Choose two of the four works in this post to compare and contrast (ancient Nazca Line Monkey in Peru, Stonehenge, Andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles click here for a good video clip, and a work from Ana Mendieta’s Silueta series 1973-78). Think about the process used to create them (number of people required, time and energy taken, location, materials, etc…) and how it relates to your understanding and interpretation of the works’ meaning(s). Consider at least two of the following concepts in your response: figure and ground, orientation, structure, sublime and spiritual, minimalism, temporal vs permanent and collaboration. Click on the images to view them in greater detail. For a pdf of the images we looked at in class, click here.
Advertisement
49 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 7, 2010 at 6:07 am
Jeremy Heuslein
I am comparing and contrasting Stonehenge and a work from Ana Mendieta’s “Silueta”series. In trying to discern a meaning in the works, I will be looking at their temporality and the collaboration required to build them. Mendieta’s is far from permanent, already washing away in the tide. It speaks to the evanescent nature of the human life: here today, gone tomorrow (or earlier). She probably made it solely, needing no one else to help her construct the art, which may also speak to individuality and self-determined-ality in the current era of human life. Stonehenge, on the other hand, was built to last and took many people collaborating for a long period of time. This speaks to its societal place, as monument or calendar, something with a general meaning to a people at large, which served a function to a people at large, although now that function may be lost to us, washed away in the tides of time.
September 7, 2010 at 9:52 am
Emily Labutta
Regarding Stonehenge and Fused Icicles, both have very planned structures. Both had to have been planned before being made, for the labor/speed required would need more than just spontaneity to achieve such a look. However, Stonehenge is quite permanent, while Fused Icicles is somewhat temporary. The icicles could stay frozen because of the frigid temperature, but they might break apart, or the whole figure could fall and shatter. In contrast, Stonehenge does not seem subject to breaking, although since it is outside it is subject to all the forces of nature and therefore does undergo some amount of change.
September 7, 2010 at 10:18 am
tony vargyas
I am going to compare and contrast Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles and Stonehenge. Both have similarities in that each piece of art took time to devise and strategically plan. They also share a very common theme in contemporary art and that is grasping the audience’s attention. Stonehenge is a very formal and classy piece of art. Although it doesn’t look to be very complex I’m sure it was difficult to build and much labor was needed. This was constructed many years ago and it has withheld the test of time. Goldworthy’s work of art is very unique and so unorthodox that it is almost genius. He crafted this icicle with his hands therefore this icicle is just a temporary piece of art. When it gets warmer out and seasons start to change, obviously it will melt and wither away, but for now it remains a solid fixture.
September 7, 2010 at 11:33 am
Hunter Thorson
I am going to compare Stonehenge and the work from Ana Mendieta’s “Silueta” series. The process of creating these works of art are very diffferent. For Stonehenge the process was probably very long and to lift those very heavy stones took many workers. Stonehenge also had very large materials that probably took a long time to find and it is a permanent structure. In Silueta the work probably took a few hours if that and it does not last very long because once the tide comes in the work of art will be gone.
September 7, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Clement Bilhorn
The most striking similarity between the Nazca Line Monkey and Stonehenge is the mutual vastness of their structural scale. The Monkey (and the other lines in the Nazca region) occupies an enormous amount of space, and Stonehenge consists of numerous, massive rocks. The creation of either demanded a remarkable degree of cooperation between a large number of people, suggesting their creation served a religious/communal function, most likely associated with astronomy of some form given that many aspects of the structures’ shapes can only be appreciated from the sky. Lastly, as a direct result of the likely religious intent behind the structures’ creation, they were both made to be permanent–the amount of time and effort put into the structures, as well as the strength of the medium used, indicates that their creators planned on their being utilized or observed (if mere observance weren’t the function itself) for a very long time. Obviously, it worked, given that they’re still around today.
September 7, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Dan Wanee
Fused Icicles and Silueta were each done by a single artist without collaboration, though they were created with very different processes. Both had to be in a rather specific region (a frigid climate and a beach), and both were probably done relatively quickly, though Fused Icicles was clearly much more tedious work. Silueta was likely not as detail intensive and is probably the most minimalist of the four works presented in the blog. Not only were these works created quickly, but, due to the nature of their media, they were also quite temporal. It is for this reason that both artists used a more permanent medium, photography, to preserve their work. I think Goldsworthy’s soul intention was to use his own abilities to enhance and bring to light the natural beauty of the world. Mendieta’s work is more difficult to interpret. One possible meaning is that it is a representation of birth (the red pigment) and the temporal sand symbolizes the passing of generations.
