Leviated Mass and Heizer writeup From watching the documentary Levitated Mass about Micheal Heizer I thought it was really interesting how they opened with this giant project and used it as a method to tell his story. Starting as a negative space artist and how his relationship with the earth plays a role in creating work was somewhat humorous especially since all of his work seems so literal. I understand where he is coming from as an abstract artist who likes to play with space and how humanity collides with nature, however, I feel like I am watching a privileged person steal ideas from other societies and peoples. While they do talk about his upbringing being surrounded by archeological work that his father had done there seems to be a disconnect to how much he took from those communities. I have long questioned how abstract artists are successfully doing what they do. In some respects, as a working artist, I understand the desire to play with simplicity and the collision with nature. However, I believe that should only become a part of one’s career after their time establishing themselves in a truly groundbreaking methodology. In a sense the article and film established that Heizer is not a perfect guy, someone who seems to be lucky for no particle reason. The only thing I can truly appreciate is how he moved away from the city to be a recluse. I feel as though I can understand him as an artist, I just can’t exactly figure out how he swindled ten million dollars to move a giant rock. Where was he in the film? I never saw him doing the site, or even just touching the rock. In some respects, it feels like a huge publicity stunt for the art museum that commissioned it. One thing in particular that the film did that I enjoyed was a touch on how people reacted to the movement of the piece. I loved when the woman discussed that the rock seemed questionable as to whether it's a government ploy or a huge rock. I found it ridiculous that a person proposed in front of the rock moving. Overall, this feels like a stretch, I love the humor and irony, however, I can’t help but think that Heizer is serious. In my opinion, I loved abstractionist work as long as the artist understands that their work is laughable, but I don’t know if Heizer is one of those. In the article, I found his self-destructive behavior to be somewhat of an excuse for laziness, I believe that this instills the furtherment of the trope behind the moody and self-abusive artist. In some respects I can understand why he is so miserable- his ego seems to get the best of his work. Now, bringing this back to my work and my process, I understand why some of his work can be considered interesting and respectable. In the film, I liked the rock being driven across the soil of the art museum, I thought the performance was dramatic and entertaining. However, I think that this is an example of privilege. As a female artist, it feels as though to make ironic work I have to sacrifice being taken seriously as an actual thinker, whereas he gets praised and called a genius. It just truly feels unworthy and unwarranted.