I was introduced to Denevan’s works a couple of months ago by a friend of mine and a colleague with whom I worked on an article. We were searching for case studies for our analysis to illustrate how art can be productively used for raising knowledge about eco-sensitivity, ecology, and protection of the natural environment. When she showed me his projects I got immediately fascinated by them--by both their great scale and their ephemeral character. Most alluring were their cooperative, material-semiotic, human-nonhuman nature and their fragile, vulnerable, and necessarily temporary existence. I encountered the works via high quality digital photographs taken by the artist’s team, usually from a helicopter hovering over the ephemeral constructions. This perspective, obviously, is not innocent or unmediated. Conversely, it demands engagement of a whole (often invisible) apparatus enabling viewing from high altitudes, which makes possible admiring the works in their spatial immensity. I have never met or talked to the artist in person. Neither have I seen his works unmediated by different means of communication. Therefore, my knowledge and experience of them is interceded with different textual/visual (that is, also material-semiotic) factors and circumstances. Interestingly, such a perspective allows for encountering the works in full size, in form of high quality photographs taken both in the moment of their production by the artist and afterwards, when they are in the processes of their further becomings or, in fact, systematic vanishing. This, possibly, makes the viewer more aware of the entangled nature of these ephemeral artistic constructions, relying on the complex set of relations between the natural and technological forces. Certainly, encountering these works as a part of an audience present on site creates a different knowledge and a different experience. This, however, has not yet been possible for me. My analysis, therefore, focuses on the beautiful documentary pictures produced by the artist’s team and is based on my readings of interviews with Denevan as well as on viewing short documentaries on him and his geoartistic interventions. Nevertheless, even though I remain completely chuffed by the relational, cooperative, and connective character of Denevan’s artistic practices, I also stay alert to the technological (often invasive) circumstances of their production as well as to the risks such aesthetizing movements might possibly entail.