Serra's Tilted Arc and Public Art
(from Gregg Horowitz: "Public Art/Public Space: the Spectacle of the Tilted Arc Controversy" (JAAC 1996)
and “Transcript of a hearing to decide the future of Tilted Arc”

• Story of Tilted Arc
• Tilted Arc commissioned by Federal government (GSA) for permanent installation in Federal Plaza in Manhattan (NY City)
• Installed in 1981; hearings in 1985
• Taken down and put in storage (destroyed?) in 1989
• General Services Administration (GSA) makes and maintains government property
  • Its "Art in Architecture"(AIA) program takes ½ of one percent of cost of construction or repair and puts it toward funding public art
• The long steel wall (120 feet long by 12 feet high) Richard Serra produced was consistent with earlier works and the concept approved by GSA
• A few objections raised when first installed, but because displeasure is typical at first when any public art is installed, nothing came of this
• In 1985, Diamond a regional administrator of GSA (appointed by Ronald Regan-both a friend and foe of the arts) opposed the structure and he convened a public hearing (in order to get it taken down, says Horowitz)
• 58 testified for removal, 122 against
• Panel of 4 GSA administrators (Diamond stacked the panel with his own employees) voted for removal
• Serra fought the decision in the courts until appeals exhausted in 1989 and GSA took it apart and placed pieces in storage
  
  
• Photos of Tilted Arc :
• One
• Two
• Three
• Four
• Five
  
• Other possibilities for the plaza: Red sculpture
• Today?: Colorful seats in plaza
  

• About Richard Serra
• American sculptor with a substantial reputation
  
  Other Serra sculptures

https://www.themodern.org/slideshow/images/serra_vortex.jpg

https://www.colby.edu/museum/images/serra.456.jpg

https://mocoloco.com/art/archives/serrabilbao_jun_05.jpg

https://www.akiraikedagallery.com/RichardSerra_MarilynMonroeGrataGarbo2.jpg

OPINIONS ABOUT TA FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARINGS

• TA opponents comments (most from people who worked near plaza):
  • A "rusted metal wall"
  • Looks like "an abandoned piece of construction material"
  • "Thought it was an antiterrorist barricade" and wondered "why couldn't have made a more attractive one"
  • "Looks like a tank trap to prevent an armed attack from Chinatown in case of Soviet invasion; but one good Russian tank could probably take it out"
  • "Harsh disorienting effect"
  • "If we call that art, anything can be art: An old broken bicycle that got run over by a car could be put there, named, and called art-that's what has been done here"
    • This is an opposition to much modern art and does not understand what Serra is trying to do
  • "Reclaim this small oasis for the respite and relaxation for which intended"
  • "Artist making a political statement about trade policy (symbol of protectionist viewpoint) as it is outside Court of International Trade"
  • Sculpture's aim was to destroy another artistic creation: "It destroyed the plaza's original artistic concept"
    • Horowitz claims there was little artistic value in original square
  • TA "forgets the human element...not a dispute between forces of ignorance and art or art versus government; expect more from artists"
  • Danny Katz: "Arrogant position that art justifies interference with the simple joys of human activity in the plaza.This is not a great plaza by international standards, but a small refuge and place of revival for people who ride to work in steel containers, work in sealed rooms (with no windows) and breathe recirculated air all day. Is the purpose of art to stress the absence of joy and hope? I can't believe this was the artistic intention, yet sadly this has been the dominant effect of the work (It is arguable that "stressing the absence of joy and hope" was part of Serra's purpose, as interpreted by Horowitz )...I can accept anything in art, but I can't accept physical assault and complete destruction of ordinary human activity...no work of art created with a contempt of ordinary humanity and w/o respect for the common element of human experience can be great...I suggest Mr. Serra take advantage of this opportunity to walk away from this fiasco and move the work to a place where it will better reveal its beauty."
  • Liebman: "Regarded the square as a relaxing space where could walk, sit and contemplate in unhurried manner; dream of additional seating areas, more cultural events; now just memories; TA did not add significant value to plaza, but condemned us to lead emptier lives. The children, bands and I no longer visit the plaza."


