"Tilted Arc" makes its point

In class we have talked about Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc" a number of times. Although I acknowledge Prof. Folland's and many others' criticism that the work is arrogant and impractical, I think the work raises some very interesting points and is actually quite successful in what it seeks to accomplish. Critics of the work argue that the minimalist structure is arrogant and speaks only to a bourgeois audience in its lack of representation and its siting is disrespectful because it causes a daily inconvenience for the people that must circumvent it while they navigate the plaza on the way to work. I think the criticism of the work is the perfect demonstration of Serra's intent: to make people intimately aware of the spatial relationships that govern everyday life. In this respect the work functions much the same as Ball-Nogues' "Feathered Edge", which I have previously blogged about. Furthermore, while the siting of the work presents an inconvenience for pedestrians it is precisely due to that inconvenience that the pedestrian becomes the viewer and as the viewer is forced to reconcile with the art work.

Richard Serra describes the function of "Tilted Arch": "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As he 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." It is precisely because the "the entire environment changes" that so many people don't like the work. On one level, I can appreciate this criticism because in all likelihood the plaza was a much more pleasant environment before the wall was erected; however, to dwell on this is to miss the point. The wall forces the viewer to analyze all elements of the built environment with the logical conclusion being that many of the structures we dismiss and therefore accept may actually be hugely inconvenient and many spaces may be more pleasant without the structures that currently occupy them. The wall should force all viewers to reevaluate the spatial uses contemporary society has deemed acceptable. The viewer should not focus on how nice the plaza was before the wall, but rather should imagine how pleasant that plaza was before Manhattan was developed and it was still a natural environment. The conclusion should not be "let's remove the wall", but "let's reevaluate the spatial uses contemporary society has deemed acceptable." The work should prompt questions, such as, are our current uses of space in tune with nature? And, is the way that modern society consumes space sustainable?

Ultimately, I think the work is uncompromising in its refusal to yield to convenience and practicality but why should it? The Eiffel Tower was originally considered an eye-sore but is now a world-renown and much beloved symbol of Paris. The point is many of the structures contemporary man has erected could and probably should be written off for the same reasons that "Tilted Arc" was so maligned, yet they get a free pass because viewers have not been trained to critically analyze the structures that occupy their everyday life. "Tilted Arc" on the other hand is held to a higher standard of criticism because that is what the concept of the work asks viewers to do. Therefore it should not be a surprise that when viewers actually think critically about the built environment they disapprove of it. This is Serra's point after all. It is just unfortunate that society has not applied the same level of scrutiny to all structures; if we did, a lot more structures would be removed due to popular demand.