Smithson

1) In What is a Museum?, Smithson tells Kaprow that there is a tendency toward purity as the acceptable context for art, yet he believes that art should not conclude some sort of point which purity does, but rather art should be "the pursuit of the useless, and the more vain things are the better [he likes] it, because [he's] not burdened by purity" (47). Useless by definition would mean that art should have no ability or skill in a specified activity or area. Doesn't this mean the viewer should not be able to interact with art in a meaningful or purposeful way? This seems to contradict his entire notion of The Spiral Jetty, which is a site-specific piece of artwork. Isn't site specific art often useful in that it forces and often allows viewers and bystanders to engage in activity with and/or around its presence?

2) Smithson's take on Some Void Thoughts on Museum reveal his condescending attitude towards museums. He says that "the museum undermines one's confidence in sense-data and erodes the impression of textures upon which our sensations exist" (41). Is this becuase we aren't experiencing the artwork in nature or their natural element when in a museum? Here, it seems that Smithson only supports what would be his interest in site-specific art in nature, which is created out of the elements in the environment such as his Spiral Jetty. Here, he disapproves of museum art calling it void. However, he then goes onto say that "the categorizing of art into painting, architecture, and sculpture seems to be one of the most unfortunate things that took place. Now all these categories are splintering into more and more categories" (48). But isn't site-specific art such as his own style and interest another splinter of a category that has been created and labeled as its own style of art? His views only seem to contradict each other as if he assumes everyone considers his art to be above this kind of critique.