• TA supporters comments (most from artworld):
• "Learn more about ourselves and social relations and nature of spaces we inhabit by keeping Tilted Arc in the plaza than without it"
• "Role not to please, entertain or pacify, but to provide an experience that is active, dynamic and keeps us aware of the increasing scarcity of freedom in our world"
• "TA is a modern art piece that challenges us to question received values and nature of art and art's relation to public"
• "Impressionist & post-impressionist paintings were at first reviled and greeted by ridicule by the public and established press. Eiffel Tower was considered a visual obscenity. Truly challenging works of art require a period before they are understood by general public. Should defer the decision to remove for ten years"
• "TA has subversive value as its tilt and rust remind us that the gleaming and heartless steel and glass structures of the state apparatus can someday pass away; it gives us unconscious sense of opposition and hope"
• "Should not let public dispute force the destruction of any artwork with a benign civilizing effect"

QUESTIONS ABOUT TILTED ARC

• Was removal of Tilted Arc (=TA) a democratic action or anti-democratic?
• Was it censorship (in a bad sense?)
  • What is censorship? Is all censorship bad? (No)
  • Horowitz says yes
• Reasons to think it was undemocratic
  • Public procedure put it there
    • Serra (and others argue that) public chose the sculpture: GSA, a public entity, chose artist and made decision to install sculpture permanently, using national standards and formal procedures and a jury system insuring impartiality and selecting art of lasting value
      • Opponent's reply: "Tired and dangerous reasoning that government has made a deal and so let the rabble live with the steel, because it's a deal. This is a mentality that leads to wars.
  • Speakers at the hearing were 2 to 1 in favor of it remaining
  • Horowitz argues process not really democratic as ignored this "polling" (122 to 58)
  • Horowitz claims that the procedure and panel making the decision were manipulated by GSA administrator so that Tilted Arc would be removed
• Reasons to think it was a democratic decision:
  • Probably a vote of uninformed people walking in the plaza wanted it to be removed?
  • Many (most?) considered it an ugly obstruction
  • Workers in surrounding buildings resented its presence
  • Petitions to take it down
  • "Plaza returned to the people" (says regional director of GSA)
• Should decisions about public art be democratic?
  • Should they be determined by popularity, that is, a popular vote?
    
• DISCUSSION OF SITE SPECIFICITY AND IDEA THAT MOVING TA WOULD DESTROY IT
• Tilted arc has a proprietary claim on the plaza just as a painting has to its canvas
• Artists have moral rights to prevent modification /destruction of their artwork
• Serra: To remove Tilted Arc would be to destroy it
• To move it is to destroy it as it was designed for that site
• I don't make portable objects that can be relocated
• Make works that deal with env. components of given places
• Scale, size location of site specific works are determine by the characteristics of the site
• Works become part of and built into structure of site and often restructure it both conceptually and perceptually
• Donald Judd: "One should not destroy art, old or new; art is visible civilization; those who want to ruin Serra's work are barbarians"
  • Critics "Object to idea those of us who oppose this structure are cretins and reactionaries"
• Horowitz: TA designed for site and in part derived its identify from its site; taking it from the plaza was its destruction
  
• Did TA enhance or negate the artistic or aesthetic value of the plaza?
  • Did it contribute value to the plaza?
• Did the plaza have any positive aesthetic value before TA?
  • Horowitz says no
• Did TA purposes and goals and consequences have artistic value?
  • What were these goals and values?
  • Why doesn't Serra come right out and tell us what his (political?) goals are for this sculpture
• Serra description of his own sculptures
  • My sculptures are not objects for viewer to stop and stare at
• They create a behavioral space where viewer interacts with the sculpture in its context
• People's identity connected to their experience of space/place, and site specific sculptures can call on people to relate to the space differently
• It may startle them (and affect their identity?)
• Others say Serra's aims were to:
• "Alter and dislocate the decorative function of the plaza"
• Redefine the space and change viewer's experience of the plaza
• Horowitz on TA's value
  
• Alleged bad consequences if let pressure destroy this artwork
• Serra: If public pressure can get GSA to reverse decision
• Integrity of government programs related to art will be compromised
• Artists of integrity will not participate
  • Kelly claims: "Serra has retreated from public art projects in the U.S."
• Governments' capacity to foster artistic diversity and protect freedom of creative expression will be jeopardized


Gregg Horowitz: Public Art/Public Space: the Spectacle of the Tilted Arc controversy (JAAC 1996)

• Eds on Horowitz
• Instead of a triumph of the public over an elitist/patronizing art world
• Not a triumph of democracy but a victory of regressive political strategy over genuine democratic discourse
• Goal of tilted arc was to provoke the public to engage in critical discussion of nature of public space
• Work can be responsive to the public by making demands on it and this is at least as responsive as a work that is to the public's liking
• Tilted Arc can provoke genuine democratic discourse, but so can graffiti!
  