September 7, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Tanya Rymas
I am comparing and contrasting Andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles and Ana Mendieta’s Silueta. Although both pieces were created fairly quickly, and single handedly, the processes used to create these pieces vary greatly; Fused Icicles was much more tedious than Silueta. Both pieces required a specific location, cold climate and beach, respectively. Both pieces required natural materials, although Fused Icicles consists of items from its natural environment, whereas Mendieta brought in foreign substances. Silueta is much more minimalist than Fused Icicles, but both pieces are temporal rather than permanent, although they are captured permanently in photographs. With these aspects in mind, one can interpret that Fused Icicles is meant to represent the natural beauty of the earth, whereas Mendieta’s piece is meant to represent the overlooked hardships and violence faced by herself and women everywhere.
September 8, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Rachel Wassink
Andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles and Ana Mendieta’s Silueta series are both very temporal. The icicles will only last as long as it is cold outside, and the Mendieta’s begins to disappear as soon as the tide comes in. Because both works are so temporal, it makes me think that the meaning of them is that the world may affect you, but deep down you are still the same- a son or daughter of God. When the tide comes in, the silueta is gone, but it is still sand. When the sun comes out, the icicles melt, but they are still water. Goldsworthy would have had to take a lot of time to make the fused icicles and carefully planned out how to for the structure, but Mendieta could have easily created her work without much assistance since it is basically her just laying in the sand. The icicles are very minimalistic, but still stunning.
September 8, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Kristin Kokubun
Andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles and Stonehenge can be compared in that they are both works of art characterized by minimalism. Both styles use only the bare minimal materials of the environment to create the art piece. They are both natural and simplistic in their composition. However, in contrast Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles are temporal because they eventually will melt away with the changing weather while Stonhenge is more of a permanent structure.
September 8, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Shane McGann
When comparing both Stonehenge and Ana Mendieta’s Silueta their composition and purpose stand out immediately as opposites. It is hard to approach these as pieces of art from the same category because they are so different. The structure of both works seems to contradict each other. Stonehenge on the one hand is built up resting on the earth and made of massive stones, while Silueta is dug into the earth and made out of a void in the sand. The next way these pieces seem to stand out as differing ideas is in their ability to withstand the changes of the earth. Stonehenge has been around for thousands of years, used originally as an astronomy tool it was built to remain. Silueta will only withstand the elements for a matter of moments before water washes it away and it is lost forever. Each piece brings different ideas to those who observe it, and they are both works of art in their own respects, however to look at them together and compare them shows great difference right away.
September 8, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Jason Bhatta
I am going to compare and contrast Stonehenge and Mendieta’s Silueta. Looking at each of the pieces of art you can clearly see the difference between Stonehenge being a permanent piece and Mendieta’s being temporal. It had to have taken many many workers to create stonehenge and to be able to raise these giant slabs of stone, while Mendieta only needed herself. This shows the wonder of nature and how simple things can be but how vastly different they are. One needed many hands to create this time tested marvel while the other only last maybe hours and is still beautiful.
September 8, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Lucy Hull
Ana Mendieta’s “Silueta” and Andy Goldsworthy’s “Fused Icicles” are similar works in that they both make use of the surrounding environment to portray a stunning image of natural beauty. “Silueta” appears to be carved out of sand into the image of a female figure. “Fused Icicles” similarly are formed against the backdrop of a wet, rocky surface. Again, this piece makes use of a natural element to compliment the overall presentation. In contrast, however, the “Silueta” is formed by means of negative space. The actual art itself is that which cannot be seen, yet encompassed by the surrounding sand and complimented by the red dye. The Icicles, however, stand boldly and brilliantly alone, overtaking the eye of the viewer immediately. It is a very present piece, captivating and leaving little for the imagination.
September 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm
tanya kondratyuk
Although the Stonehenge and the Silueta are two contrasting pieces of art, they have a likeness about them as well. Both works seem to have required a great deal of time and patience. The Stonehenge differs in its structure. The Silueta is sculpted into the sand and seems to make a bold statement through the use of color. In addition, the Stonehenge is a piece that has lasted throughout great lengths of time; however, the Silueta is a form of temporary art.
