In the economic, social and political environments of the 1960s, themass media evolution led photography and television reports to take over the representation of nature and landscape. Until then, the illustration of nature and landscape had been the preserve of artists. The new trend was to move away from the idyllic representation of the natural world in order to reveal nature as it really is, alive and fragile, a nature in which man plays an integral role while also posing a threat to its integrity.Landscapes started to feature ecological disasters such as: decimated forests, clouds of dioxin billowing from chemical reactors, oil spills in the sea or also cement work, – in essence, familiar images that strike the imagination. Such representation of landscape was in itself a challenge. Concepts connected to the idea of nature, such as a global climate, pollution, scale effect, and long term impact, introduced an element of immateriality.Various strategies to create visual and plastic representations were initiated across the world; a number of artists renewed their approach to nature. They envisaged it in its physical and biological processes, and addressed it as a series of ecosystems and locations that need to be rehabilitated. Concrete actions in the public sphere have sometimes produced significant results: photos, objects, performances, environments, as well as draft communiqués, declarations, manifestos, open letters and the participation in associations or political parties.The presentation of the body of plastic formulation and/or militant acts raises the issue of their impact. Do they represent the renewal of the social role of the artist, or are they just an utopian vision? How do their authors envisage them? Are their effects measurable? Can it be the subject of environmental studies? What methodology to use? And what are its limitations ?