• Horowitz's general characterizations of the TA controversy
• Viewed as the protection of public space from public art
• Saved the public from art
• Event staged as a contest between:
• The public interest and the artworld
• Concern for open space and effete aesthetic concerns
• People and art
• A drama that has been staged with increased frequency/ferocity in the years since TA
• Removal of TA was censorship
• Strategy of "censorship as liberation"
• Used by regressive political forces for anti-democratic goals
• Opposition to critical art became a mask for anti-democratic tendencies
  

Three objections to TA Horowitz responds to:

• One: TA an improper symbol of the function housed in courthouse and Federal Building and plaza itself
• Two: Sculpture destroyed original beauty of the Plaza
• Three: Prevented the plaza from being used for other purposes



• (1) TA AN IMPROPER SYMBOL?
• It undermined goal of providing a proper identification for the courthouse and generating respect for its symbol of justice
• If failed to meet goals of AIA of "enhancing image of America via government buildings with distinctive American art in public view"
• "TA highlighted the problems of the space it occupied"
• TA an improper symbol for a beneficent federal government providing open space; it should have been a symbol of openness and freedom of movement for the people
• Symbol for a open democracy, democratic accessibility of the government
• For those who worked in the courthouse, they wanted TA to symbolize the glory of American justice as a kind of self-affirmation
• Horowitz response
• "Taste for affirmative symbols of grandeur grows in direct proportion to insecurity about the grandeur itself"
• Horowitz thinks that our modern cities for the most part lack open space
  • So rather than providing it, the government has failed to provide it
  • Perhaps Serra is criticizing our government for not being an open democracy
• So is this a straightforward political objection and hence censorship:
  • Serra's TA was a criticism of public space in cities and got people to see how ugly the square was?
  • People did not like this message and so squelched it
• Does the government have a right to censor art that it pays for and puts on its property?
  
• TA UNDERMINED A DREAM/FANTASY
  • Those who objected to TA had fantasies about and dreams for the plaza and public life
• Liebman: Walk, sit and contemplate in unhurried manner, ray of sunshine bathe the plaza, cool spray of fountain misting hot air, band concerts, children playing, mothers with baby carriages and so on
• Horowitz reply
• 17 years of plaza's existence prior to TA fewer than 20 public events
• No place to sit other than the lip of the fountain (because it was usually dry)
• Plaza a notoriously windy site
• Liebman's dream blocked not by TA but by the space itself and not fair to blame TA for this lack
• TA is not the cause of the deathliness of Federal Plaza nor is it an impediment
• Instead it prevents viewers of it from using the plaza to imagine the existence of an alternative public space
• TA became controversial because it deprived people of their privilege of illusions about what the plaza was (or could be)
• All these folks crammed into offices with no windows, needing a place to go and sit for lunch to get away from "the brutality" of the office complexes (spatial brutalization)
• They imagine (and desire) a real valuable public space
• They turn their anger and despair at TA which deprives them of their ability to imagine/pretend that the plaza is the beautiful, relaxing, valuable public space they need and want
• TA denied the public the ability to imagine a true and real public space (in a world where there was virtually no open space and where malls and other places of congregation substituted for real public space)
• Federal plaza a site of urban fantasy against which TA offends
• TA did not destroy a plaza, but it did destroy a dream



