The Removal of Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc

The Removal of Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc

To agree or not agree of the removal of Tilted Arc

Tilted Arc was a 12 foot tall and 120 foot long curving wall of raw steel sculpture designed by Richard Serra. It was placed in Lower Manhattan Federal Plaza for bystanders to experience the sculpture in a physical way. According to Serra, he wanted "the viewer [to] become aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As [the viewer] moves, the sculpture changes. Contraction and expansion of the sculpture result from the viewer's movement. Step by step the perception not only of the sculpture but of the entire environment changes."[1] In 1979, United States General Service Administration also known as the GSA commissioned Richard Serra to create the large scale Tilted Arc sculpture permanently for the governmental buildings – or so they thought.

Serra’s Tilted Arc began to create controversy as soon as it was erected in 1981. It was called “an awkward, bullying piece that may conceivably be the ugliest work of outdoor art in the city”[2] by Grace Glueck an New York Times art critic. When Richard Serra thought it couldn’t get even worst, over 1,300 employees from the two governmental buildings that shared the Federal Plaza with the sculptured signed their names requesting to remove the sculpture. One employee complained saying “we who work here are left with a once beautiful plaza rendered useless by an ugly, rusted, steel wall.”[3]

However, Richard Serra was not all in favor. He wrote to regional administrator, William Diamond, that the “work has been publicly installed in a number of cities in the United States and abroad, and who will have a one-man show at the Museum of Modern Art next year, insists that ''Tilted Arc'' was wrought specifically for the site at Federal Plaza and nowhere else. “To remove the work is to destroy the work.” “[4] In other words, Tilted Arc was designed specifically for Federal Plaza location therefore it is “site-specific.” Regardless that it is site-specific using this term has no magical effect. Even in itself, the art world truly doesn’t follow the concept of site-specific. If so, “religious paintings and icons that were created for churches and had long resided in churches now exhibited under glass in museums. Perhaps, their meaning changed — from awakening a feeling of devotion to something judged primarily by aesthetic criteria — or its original value was lost over time.”[5] For this reason, Richard using the term site specific as an argument do not mean anything to the public.

Serra continues to argue that moral rights clause of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, protects Tilted Arc from removal and states "this isn't democracy, it's a lynch mob. A panel of government experts chose me. The government shouldn't be asking people about esthetics. This is censorship of creative expression."[6] However, Serra seemed to forget what he signed in the General Service Administration (GSA) contract in the beginning. In the contract, he agreed that the GSA owns the work of Tilted Arc, so they are able to do whatever they wanted. Not only that, he seemed to also forget what a “democracy” is the power that is vested in the people, which the people who signed their names requesting to remove the sculpture were heard. Therefore, “there was nothing in the contract that Serra had signed that guaranteed the sculpture's permanence in the plaza, and the public interest in its removal trumped any aesthetic or free speech considerations.” [7]

Not only that, Tilted Arc was funded by the government and since the GSA is established by the government. It is the governmental responsibility to make the decision to place art that is paid by the public funds in a public plaza. This is not a concern with private art paid with private funds on private property. This is the public’s money so the public should participate in the decision-making process to purchase public art with the public funds for a public place. Local communities should have input into the process prior to the selection and installation. It is unfortunate that thee GSA did not sought after views from the members of the Federal Plaza and local community before erecting the sculpture. With that being said, “public art paid for by the taxpayers' money has a public responsibility, and if, as in this case, that art is detrimental to the public interest in the site that it inhabits, it should be moved elsewhere so that others can enjoy it in a setting that is not harmful to the community or the public”[8]

Of March of 1989, Tilted Arc was cut into 3 pieces and stored to a warehouse. Richard Serra saw his artwork as destroyed because it was removed from the site. Instead, the space has become an open social functional space with benches and planters. The plaza was renovated with a architect that was commission to installed  a bright green maze with seating for workers to have their lunches. All in all, as an alternative solution, in dealing with this controversial piece of public art could have been relocation. It gives opportunity to the artist as of recognition. It may not have worked in one area but it could have worked in another. Pridefully, Richard was given that opportunity and it turned it down. For that reason, it was put into a warehouse.

   

[1] PBS. Accessed October 11, 2018. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/visualarts/tiltedarc.html.

[2] Grace Glueck, "An Outdoor Sculpture Safari Around New York," The New York Times,

 August 7, 1981.

[3] Glueck, Grace. "WHAT PART SHOULD THE PUBLIC PLAY IN CHOOSING PUBLIC ART?" The New York Times. February 03, 1985. Accessed October 14, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/03/arts/what-part-should-the-public-play-in-choosing-public-art.html.

[4] Glueck, Grace. "WHAT PART SHOULD THE PUBLIC PLAY IN CHOOSING PUBLIC ART?" The New York Times. February 03, 1985. Accessed October 14, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/03/arts/what-part-should-the-public-play-in-choosing-public-art.html.

[5] Grant, Daniel. "Why "Site-Specific" Isn't So Specific." Hyperallergic. November 26, 2014. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://hyperallergic.com/158338/why-site-specific-isnt-so-specific/.

[6] "New Yorkers, Artists Tilt Over 'Arc'." The Washington Post. March 07, 1985. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1985/03/07/new-yorkers-artists-tilt-over-arc/a9132351-a9cb-472b-9747-7fc4f473b216/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5e92f31fb5b.

[7] "Richard Serra's Tilted Arc | WNYC | New York Public Radio, Podcasts, Live Streaming Radio, News." WNYC. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://www.wnyc.org/story/richard-serras-tilted-arc/.

[8] Brenson, Michael. "ART VIEW; THE CASE IN FAVOR OF A CONTROVERSIAL SCULPTURE." The New York Times. May 19, 1985. Accessed October 16, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/19/arts/art-view-the-case-in-favor-of-a-controversial-sculpture.html