Editing Robert Smithson (section)

====Industrial ruins and disrupted landscapes====
While Smithson did not find "beauty" in the evidence of abuse and neglect, he did see the state of things as demonstrative of the continually transforming relationships between humans and landscape. He claimed, "the best sites for 'earth art' are sites that have been disrupted by industry, reckless urbanization, or nature's own devastation."<ref>{{harv | Smithson | 1996 | p = 165}}.</ref> Smithson became particularly interested in the notion of industrial decay within the spectrum of anti-aesthetic [[wikt:dynamic|dynamic]] relationships which he saw present in the picturesque landscape.  In his proposal to make [[process art]] out of the dredging of The Pond in Central Park, Smithson sought to insert himself into the dynamic evolution of the park.<ref>{{harv | Smithson | 1996 | p = 170 }}.</ref> While in earlier 18th-century formal characterizations of the [[pastoral]] and the [[wikt:sublime|sublime]], something like a "gash in the ground" or pile of rocks, if encountered by a "leveling improver", as described by Price, would have been smoothed over and the area terraformed into a more aesthetically pleasing contour.<ref>{{harv | Smithson | 1996 | p = 159 }}</ref> For Smithson, it was not necessary that the disruption become a visual aspect of a landscape; by his anti-formalist logic, more important was the temporal scar worked over by natural or human intervention. He saw parallels to Olmsted's Central Park as a "sylvan" green overlay on the depleted landscape that preceded his Central Park <ref>{{harv | Smithson | 1996 | p = 158 }}.</ref> Defending himself against allegations that he and other earth artists "cut and gouge the land like Army engineers", Smithson, in his own essay, charges that one of such opinions "failed to recognize the possibility of a direct organic manipulation of the land.." and would "turn his back on the contradictions that inhabit our landscapes".<ref>{{harv | Smithson | 1996 | p = 163 }}.</ref>