September 9, 2010 at 10:27 am
Kristen Brown
Both stonehenge and Andy Goldsworthy’s “Fused Icicles” have a certain shock factor that is eye-catching for me. I am fortunate enough to have actually seen Stonehenge, and you cannot help but stand in awe at the structure. Both Stonehenge and “Fused Icicles” are amazing because it is hard for us to comprehend how either of the pieces were made. While “Fused Icicles” is definitely a temporary artwork, Stonehenge has stood the test of time. Another difference is that Andy Goldsworthy created his artwork by himself, while Stonehenge had to have taken collaboration by several people.
September 9, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Shelby Swart
Fused Icicles and Stonehenge are both similar and different. Both are obviously the result of planning and forethought, but these processes were used to create strikingly different pieces. A first difference is the varying degree of collaboration each piece took. While Fused icicles could not have been made by many hands– in this case, too many would most definitely have ruined the delicate construction, building Stonehenge alone would have been impossible, a suicide mission. A second difference is the duration during which the piece could be enjoyed. Stonehenge has stood for almost 5000 years, but Fused Icicles could have survived at most until springtime.
September 9, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Courtney Goll
In comparing Stonehenge and Fused Icicles, one immediately notices the difference in structure and orientation. Stonehenge, which occupies a large, circular area, is composed of rocks that were originally parallel or perpendicular to the ground. Fused Icicles, however, is spherical in shape, pointing in all directions. Both would have taken a while to construct, although in different senses. The manpower needed to upright all of those stones in Stonehenge must have been immense, especially since the structure still stands. Fused Icicles, too, would have taken much patience, since Goldsworthy melted the icicles and then put them back together again in a different shape. Obtaining the perfect temperature and perfect state for reattaching would be a challenging task, and one with short-term results. Fused Icicles is quite the temporary construction, unlike Stonehenge, which does not melt whenever the temperature rises. Such longevity is impressive, but the beauty of such a short-term ball of ice as Fused Icicles also brings a sense of wonder.
September 9, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Alexandra Distler
Ana Mendieta’s “Silueta” lays delicate and fragile; Stonehenge stands mighty and over-bearing. Two works with hardly anything in common. “Silueta” is the imprint of a body in sand, temporary, limited. Stonehenge is permanent, indestructible. While both works of art are made of the earth, “Silueta” is a figure, a sacrifice with red dust; Stonehenge is a prehistoric structure that cannot be washed away with the tide. Mendieta’s work can be interpreted as spiritual, while at the end of the day, Stonehenge is merely a formation of rock.
September 10, 2010 at 9:27 am
Nathan Hodges
I want to compare and contrast ancient Nazca Line Monkey in Peru and STONEHENGE. I choose to put Stonehenge in all caps because of its magnificent structure and idealism for when it was put together. The creators had to be well beyond their time for they built true art. Nazca Line Monkey in Peru had to take alot of time which is true dedication to carve all those lines.
September 10, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Luke Van de Krol
I am choosing to compare and contrast the ancient Nazca Line Monkey in Peru, and Stonehenge. Both of these works are huge from a structural standpoint, but use different materials. The observation of how big these both are lead me to believe that there is religious significance because full appreciation of its beauty would best be viewed from the sky looking down onto Earth, like a God that these communities may have been trying to please. The materials in order to do so, I believe are less important to the meaning that the work is trying to convey. Another similarity is what I would assume to be a large community participating in the process of constructing these works. For these works to be built, many people had to be involved, especially with the piecing together of Stonehedge. Because these are both so large, many people had to have collaboratively worked together over a long period of time to lift these heavy stones and to create such large lines. This could be to please the Gods they were trying to impress as a community to insure their salvation and well-being.
September 11, 2010 at 10:20 am
Carolyn Ingermanson
“Fused Icicles” and “Silueta” feel like they’re trying to communicate different meanings, but in similar ways. They are both very temporal, taken from the surrounding landscape and ready to be absorbed back into it. The fact that they are so temporal, given the time and care it must have taken to create them, imbues them both with the beauty of nature that comes from its very transience. Both of them are made from natural materials into structures that mimic other organic phenomena– the icicles have been fused into a star shape, and the sand and mineral color of “Silueta” has become an empty human form.
