Art culture concepts and significance

Art Culture: Public Space Art

Public art like that of Koon's Train (2011), Serra's Tilted Arc (1981), Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial (1981), and James' Sea Flower (1978), ignite discussion to the point of its modification, re-arrangement, or removal. The reason for this controversial treatment of public art is its ability to embrace a variety of aesthetic practices. The adoption of different aesthetic values like poster art, outdoor sculpture, earthworks, multimedia projections, and community-based projects among others, breaks the public's traditional understanding of art (Glahn, 2000). This critique finds that the public's totalizing classification of public sphere brings about controversy and dialogue over public art displays. By reviewing the famous public art "Tilted Arc" (1981) by Richard Serra, this analysis will show that there are distinct differences between public understanding and professional understanding of public art.

The government with the intention of exhibiting, protecting, and edifying art, commissions public art in America to identifying with national pride. To Levine (2002), artists follow the traditions of public art where it holds the highest moral, aesthetic value, and satisfied the interest of the mass (52). In this context, public art becomes a nuisance is if is deliberately ignores public approval. This policy creates a paradox in the art world, since the art world resists the need to create art that meets the tastes and preferences of states and majority. However, democracies require public art to meet the tastes and preferences of the ruling power and the majority (Levine 53). In this light, public art in public spaces raises controversy in the public because institutional artists defy the majority. Public art that disrupts and reviews the social status, and prevents the community the right to move and inhabit public space is often rejected (Lewis and Lewis 68). This critique uses the example of the "Tilted Arc" in showing how institutional artists defy public sphere, the interests of majority, and creates art that is rejected.

The "Tilted Arc" is an outdoor sculpture commissioned by the General Services Administration, through its program "Art in Architecture Program." The commissioning of this public piece was an attempt by the GSA to reinvent itself, and "rethink of public art as a subsection of the art world" (Fleming 58). The GSA commissioned Serra to create an artwork in the form of a cor-ten steel wall that would run through the plaza, outside the Federal Court House, in New York (Wall Street Journal, Editorial a, 1). The funds for the project were from the coffers of the GSA, which allocates a half of a percent of the cost to prominent artists (Levine 53). The GSA committee selected Richard Serra from a list of professional artists, believing his work was monumental to stand in the shadow of Manhattan's skyscrapers like the World Trade Center (Levine 53). The GSA believed Serra had the artistic skills to create a public art that could capture the fast, enterprise, and energetic movement of Manhattan's inhabitants.

However, the artwork turned out to be a disaster. It was a huge wall set in the plaza and interfered with pedestrian traffic by interrupting the walk path (Fleming 58). Serra intensions were to have deep and disturbing implications to the viewer, to highlight the manner in which public life and involvement with the federal government affected Americans. To achieve this, the artists studied the pedestrians and their movement in the plaza. After completion, the inspection of the sculpture rested on the GSA that included a health and safety inspection. This inspection included lighting, pedestrian traffic, law enforcement, and drainage.

The "Tilted Arc" after completion dissected the plaza space, blocking paths and views for frequent visitors and workers at the plaza. The sculpture was an unfinished Cor-ten steel, solid plate, 2.5 inches thick, 12 feet high, and 120 feet long (Levine 53). The sculpture was site specific since it was fixed into the ground. Serra intended the tilted sculpture to give the viewer a perception of movement, by having different heights, and tilts (Wall Street Journal, Editorial b 1). Since, the sculpture was not finished; it oxidized to have a natural rusty appearance, blending into the site. Given the reaction of the public it is evident Serra did meet his intentions, though it did not meet the expectations of the GSA. Visitors to the plaza that experienced the sculpture realized it was an eye-sore for it inconvenienced and interrupted their daily life (Fleming 59). The interruption led to a court case, as Serra's educational intention was trumped by public opinion.

There are several reasons for a piece of public art like the "Tilted Arc" or the "Sea Flower" to turn into a public nuisance, rather than an appeal. This analysis finds that one of the key reasons for the controversy around the "Tilted Arc" is associated with theories and concepts on public sphere. Traditionally, a bourgeois model holds the public sphere in high esteem or ideal situation for civic discourse. In this discourse, the public sphere constitutes the separation of the public from private and public spheres (Glahn 10). In this model, critical reasoning defines the public sphere as that which is universally accessible and is in opposition to public and private power interests, enterprises, and apparatus (Gamboni 155).

The public space is any space, which is open to individual despite their culture, socio-economic, gender, or ethnicity standing. According to Neal Zachary (2010), in principle and not in practice, the public space is an area that is accessible to all members of the society (1). In history, public spaces are simply areas accessible to all, but act as realms allowing the public sphere, where individuals deliberate, form, and discuss political consensus as discussed by Habermaes. This sphere is respected and valuable to the society for it mediates between state and society, where the public organizes it in terms of public opinion (Habermaes 50). This is seen in the exemplification of public spaces in the renaissance, ancient Greece, the enlightenment, and early 19th century. Therefore, the public space is the surface on which the public deliberates and comes to a consensus; the sphere becomes a democratic functioning of the society. This description is a possible explanation for the rejection of the "Tilted Arc" by Manhattan. The sculpture invaded the plaza, the public space, and public sphere for those that frequently visit it. In many respects, the sculpture interrupted the interaction of the members of this community, as it blocked their walkways and paths (Gamboni 155). This interruption represents the inability of the sculpture to respect the deliberations and interactions occurring in the plaza, the public sphere for the occupants of the Federal building. According to Habermaes, the public space is the physical location where political and social interactions and activities occur (50).

