Translated by Louise Pain 

Nature as Material and Form

From the perspective of recent art history, nature and culture arguably confront one another most directly in Land Art. This demonstrates that landscape, as an aesthetic form mediating physical nature, remained a key genre of art even in modernity. Here, however, a distinction must be made between ‘first nature’ and ‘second nature’: the former designates physical nature as distinct from the latter, which refers to the social, psychological, and societal nature of humankind (see Ritter, 1974; Hoormann, 1996). In this art movement, artistic practice is displaced from institutional spaces into natural environments, thereby rendering the natural world itself the material of artistic production. Nevertheless, nature does not become the form of this art, especially in Land Art, which remains highly culturalised. As Land Art practitioner Michael Heizer definitively stated in the late 1960s, this art movement is ‘about art, not about landscape’—in other words, ultimately, about culture rather than nature (Weilacher, 1996, p. 12). In the context of the immediate present, however, the mutual implication of nature and culture in the face of anthropogenic climate change can no longer be denied. While, for example, Donna Haraway’s concept of ‘Natureculture’ deconstructs the historical separation of nature and culture (see the introduction to this issue), the interpretation of ecological crises through the reception and theoretical application of Haraway’s neologism frequently shifts the focus to an ontological level (see Bianchi et al., 2026). With regard to ecological art, this article therefore offers a materialist perspective that seeks to connect—rather than separate—the ontological insights articulated in Natureculture discourses with the Marxist tradition of historical materialism and critical theory (see the introduction to this issue).

The question of how contemporary art—specifically, art produced since the emergence of conceptual art in the 1960s—has responded to ecological crises in recent decades can be understood in the context of the emergence of long-term Land Art projects: works such as Heizer’s City, James Turrell’s Roden Crater (since 1974), and Charles Ross’s Star Axis (since 1974). In the process, contemporary art’s understanding of the relationship between nature and culture has undergone a fundamental shift, more or less in step with Land Art (see Fleck, 2023), pivoting away from the conceptualisation of nature as material to nature as form. In addition to Land Art interventions and performative—and therefore predominantly body-related—practices in natural spaces or using natural materials, such as those of Ana Mendieta in the 1970s, cultural-political debates emerged in the 1980s—exemplified by the anti-nuclear movement—concerning the alleged de-autonomisation of art through its co-optation by so-called ‘Green’ politics; that is, resistance to the appropriation of culture in favour of nature (see Bogner, 1988). In the decades that followed, this tendency was countered by activist practices (see Lange-Berndt, 2021, pp. 143 f.). Ecological themes and concerns increasingly found expression in social forms of art and were accompanied by a prevailing focus, dominant since the 1990s, on the representation of nature and, from the 2000s on, also on environmental destruction and extractivism. With the turn of the millennium, attention increasingly shifted toward the relationship between human and non-human actors themselves, and thus toward the intended dissolution of the dichotomy between nature and culture (see ibid., pp. 159 ff.).

Ecology, understood as the relationship between organisms and their respective environments—a relationship that is clearly asymmetrical in favour of humans—now refers less and less to the subject matter of artistic representation or intervention. Instead, when referring to art, ecology describes a mode of thought and thus becomes a form of artistic practice. Artists work with microorganisms, facilitate processes of ecological restoration, collaborate with research institutions to promote nature conservation and raise ecological awareness, and develop multispecies forms of community and forms of critique directed at economic growth.

Alongside large-scale Land Art projects, symbolic and micropolitical practices consequently emerge in place of monumental interventions and the culturalization—and, of course, economic valorisation—of landscape: practices of sowing and planting, growing and harvesting, as seen in the work of Natalie Jeremijenko, Rashid Johnson, Ebony G. Patterson, and Tabita Rezaire, treat ecological processes as artistic material in their own right. In this context, Maria L. Räihälä, Matthias Fritsch, and Fernando García-Dory seek, through planting, gardening, and composting, as well as through the initiation of commons projects, mushroom cultivation, non-industrial food production, and collaborative agroecological ventures, to rethink artistically, or to support in a regenerative manner, issues related to material consumption and more sustainable modes of production under the conditions of a post-growth economy. What these diverse approaches have in common is a reconfiguring of the social role of the artist toward that of an activist and/or ecologist—actively observing, initiating, organising, and facilitating ecological processes. Art today thus emerges both as an integral component of ecological relationships and processes and, at the same time, as a vehicle for their transformation (see Ramos, 2025).