September 11, 2010 at 11:30 am
Ryan Seager
Stonehenge and Silueta are two works of art that share similarities, but that differ in many ways. Figure and ground along with collaboration begin to describe these two works. In Silueta we see more figure and ground involvement, the ground simply holds the silhouette that seems to be formed more naturally than most art. Stonehenge seems to be more of a collaboration piece in that it consists of large rock figures placed together to create one large work. The comparisons between these pieces begin with the idea of nature. Both works have been constructed from objects found in nature. Though the size and construction are very different, both works were constructed from God’s beautiful creation.
September 11, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Dylan Mooney
The two works of Stonehenge and Fused Icicles are profound examples of earthen artwork. They are quite similar in the fact that they are both completely organically composed, and contain no unnatural adhesives. However, they also differ quite a bit in that they are forged with two different mediums: both ice and rock, which greatly determines, and varies, the structural integrity, as well as the fact that one is quite smaller in size and scope. A last contrast is that Stonehenge has been around and will be for a great long time, where as the icicles are quite temporal and will begin within a few hours.
September 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Mishael Lee
sotonehenge obviously needed lots of human labor and its more public. Structurally its more bold and simple and its permanant. i also think its made for some kind of people to worship. On the other hand Fused Icicles is way more personal. i think hes trying to show the connection between nature and art.so outdoor like forests and rivers would be the locations. And i think there is a real beauty in temporary arts, some of the reason why i like temporary art is because i cant hold of it for a long time, don’t we all want things that we cant have, that we cant hold of?
September 11, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Cassandra Kranz
Comparing Stonehenge and Andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles, both are very complex pieces of art that involved a lot of collaboration to be created properly. Stonehenge may have been created from simple stones, but the magnitude of the structures show that it took a long time to put together. Fused Icicles, on the other hand, though it is not nearly the size of Stonehenge, took a long time to put together because of the complexity of the the structure. Stonehenge is permanent because of its huge structure, while Fused Icicles is more temporal because it is dependent on being in very cold temperatures.
September 12, 2010 at 12:27 am
Josh Miller
Stonehenge and andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles resonate with me. The interesting relationship between the permanence of the structures and the way they appear is particularly interesting. The Fused Icicles look like a star, it looks like a permanent structure that will endure but probably melted and fell apart just minutes after it was made. Stonehenge on the other hand looks almost fragile (in pictures). It looks like it could be knocked over. But Stonehenge has been around for thousands of years. So there is a very interesting relationship between permanence and temporariness. This appearance is a function of it’s structure, the simpleness of the stones laid upon one another make Stonehenge look fragile and impermanent, and the Fused Icicles, because of the complexity of it’s structure looks much more permanent and long lasting.
September 12, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Kenny Piccolo
The work in Peru can be better understood by many when people understand that this was done as an act or way to communicate to “the gods.” Knowing that helps us better understand the reasons why these works were create on such a large scale. Secondly, this work in Peru shows that the indigeni of the land were devoted greatly to their gods that they would go through all this work. The famous sight of the pillared rocks in a circle, in England, always receive a lot of attention. Attention that is well deserved. just looking at the rocks stacked amazes the gazer and knowing that those rocks weigh thousands of tons is incredible. Some background that i know about it, is that the rocks were brought from 25 miles away and this was all constructed to be a way for astronomers to study the sky.
September 12, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Kristin Kroeze
I am going to compare and contrast Stonehenge and Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles. The are alike in the fact that each one of them took a lot of time and energy as well as thought into making them. They also are alike in minimism because they both used the bare minimum materials it took to shape and make such peices of art. However, they differ in the fact that Stonehenge is permenant and the Icicles are temporal. Due to weather and the atmosphere they were built in, the icicles will melt and the stonehenge will stay permemant.
September 12, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Jonathan Barbalas
I am going to compare Stonehenge with the Nazca Line Monkey. Both works of art would have taken a large amount of people and a large amount of time to create. The Nazca line would have taken a large amount of planning/surveying but would be reasonable easy to draw. Stonehenge on the the other hand would have been incredibly hard to move into place, because they did not have any of our modern technology to lift those gigantic pieces of rock. The Nazca Lines were probably a religious work of art, meant to be viewed by the Gods as a testament to the Nazca’s religiousness. Stonehenge probably also served a religious purpose of some type because there is no other apparent use for it. The Nazca lines seem to be less permanent than stonehenge because the lines are just places where the gravel and soil was removed and it seems easy for that to fill in again, whereas stonehenge is made from massive rocks which are unlikely to move ever. The Nazca Lines are made to be viewed from the sky, and therefore look more 2D while stonehenge is more 3D.
