things (such as sandboxes) art because we haven’t produced anything greater? Once the monuments in Passaic do begin to become obsolete or begin to wear down will they be remembered? Overall, Smithson’s essay seems to be a critique on humans in general. He seems mournful about what he thinks humans are able to produce, or rather, that our ability to produce lasting monuments has diminished over time. What does this hold for the future for art?
No comments:
Post a Comment