Entrance to Arcosanti (in progress)
While I am sure both would object, there are some striking similarities between the first two above. Both of their visions are advancements in holism. Both have been labeled incorrectly “Utopian”, for neither present answers, only a process that at most seems to be a ‘first step’ that then require reflection before proceeding. Space is both their medium of utmost importance being the medium for social change.
Both place much importance of desirability over objectivity that is a marked differentiation to the work of Duchamp and Cage. These latter individuals can be looked upon as those who expanded the concept of “framing” and how that affects and defines their medium. This framing is so powerful, they illustrated that anarchy (in the form of randomness) could indeed be objectively encompassed within it .
At the time, there were those who objected to this anarchy and randomness being more a symptom of capitalism; its nature of having no goal and it lack of taking responsibility for the course it takes. This global economic meltdown might for us cause us to reflect on the process of the economic anarchy that has caused it. It is too shaky of ground to come to a conclusion on this alone.
Not only Beuys or Soleri, but many artists of which Harry Partch would quite rightfully
fit are/were more concerned with ‘working on what had been spoiled”. There is a recognition that the unsorted product of an underdeveloped or damaged might not be automatically of artistic worth. Intuition, real or simulated, likewise cannot be any guarantee and this is plausibly a more realistic criticism.
Instead a space for the myriad of forces that exist within the individual, what James Hillman refers to as the ‘Inner Commune’, is the space Beuys and Soleri, and Partch wish to celebrate and develop toward its fullness. All this work about space, and in the end, it is all directed toward inward.
Beuys- Grond
