If the modernist artwork was autonomous in the sense of being subject only to the aesthetic laws of its own distinctive being, ecological artworks cannot be understood as ‘autonomous’, but – in accordance with ecological art’s apparent ‘respect’ for, or attitude of ‘letting-be’ (Heidegger) towards the world – rather in terms of a complex interplay of heteronomy and autonomy. This claim is substantiated in the present paper through a scrutiny of the work of two ecological artists, namely Andy Goldsworthy
and Bradley McCallum, and with considerable dependence on the groundbreaking work of Suzi Gablik. It is argued that ecological art marks a radical departure from traditional, modern(-ist) art, in so far
as it engages society or nature as collaborator or partner, transforming it in the process, and Derrida’s notion of two types of hospitality is used to articulate the paradoxical dynamic at work in art of this kind.
AFRIKAANS Indien die modernistiese kunswerk outonoom was in die sin dat dit slegs onderworpe was aan die estetiese wette van die spesifieke synswyse daarvan, kan ekologiese kunswerke nie as ‘outonoom’
verstaan word nie, maar – in ooreenstemming met ekologiese kuns se klaarblyklike ‘respek’ vir, of
houding van "Gelassenheit" (Heidegger) teenoor die wêreld – eerder aan die hand van 'n komplekse wisselspel van outonomie en heteronomie. Hierdie bewering word in die huidige artikel gestaaf deur die werk van twee ekologiese kunstenaars, Andy Goldsworthy en Bradley McCallum, onder die loep te neem, met behulp van die baanbrekerswerk van Suzi Gablik. Daar word geargumenteer dat ekologiese kuns radikaal van tradisionele, moderne kuns verskil, vir sover dit met die samelewing of die natuur saamwerk as vennoot en dit in die proses omvorm. Laastens word Derrida se gedagte van twee tipes gasvryheid benut om die paradoksale dinamiek onderliggend aan hierdie soort kuns aan die lig te bring.