Responsibilisation and Ontologisation

Nature and its agentic ecological entanglement with humans thus appear not only as a subject of art but increasingly as a method of artistic practice. Art seeks to render ecological relations perceptible while simultaneously reflecting upon—and potentially transforming—its own modes of production and exhibition (see ibid.). The ecological question thereby shifts from the representation of ‘first nature’ toward the organisation of ecological relations with regard to ‘second nature’, increasingly encompassing the material conditions under which culture itself is produced in the face of ecological crises (see ibid.). This shift is motivated above all by the discourse concerning the degree to which artistic production and exhibition are implicated in the extensive extraction of raw materials and labour, especially in the so-called Global South and in economically marginalised regions of emerging and service-based economies. Such processes of extraction ultimately lead to far-reaching politico-territorial, geological, human-geographical, and, above all, climate crises (see Mezzadra and Neilson, 2017). Of course, as an ecological imperative, this condition of eco-imperialism necessarily also extends to the very modes of production, distribution, and institutionalisation through which this art is constituted—and ecological art is no exception here (see Schneemann, 2022). It therefore follows that art that advocates the preservation of nature cannot leave unexamined its own implication in regimes of extraction and consumption—something that is evidenced by the sustainability reports being issued by museums and the energy audits for individual artworks. Particularly when it comes to highly resource-intensive forms of digital art, these kinds of accounting practices can function as a means through which an artistic medium is able to justify itself—both to itself and to its audience (see, for example, Nieslony, 2022). Yet where eco-critical approaches are translated into artistic practice, they frequently remain grounded in the moral premise of demanding individual rather than structural renunciation—a tendency that art history has itself too often affirmed uncritically (see Fowkes, 2022). Tomás Saraceno’s ostensibly anti-capitalist aesthetics, for example, can be understood within this logic: the artist displaces ecological responsibility onto individual practices, thereby reproducing the micropolitics of neoliberalism, while the capitalist relations of production remain largely unchallenged, and the reception of the work itself may ultimately be converted into economic surplus value for the artist (see Burchert, 2024, p. 585). Ólafur Elíasson’s Ice Watch likewise follows this logic, which is itself ultimately highly commercialised. For his installations presented at the UN Climate Change Conferences in Copenhagen (2014), Paris (2015), and later in London (2018), the artist arranged blocks of ice, each weighing several tonnes and sourced from Greenland, in public spaces in the shape of a clock, allowing them to melt as a symbolic demonstration of the consequences of climate change. The realisation of this artistic platitude was, however, itself dependent upon a substantial expenditure of energy and resources, particularly regarding transporting the ice, which generated considerable emissions. In response, Elíasson’s studio commissioned the organisation Julie’s Bicycle to calculate the resulting CO₂ emissions and financially offset them (see Julie’s Bicycle, 2018). The structural contradictions of ecologically motivated art production are thus subsumed into the logic of carbon offsetting. Yet it is self-evident that consumption cannot be meaningfully curbed through further consumption.

Aside from the idea of ‘preaching to the converted’, these recent examples illustrate how art today is ascribed an ethical responsibility that should actually belong to the processes of political decision-making. The less the political sphere proves itself capable of taking tangible action, however, the more cultural institutions—and therefore art as well—will be burdened with political expectations, thereby further obscuring rather than illuminating the systemic dimensions of the ecological crisis (see, for example, Huber, 2022). Approaches of this kind reproduce neoliberal forms of ‘responsibilisation’, in which the contradictions of a late-stage capitalist system—or rather, the hope for their supposed resolution—are displaced onto individual behaviours rather than making the global structures that engender them the subject of aesthetic and critical reflection (see Stakemeier and Vishmidt, 2016). This has prompted the emergence of a more comprehensive theoretical framework that extends far beyond individual artistic positions. The separation of nature and culture that is implicit in the attribution of responsibility described above is increasingly giving way to an emphasis on relational structures as the basis for ecological responsibility: human actors can recognise their dependence on non-human beings and, through this recognition, become more environmentally aware. Under these conditions, the ecological crisis increasingly emerges as a crisis of our own anthropocentric relationship with the natural world. Accordingly, the prospect of the transformation of second nature—that is, the historically formed nature of human beings—rests on the assumption that a revision of fundamental ontological premises might open up new forms of ecological action. This shift can be traced to a theoretical constellation that has profoundly and permanently transformed the relationship between nature and culture since the mid-1980s. Despite their considerable differences, the new conceptions of materiality proposed by Haraway, Latour, Barad, Descola, Stengers, Serres, and Bennett all share the unifying assumption that agency is not the exclusive domain of human subjects. This theoretical reorientation (which is less culturally essentialising in itself but can become partially so in its application within cultural and art-historical scholarship; see, for example, Harutyunyan, 2019) has undoubtedly expanded ecological thinking—particularly with regard to the visual arts—through references to decolonial thought and Indigenous knowledge, and has fundamentally challenged the anthropocentrism of classical modernity (see, for example, Skrandies and Dümler, 2023). At the same time, when applied to art, these theories are increasingly changing the way in which ecological crises are explained or contextualised within a cultural framework, with the focus now shifting to revising fundamental ontological assumptions: recognising the capacity of non-human actors for action and material agency.