September 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Gabriel Ponton
The Fused Icicles by Andy Goldsworthy and Ana Mendieta’s Silueta, particularly the one displayed in the blog, really catch my eye mostly because their colors are so high contrast. Granted, the photography of the artwork also adds a lot to the present state of perception. The two differ from one another on two main levels: one is the contour of the pieces, the Fused Icicles seem incredibly sharp where as Silueta is more muted due to the effects nature has had on it, and the other is the color, the icicles have a chilling bluish white hue while the silueta has a violent and almost flaming red. Both appear to represent death or emptiness, and both are temporal pieces. However, the Icicles are inductive while silueta is deductive art.
September 13, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Korey Dalton
The contrast between Stonehenge and Ana Mendieta’s Silueta series is fascinating and the process as well as the end product speak clearly to the interpretation and understanding of the works. Whereas the piece from the Silueta series is very temporal and will hardly last a few days in the sand where it will be washed away, whereas Stonehenge is more permanently located on solid ground and has lasted for over 3000 years. This contrast in its permanency illuminates the work. It seems as though Mendieta is making a statement that an individual is temporal and thus has little time on earth. It is also created with sand, perhaps indicating that individuals are but grains of sand and will be washed away. However, the permanency of Stonehenge and the long process it must have taken to create it is also important, in that this community of people who created it seemed to believe that they would have a longer lasting impact or they were trying to create a longer lasting impact with the use of massive stones than the imprint and colored powder on the sand. I believe the collaboration portion of the process also illuminates the meaning of the pieces in that Mendieta’s piece could be made by the individual, whereas Stonehenge must have required a large number of people to create. Whereas Mendieta chose to focus on the individual, it seems that Stonehenge places a value in community.
September 13, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Yaphet Tedla
I am comparing Ana Mendieta’s Silueta to the Stonehenge. There are differences in the aspect that the Stonehenge was something that was done with multiple people. Something that probably many years as well as labor hours to make. While Ana work might have been done by herself. I would think it probably took her about an hour or so to do. Maybe the idea and processing it might have been longer however the actual labor of the project itself would have been short.
September 13, 2010 at 6:48 pm
megan mitchell
The processes that Mendieta used to make, “Silueta” and Goldsworthy used to create “Fused Icicles” both involved using only the artist’s own body and natural elements, however, neither display minimalism. I say this because “Fused Icicles” is complex, not straight forward or simplistic in design, and “Silueta” does not have defined angles and borders, but flows and appears conceptual. Another similarity in the process used for the two works is that both were done by the artist alone and did not involve collaboration. A difference is that Fused Icicles involves a lot more order, reason, and precision, while “Silueta” strikes me more as sublime but not precise. Both of the works are temporary and lasted only until the ice melted or the tide came in. A similarity in the interpretation is that I take them to both be dealing with temporariness. Goldsworthy’s could be dealing with the temporary and fleetingness of some beautiful aspects of the natural world. Mendieta’s appears to possibly be touching on in part the temporary nature of human life…?
September 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Yoshi Kozawa
The Infused Icicles and the Stonehenge are two peices of art that have remarkably structured pieces of art. The Stonehenge must have taken the strength of many men while the Infused Icicles was made by a single person and limited by time. However, both these structures required thought from the artists regarding the appropirate material. The Infused Icicles is placed very delicately on the rock surface, depending on the weather to keep it together and displays temoral beauty. The stonehenge appears very monumental and fitting to the surrounding, with the sense of minimalism, it also is a permanent peice, with only weathering disfiguring it from its original placement.
September 13, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Ben Meyer
Both the Nazca lines and Stonehenge reveal a cooperation and collaboration of a group of people. This gorup must have been organized and motivated by a purpose, whether religious or artistic, to undertake such great tasks. Stonehenge must have taken great manpower, these rocks look enormous and must weigh several tons each. At the same time, the nazca lines would have taken great communication and organization, as their precision and unity are amazing. The Nazca lines seem to be celebrating nature of this world, while Stonehenge appears to point more to the heavens and spiritual realms with its supposed use to track the time and star movements. The makers of Stonehenge were also clearly concerned with creating a lasting monument with these huge rocks. They likely wanted to create a symbol that their descendents would be able to point to and learn or remember something. Similarly, through their work with the rock on these plateaus, the artists of the Nazca lines desired to create something lasting and memorable, possibly to commemorate nature or some great event.
