Serra's Tilted Arc and Public Art

Many ideas from Gregg Horowitz: "Public Art/Public Space: the Spectacle of the Tilted Arc Controversy" (JAAC 1996)

• Story of Tilted Arc
• Tilted Arc commissioned by Fed gove (GSA) for permanent installation in square in Manhattan
• Installed in 1981
• Taken down and put in storage (destroyed?) 1989
• GSA makes and maintains government property and has "Art in Architecture"(AIA) program whereby ½ of one percent of cost of construction or repair go to funding public art.
• The long steel wall 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) who opposed the structure 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
  • Horowitz argues not really democratic as ignored this "polling"
• Serra fought it in courts until appeals exhausted in 1989 and GSA took it apart and placed pieces in storage destroyed Tilted Arc


• 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)



• Tilted Arc photos:
  Ugly
  Less ugly
  Cool
  Cool (2)
  Color
  
• Other possibilities for the plaza
• Red sculpture
• 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

https://www.colby.edu/museum/images/Serra.Coltrane.jpg

QUESTIONS ABOUT TILTED ARC

• Was removal of Tilted Arc (=TA) a democratic action or anti-democratic?
• Was it censorship (in a bad sense?)
  • Is all censorship bad?
  • Horwitz says yes
• Public procedure put it there
• Speakers at the hearing: over 2 to 1 wanted it to remain
• Procedure and panel fixed by GSA administrator in order to get it removed (says Horowitz)
• But probably a vote of uninformed people walking in the plaza wanted it to be removed?
• Should the goal of public art be to satisfy public taste or be an opportunity to educate and shape public taste?
• Is public art a failure if widely disliked by community in which it exists?
• If a failure, not necessary 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?)
  • Perhaps we get different answers to these questions when talk about different public art.
• Did removing it destroy TA?
• Did TA destroy the artistic/aesthetic value of the plaza?
  • Did it contribute value to the plaza?
• Did the plaza have any aesthetic value before TA?
  • Horowitz: 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
  • What Serra does say about TA
• Horowitz on TA's value
  • Note that Horowitz's interpretation of the meaning of TA is not the same as Serra's.
  • This could be a case of "anti-intentionalism": Where the meaning of the artwork is not determined by the artists intention.
    

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 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
• Homo erotic art
• Fund movies that should not be public (children should not see)

TRANSCRIPT

• TA opponents comments:
• 120 feet long by 12 feet high "A rusted metal wall"
• "An abandoned piece of construction material"
• "Looks like a tank trap to prevent an armed attack from Chinatown in case of Soviet invasion; but one good Russian take could probably take it out"
• "harsh disorienting effect"
• "If we call that art, anything can be art: An old broken bicycle that govt run over by a car and up it there and name it and call it 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"
• "Thought it was an antiterrorist barricade" and wondered why couldn't have made a more attractive one"
• "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
• "Forgets the human element...not a dispute between forces of ignorance and art or art versus government; expected 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 (I do think this 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 pathetic 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 square as 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 signifcant value to plaza, but condemned us to lead emptier lives. The children, bands and I no longer visit the plaza


• TA supporters comments:
• 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
• But it was created in 1981 and taken down in 1989
• 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; give us unconscious sense of opposition and hope
• Should not let public dispute force the destruction of any artwork with a benign civilizing effort.



• DISCUSSION OF SITE SPECIFICITY AND IDEA THAT MOVING IT WOULD DESTROY IT
• "Don't destroy it, find a new location for Tilted Arc"
• Tilted arc has a proprietary claim on the plaza just as a painting has to its canvas
• Serra: To remove Tilted Arc would be to destroy it
• Serra: to move it is to destroy it as designed for that site
• Moral rights of artists to oppose modification /destruction of their artwork
• 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 dy 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 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



• SERRA'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT TA WAS ABOUT
• Works not objects for viewer to stop and stare at
• 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 sculpture can call on people to relate to the space differently
• It may startle them
• 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


• 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."



• Alleged bad consequences if let pressure destroy this artwork
• If public pressure can get GSA to reverse decision
• Integrity of gove 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."
• Gove's 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!
  

• General characterizations of the 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

• 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



• 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"
• So this is 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
• "TA highlighted the vistalessness of the space it occupied"
• Horowitz response
• "Taste for affirmative symbols of grandeur grows in direct proportion to insecurity about the grandeur itself"
• For those who worked in courthouse, they wanted TA to symbolize the glory of American justice as a kind of self-affirmation
  

• TA an improper symbol for a beneficent federal government providing open space, a symbol of openness and freedom of movement for the people
• Symbol for a open democracy, democratic accessibility of the government
• But 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
• And perhaps Serra is criticizing our government for not being an open democracy



• 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 blames 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 (spacial brutalization) and imagine a real valuable public space, the 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.
• It 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 down towns 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 it 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?