• 2^ND OBJECTION: TA DESTROYED THE BEAUTY OF THE PLAZA
• Horowitz reply
• This is one of the ugliest projects in lower Manhattan
• A product of federally funded urban renewal that destroyed downtowns while trying to help them economically
• Ugly because plaza has features of "degenerate utopianism of urban renewal"
• "A set of building-machines, an efficiency organized office complex, plunked down in middle of a mockery of a street scape as if visible devotion to productivity at the office were itself a human good"
• The plaza looks like government-corporate power
• Ugly incompleteness of Federal Plaza, as money to finish it dried up
• People became skeptical of urban renewal and stopped supporting the development of such plazas
• Even if it had had the potential for being beautiful, the will to make it so had vanished by the time it was built.
• Could have used Money for Serra's TA to make it a friendlier and more attractive place



• 3^rd OBJECTION: THE PLAZA RENDERED LESS USEFUL BY TA?
• The sculpture "act as a barrier to the building" "alters normal walking patterns" make "access to the building awkward and confusing"
• Horowitz reply
• Federal plaza was a dead space before the arc's installation
• Never useful, never provided what it promised
• Did it interrupt free passage through the plaza? No
• Serra did studies required by GSA to determine if work would interfere with routine passages from street to building and discovered that it would not.
• Left half the plaza open for social functions and gave non-working fountain a wide berth
• TA did not interfere with paths of transit, though appeared to do so.
  
  
• Horowitz's analysis of the value of Serra's work:
• Serra did not cause the deadness and usability of Federal Plaza, but he did make it manifest
• A proper function of public art to provoke critical reflection and dialogue on the space it occupies
• TA did not destroy a plaza, but it did destroy a dream
• Federal plaza was a sign of the powerlessness of those who pass through it and focus for fantasies of liberation
  • Critical reflection on TA elicited hostility
• Opposition to TA was a demand for usable public space
• Taking it down was a way to prevent this criticism of the shape of urban policy
• "Saved" the public from critical reflection that would lead to a different and more dangerous democratic dialogue
• But the hearing could have been this dialogue
• Is the idea that leaving TA there would have promoted this dialogue?

 

DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR ART AND PUBLIC ART AS A SPECIAL TYPE OF SUBSIDY

• SHOULD WE PROVIDE PUBLIC SUBSIDIES FOR ART AND IF SO WHY?
• Proponents of art must show how art enriches lives of those who experience it and how society is better off with art
• Pleasure defense won't work
• Giving people pleasure never a proper function of government
• Pleasure defense also doesn't work, as much art difficult and offensive
• Pleasure defense suggests that public subsidized art should be pleasing and uncontroversial
• Some see public funding for arts (NEA, GSA's AIA program) as support for special interests
• "We don't support bowling or other forms of public entertainment, why support arts?"
  • Faulty assumption that the arts are "entertainment"
• Reasons for public subsidies
• W/o public subsidy, art not disappear, but less widely available
• Much art isn't and can't be self-supporting
• Grants give artists freedom to produce non-commercial art
• Which is more challenging and original compared to commercial art which is the lowest common denominator of art
  
• Should government (e.g., NEA) give art grants without political considerations or political appointees evaluating their appropriateness?
• NEA turning down some grants that had been approved by panels of outside experts (artists in the field) and civil servants in NEA
  
• PUBLIC ART
• Public subsidized art commissioned to be placed in public sites
• Often this art defines great cities
• Public art is an especially controversial kind of public subsidy of art
• Why?
• Best artists who likely to be commissioned may not be understood or liked by public who view the art
• Public has little understanding or taste for best art
• Putting art in public places forces it on citizens in a way in which other public subsidies of art do not
• Not just forcing people to pay for art they may not like
• But forcing them to view it as well
• Need especially stringent guidelines for this sort of public subsidy
• We might be willing to fund some art that we wouldn't want to fund as public art
• Homosexual erotic art
• Fund movies that should not be public (children should not see)
  
• Should the goal of public art be to satisfy public taste or should public art be taken as an opportunity to educate and shape public taste?
• Is public art a failure if it is widely disliked by community in which it exists?
  • Yes if the goal of public art is to satisfy public taste.
• If being disliked constitutes a failure, this is not necessarily an artistic or aesthetic one as public may have bad taste
• Who is the relevant public (locals who experience public art everyday or wider community, perhaps the nation?)
  • People who walked the plaza everyday may have disliked TA, while people around the nation who pay attention to art my have supported TA