September 13, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Matthew Wheatley
The two pieces of art that I am comparing are the Nazca Line Monkey and Ana Mendieta’s Silueta. They both are created by digging into the earth, but are very different in scope and shape. The Line Monkey is only perceivable from the air and Silueta is only as large as a person. They both depict living things, but one is of a person and the other is of a monkey. Silueta is much more surrealistic and Line Monkey is a much more life-like work in how it portrays the living thing. They are both minimalist in how they are made.
September 13, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Garrett Cook
stonehedge and the fused icicles appear vastly different but also have some similarities. There are obvious differences in the structure. The icicles are so brittle and fragile. This type of structure is very temporary, whereas stonehedge is strong and firm and has been there for thousands of years. However, they are similar in orientation. They are both circularly oriented around a focal point in the center.
September 13, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Chris Bradley
I noticed a few differences between “Stonehenge” and Ana Mendieta’s “Silueta.” On the one hand, Stonehenge’s structure was created through meticulous carving and moving of giant rocks into a piece of art forever engrained in history, but Silueta looks to be very fleeting, almost as if it was created through erosion and at any moment could disappear forever. The fact that Stonehenge is created out of rock and Silueta is made out of sand portrays the artistic contrast between temporal and permanent structures. Also you notice a stark difference in the ground that each piece of art is located on. Stonehenge is located on solid ground, while Silueta uses sand that could be washed away at any minute. One similarity between the two works of art is in their ability to collaborate the art by strictly using the environment and nature around them.
September 14, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Chris Erdos
When I think of the Fused Icicles and that it’s a temporal piece, I think about how we’ve been taught to think about the long run. Especially at Wheaton and other prominent academic schools, sometimes we forget about the present and experiencing the here and now. It seems as if people are always working towards the Nazca Line Monkey & in the process losing track of everything else. However, both pieces lead me to feelings of intrigue and wonderment. The structure of the Fused Icicles is exciting and lively, as if some miracle is happening. The Nazca Line Monkey leaves me wondering how they did that.
September 14, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Adam Mosbrucker
When I see the piece “Stonehenge” I automatically think about the amount of work and number of people it would take to put such a simple yet massive piece together. When I see the piece “Fused Icicles” I think just the opposite. It is a very small piece that wouldn’t take anymore than one person to accomplish, but yet it too is beautiful and captures much about the earth’s natural beauty. “Stonehenge” I would say is a permanent piece that will be around for awhile, while “Fused Icicles” is temporal and can easily be gone in the blink of an eye.
September 14, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Morgan Cook
I am going to compare and contrast Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles and Stonehenge. Stonehenge and the Fused Icicles have completely different creation process. Stonehenge is massive and would have taken many months and possibly years to make, along with many people and equipment. The Fused Icicles, on the other hand, took some time but not months. It was also done by one person and much smaller. Both works are classics that are very interesting.
September 15, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Mike Feurdean
I’m comparing Stonehenge and Fused Icicles. One of the greatest differences between the two works (aside from their size) is that Stonehenge obviously required many people to arrange, whereas anymore than one person involved in making the Fused Icicles would ruin the piece. Also, Stonehenge is many times more long-lasting than the ice. Yet both are created using materials naturally occurring in nature, without any man-made adhesive. Both appear to be minimalistic, yet in very different ways.
September 16, 2010 at 8:20 am
Ainsley McCullough
I am comparing the ancient Nazca Line Monkey in Peru and Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles. The two pieces are very different in nature. The Nazca Line Monkey is carved into stone and, as the name implies, is a fairly linear, simplistic drawing that can be viewed on a single plane. In contrast, the Fused Icicles is more like a sculpture that is three-dimensional and more complex. The Nazca Line monkey is permanent. The Fused Icicles, however, are temporal due to the fact that they could melt and break. Both pieces are similar in that they could be completed by one person and did not require any collaboration.
