That’s not their job. If the artist wanted the work preserved, they should have chosen a location that would receive that kind of support consensually. The destruction was actively happening already by having a bunch of camera-happy morons traipsing all over the delicate ecosystem of a scrub desert. People think of deserts as devoid of life, but they’re really filled with highly vulnerable life.
Leave no trace doesn’t mean “leave no trace except really cool-looking ones you can see from a helicopter”.
Let’s be frank, this wasn’t litter. As someone who has had to do allot of environmental cleanup because of assholes dumping garbage on my own land and in my own lakes, I would way rather cleanup cans and metal over plastic and chemicals. A metal “obelisk” is basically inert and can be removed in one fell swoop, in zero time” as demonstrated by the guys that removed the sculpture.
I don’t see how this installation destroyed anything.
While I can understand not wanting to make a habit of art installations on public land with out permission - the thing was there for OVER FOUR YEARS. It wasn’t exactly causing any harm.The hyperbole isn’t really needed.
And like I said in my first comment - had something like that been build 500-1000+ years ago, it would be protected as and important artifact, like the petroglyphs. I fail to see the difference - both are expressions by people - just one is lost to time on the who and why, and one is a modern mystery to think about.
The installation itself was there for 4+ years and in the middle of a sandstone structure. It disturbed nothing but a small foot print of rock. So the installation itself isn’t destroying anything.
Crowds of people can upset some areas… but gee, its public land. Someone uploading a cool pic of petroglyphs or a rock formation in the area that goes viral and makes a great “instagram location” where people flock to get that “cool pic” could cause the same foot traffic into an area.
Seriously, public interests in exploring public land is bad because there were too many people? Why have public land at all?
I’m not even completely against the removal of the monolith. But I agree with others maybe there should have been discussion. A retroactive permit may have been granted. Or not. I just don’t see it as such a bad thing. YMMV.
The problem with that argument is that you can use that to defend the removal of anything, from bad graffiti to horrible 90s corporate architecture to Confederate statues.