When approaching art history from a critical perspective, one question arises: what do a material’s inherent power and resistance address if the intention is to convey more than simply allowing materiality to appear aesthetically in its fundamental form—in the sense of, for example, Walter De Maria’s New York Earth Room (1977), for instance, transported approximately 130 tonnes of earth into an exhibition space as a permanent installation, and the material has since been experienced in its specific properties simply by virtue of being exhibited. On the other hand, the concept of resistance in implies a political agenda, whereby material is assigned intentionality in a rather metaphorical sense—including with regard to political conditions and their potential transformation. A decidedly materialist perspective of art history would, first and foremost, share those insights that do not conceive of nature and society—or culture, for that matter—as independent of one another. Historical materialism, too, understands nature as an aspect of society’s relationship with the natural world. These relationships are characterised by continuous and reciprocal metabolic change between humans and the natural world—an idea that is already central to Marx’s thinking. From a materialist perspective, however, the ecological crisis does not appear primarily as the consequence of an ontological misrecognition of the world, but rather as the result of historically determined modes of production. Forms of ownership, flows of energy and raw materials, infrastructures, and global supply chains simply constitute the material context within which ecological relationships take shape in the first place. Ontological redefinitions alone do not alter this context. It is only at a materialist level—that is, one that is decidedly politically critical and thus informed, for example, by Marxist theories—that these conditions become clear.

Ecology as Economy

A materialist perspective understands mutuality, first and foremost, as a description of globally organised social relations and defines ecological disruptions primarily as economic disruptions. A capitalist economic order is also based on irreducible relations with nature, constituted by dense networks of asymmetrical dependencies through which the natural world is systematically valorised: forests become carbon sinks, soils become agricultural land, rivers become energy resources, and data becomes a raw material for algorithmic infrastructures (see Folkers, 2026). For contemporary art, this would entail a corresponding shift in the horizon of critique. Agnes Denes occupies a historically pivotal position in this regard, as her work, since the early 1980s, has already opened up a perspective that brings ecological and economic questions into relation—most notably in Wheatfield – A Confrontation (1982). For this work, the artist had a wheat field planted on an approximately two-hectare area of reclaimed land directly adjacent to Wall Street. The work thereby confronted agricultural production with finance-capitalist production (see Voelcker, 2024): in a place where agricultural commodities were being traded on global markets only a few metres away, and where land was valued at some of the highest prices in the world, Denes made wheat grow.

Herein lies Denes’s fundamental difference from ‘classical’ Land Art, but also from the practices discussed above of artists who understand themselves as ecologists: Denes does not operate within a supposedly uncompromised natural setting, but rather within a highly economised sphere. Whereas classical Land Art primarily appropriated nature as a material, Denes directs attention toward nature as form and thus toward the social conditions under which nature is transformed into raw material and property. Economy thereby becomes the material precondition of ecology and frames the concept in materialist terms: nature appears as already extensively transformed by human economic activity—and indeed, transformed into ecology. Alongside Denes, a strand of economically critical art has developed since the turn of the millennium, the political quality of which likewise lies in the organisation of parasocial, para-scientific, and para-institutional relations: alternative educational programmes such as The Silent University, Jeanne van Heeswijk’s long-term neighbourhood projects, institutional counter-models proposed by Khalil Rabah and Not An Alternative, as well as Jonas Staal’s parliamentary experiments, understand art as a means of testing alternative social and political institutions, as well as economic ideas that are ecologically relevant (see Chwatal, 2024). An ecologically critical and simultaneously materialist conception of art history that examines art as an integral constituent of society’s relations with the natural world would therefore also approach these works from an ecological perspective, without either morally opposing different forms—for example, an ontological conception of planetary relationality and materialist conception of global economy—or evaluating them exclusively according to their claimed political effects. Rather, it could reconstruct the historical modes of society’s appropriation of nature: classical Land Art understood nature primarily as a material for culturalised processes of formalisation; contemporary ecological art increasingly understands landscape as a network of relational actors, whose care, cultivation, and regeneration become an artistic practice in their own right. Both positions mark significant historical shifts in the history of art. Yet both nonetheless remain insufficient insofar as the economic conditions that enable their own emergence disappear from view. This is where the task of art history lies: in relation to its objects—the artworks—it must reconstruct those social relations with nature within which the natural world comes to appear as a means of production in the first place. The ecological crisis can therefore be understood as a historically specific form of society’s appropriation of nature, in which questions of political economy inevitably lead to questions of ecology. The central challenge for contemporary art consequently lies in aesthetically reflecting upon those economic relations through which the inextricable relationships between nature and culture are produced. Its critical potential would consequently consist in rendering visible those interconnections upon which any economic—and therefore ecological—transformation must necessarily be grounded.