September 16, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Taylor Dalton
I will discuss what Stonehenge and Andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles “mean” to me and what I understand about their differences. A major difference is the man power needed to create each of the pieces of art: Stonehenge obviously needing probably hundreds of men where as the icicles needing one. Stonehenge does not need an extreme amount of artistical skill as much as it needs more mathematical skill. Many people do not realize what Stonehenge was made for or what it can “do” as in tell seasons and solstices. The fused icicles, however, require much more imagination and skill in order to recreate the intricate designs. Another difference is that Stonehenge seems to be of a more permanent site; being able to remain at least in mostly undamaged for hundreds of years whereas the lifespan of the icicles is possibly only up to a few hours if the sun is out.
September 19, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Samantha McKean
The work from Ana Mendieta’s Silueta contrasts significantly with Stonehenge. Stonehenge, being obviously an ancient work, has lasted for centuries. It must have been a huge collaborative process, requiring a lot of energy to complete. It therefore signifies to me something of permanence, like a tribute to lasting, collective strength, some sort of triumph. Ana Mendieta’s work, however, is a temporal work of art, lasting only a few hours before being washed away by the sea. It was also completed by her alone, and probably did not require much energy to create. Consequently, I see her work as a vibrant flash of strength, representing power and violence that quickly fades away.
September 20, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Meghan Cuthbertson
As I was looking at the four images, I realized how both similar and different “Stonehenge” and the work from Ana Mandieta’s “Silueta” series were in relation to one another. “Stonehenge” was built in the middle of a large field with massive cut stones that would have had to be hauled. This required a lot of man power, and many people working together to accomplish such a task. Collaboration is a requirement for something on the scale of “Stonehenge”. Not so with the “Silueta” series. This piece is carved into the sand along the ocean’s tide. She worked alone (or could have if she did not), and her works were more of a personal accomplishment, a way of dealing with things she had gone through instead of setting up a lasting symbol of power. Both show the effects of time as it passes by, but in different ways; “Stonehenge” was created to last, to stand for a very long time and be an important reminder and symbol of and for the people who built it. Ana Mendieta’s work was supposed to fade away as the ocean washes over it, and be a picture of emotional pain. One’s meaning is to be a permanent edifice, the other a temporal statement.
September 26, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Yabesh Sharma
The two works that I am going to compare are the stonehenge and Andy Goldsworthy’s Fused Icicles. The Fused Icicles seems like a temporary piece of art that depends on the temperature of that place while the stonehenge is a permanent art. The icicles seems temporary also because ice is very brittle but the stonehenge, that is made with huge slabs of stone, is very sturdy making it an enduring piece of art. Both works of art are created form materials that are naturally found. The stonehenge must have taken a lot of labor power whereas the icicle must have taken a lot of skill and patience for sure.
October 4, 2010 at 4:55 pm
David Querfeld
There are many differences and similarities between the Nazca line and Mendieta’s “Silueta”. The first similarity is that they are both dug into the ground. Secondly, they are both by Latin American artists. The differences are greater, however. The monkey is a permanent structure and took many people to create (or that is at least speculated). “Silueta” was made to be temporal and created by only one person.
October 12, 2010 at 7:52 am
Scott "Hutch" Hutcherson
Both stonehenge and fused icicles are interesting to me. First the orientation of stonehenge is so alluring to me. The reason is because it is so mysterious and nobody is able to explain why the stones are oriented the way they are. Next is just how mysterious it looks. Looking out over the field and seeing stonehenge in the distance must be an exciting sight. The icicles, however, are the opposite. Each piece of ice is put into their place for a reason, and I’m sure the artist can tell you why they are. And like stonehenge, it must be a sight to see in real life.
October 12, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Mary O'Hara
Upon first glancing at the Nazca Monkey in Peru and the Silueta, minimalism first comes to mind. The structure in each of the works both seemed to simply use one material to form the art. The monkey seems to be drawn with a simple chalk material, while it seems that shape was placed in the sand for a moment and red material to represent blood sprinkled over the top. In both of these works, there seems to be no distinction between the figure and the ground. It could be imagined that the Naza Monkey is placed simply on a ground surface, and it is clear that the silueta is part of the sandy shore. A clear distinction between the paintings is the colloboration and longevity. The Naza Monkey clearly shows some colloboration with others over a long stretch of time to give a lasting structure to be seen today; the silueta shows to be much more of an individual work with a very temporary feel, for the art seems to be at risk of being lost at any moment. These two paintings describe art as a whole, a long life passion that even in their ecentric differences go back to the same techniques.