References

Bianchi, B., Lipowsky, A. and Precht, O. (eds.) (2026) Die ontologische Wende: Indigene Kosmologien und die Dekolonisierung des Seins. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Bogner, D. (1988) ‘Kunst und Ökologie: Zum Kunstverständnis in der Ökologiebewegung – Materialien zu einer latenten Kunstdiskussion’, Kunstforum, 93, pp. 54–56.

Burchert, L. (2024) ‘Kunst und Klimapolitik’, Kunstchronik: Monatsschrift für Kunstwissenschaft, Museumswesen und Denkmalpflege, 77(8), pp. 584–589.

Chwatal, C. (2024) Art and Organization in the 21st Century: Contemporary Art’s Strategic-Organizational Complex. Cologne/Amsterdam: University of Cologne/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Fleck, R. (2023) Kunst und Ökologie. Vienna/Hamburg: Edition Konturen.

Folkers, A. (2026) Fossile Moderne: Eine Naturgeschichte der Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Fowkes, M. and Fowkes, R. (2022) Art and Climate Change. London: Thames & Hudson.

Haraway, D. (2016) ‘Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene’, e-flux journal (75). Available at: https://www.e-flux.com/journal/75/67125/tentacular-thinking-anthropocene-capitalocene-chthulucene (Accessed: 28 July 2026). This text is an edited excerpt from Chapter 2 of Donna J. Haraway’s Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (2016, Durham: Duke University Press).

Harutyunyan, A. (2019) ‘Opting for Decoloniality: A Politics of Non-Politics’ (review), Art History 42(5), pp. 996–1000.

Hoormann, A. (1996) Land-Art: Kunstprojekte zwischen Landschaft und öffentlichem Raum. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Huber, M. T. (2022) Climate Change as Class War: Building Socialism on a Warming Planet. London/New York: Verso.

Julie’s Bicycle (2018) Ice Watch London. Available at: https://juliesbicycle.org/news/ice-watch-london-2018/ (Accessed: 28 July 2026).

Lange-Berndt, P. (2021) ‘Treehugging: Kontaktzonen von Kunst und Ökologie’, in Schlitte, A., Verne, M. and Wedekind, G. (eds.) Die Handlungsmacht ästhetischer Objekte. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Brill, pp. 143–166.

Mezzadra, S. and Neilson, B. (2017) ‘On the Multiple Frontiers of Extraction: Excavating Contemporary Capitalism’, Cultural Studies 31(2/3), pp. 185–204.

Nieslony, M. (2022) ‘Moralische oder ethische Wende des gegenwärtigen Kunstdiskurses’, 21: Inquiries into Art, History, and the Visual 2, pp. 343–381.

Ramos, F. (2025) ‘The Artist as Ecologist: Contemporary Art and the Environment’. London: Lund Humphries Publishers.

Ritter, J. (1974) ‘Landschaft: Zur Funktion des Ästhetischen’, in Ritter, J. (ed.) Subjektivität: Sechs Aufsätze. Münster: volume 54 of the published works of the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster, pp. 141–190

Schneemann, P. J. (2022) ‘Der ökologische Imperativ als Paradigma einer engagierten Kunstgeschichte’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 85(4), pp.433–439.

Skrandies, T. and Dümler, R. (eds.) (2023) Kunst im Anthropozän. Cologne: Snoek.

Stakemeier, K. and Vishmidt, M. (2016) Reproducing Autonomy: Work, Money, Crisis and Contemporary Art. London: Mute.

Voelcker, B. (2024) ‘Cultivating Hinterland: What Lies Behind Agnes Denes’ Wheatfield?’, in Gupta, P., Nuttall, S., Peeren, E. and Stuit, H. (eds.) Planetary Hinterlands: Palgrave Studies in Globalization, Culture and Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weilacher, U. (1996) ‘It’s about Art, not Landscape: Michael Heizer’, anthos 1, pp. 12–14.

Michael Klipphahn-Karge is a visual cultural studies scholar and art historian. Since October 2025, he has headed the main field of research ‘Geschichte und Theorie von Kunst und Design’ (History and Theory of Art and Design) at the Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst (Academy of Visual Arts), Leipzig. In addition to a range of other roles, he is also an associate researcher at the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte (Central Institute for Art History) in Munich, where he previously worked as a research assistant in the ‘Kunst, Umwelt, Ökologie’ (Art, Environment, Ecology) research group. He completed his PhD in Art History as a research fellow at the Schaufler Lab at the Dresden University of Technology.