To Jurgen Habermaes the public sphere is a dominion in the social life, where public opinion is formed and accessible to all (51). To Habermaes, public sphere should be blind to class associations and positions, and calls for general interest, therefore a product of democracy. The rise the change in perception of life and art in the modern world is one reason for the controversy behind every public art. This is evident in the deterioration of the public sphere following the rise of mass culture and welfare state interference (Galhn 10). Habermas, believes that the borders between private, public, and state in the current world are transgressed, supporting Galhn's view. This transgression constitutes the de-valuing of public sphere, and explains the negative opinions against many of the public art (Gamboni 155). The transgression of the public sphere is also identified as the turning of culture into an ideology, making it loose its position. In this understanding, leisure time and arts are invaded by popular culture, and by economic and private interests, leading to the replacement of apolitical consumption with critical dialogue (Galhn 12). In this light, it is evident that instead of Manhattans viewing the "Tilted Arc" as part of the city's art and culture, they viewed it as a transgressor.

The invasion of their space or public sphere arose from their lack of understanding of professional art. A general dislike among Manhattans rejected the "Tilted Arc." According to Levine (2002), this arose from the sculptures inability to meet and satisfy the public's tastes, aesthetic value, and preferences. The artist failed to consider the voices and opinions of the public prior to designing and erecting the sculpture (Lewis and Lewis 68). Moreover, the art critiques and GSA committee that approved the sculpture assumed that the artwork would please the public. This follows the general assumption in the art world that art is meant to displease, unsettle, and upset or the theory of avant-garde (Levine 54). The sculpture did not represent their culture or life, and therefore, was not embraced as public art, but an invader of public sphere.

Secondly, since the sculpture is a representation of the policies and involvement of interest groups and the government into their life. The refusal for Manhattans to accept the sculpture as public art is associated with the weakening of the principles of public sphere in the twentieth-century (Habermaes 51). This is because the 20th century public sphere constitutes organized individuals that exert their influence over public debate and sphere institutionally. This public cannot appreciate the placement of public art in the public sphere, unlike the 18th century public. According to Habermaes, public art gained popularity in the 18th century, since the public was subject to political decisions and interests. In that era, the public sphere was marked by a close link between church, state, public, and private sectors, under a feudal system. In this system, the power relations and levels of power saw political authority hold the highest levels of power (Habermaes 52). At this high level of power, politicians and rulers represented their ideals and state inform of symbols in the public sphere, for example statutes and emblems of the ruler. This public appreciated these as forms of art, which represented their identity, culture, and community (Kleiner 793). However, since these ideals no longer exist in the 20th century world, the placement of any public art by public, private, or government institutions draws controversy.

Transcending from this thought, this critique finds that public art controversy in America, particularly in the case of Manhattan arises from a lack of understanding of the definition of "public art." According to Doss (2006), public art is any form of artwork in the public realm, despite its position on private or public property, or if it is gained through private or public funding (2). Therefore, public art is any sculpture, lighting, manhole cover, building facade, fresco, play equipment, engraving, mosaic, tapestry, photograph, mural, drawing, gate, or earthwork (Doss 2). Public art takes any form, be it permanent, figurative, temporary, fabricated, abstract, or mass produced. Doss identifies public art as a multifaceted culture open to all artists and artistic language. Therefore, within this definition the "Tilted Arc" is a public art (Kleiner 793). It is evident that Manhattan did not understand the concept or meaning of public art as seen by professional artists. For this reason, critical arguments against the sculpture arose.

However, since there are many forms of public art in the American community, a possible explanation for the rejection of the "Tilted Arc" is the public's fictive and unstable perception. This is associated with the public art's multifaceted dimensions, forms in a multiple public in America that is highly unstable in its perception and tastes (Doss 2). On the other hand, Doss believes no one can inhabit the public, since everyone brings particularities to abstract themselves to the public discourse (2). Therefore, being public entails the shared assumptions of participants comprising the public sphere, and are entitled to rights and privileges. On this note, it is evident that Serra failed to meet the standards of being public, by refusing to share assumptions and beliefs (Kleiner 793). Serra created a sculpture and placed it in the public sphere without considering the assumptions of the people. In the event, the sculpture failed to capture the feelings and ideals of the society at the time, leading to its rejection by Manhattans.

It is also most probable that the piece of art was not able to capture the cultural spirit of the community at the time. According to Sharon Zukin (2003), public art in public spaces is a powerful cultural tool for controlling cities (12). This is lies in the concept that current American life is filled with commercial forces that have a strong effect on the spaces, culture, and consumers. The public is reduced to consumption of space and culture, creating the "Symbolic Economy." Zukin believes that this culture entails the building of cities depending on the labor, land, and capital, and the manipulation of symbolic languages of entitlement and exclusion. In this system, traditional societies placed within their public spheres entitlement like images of certain individuals and institutions like churches and cathedrals. However, since today's society has overcome the prestige of political and social classes, making these institutions and individuals irrelevant, the placement of their images in public is refuted (Zukin 2).

On another note, individuals with economic and political power have the best opportunity to shape the public through its culture, by controlling public spheres or spaces. Therefore, economic forces have the capability to shape cities and towns those urban planners and designers do (Lewis and Lewis 68). For this reason, though the GSA had the mandate and economic ability to change the shape of Manhattan by commission public art, it is the greater economic masses the made the decision on their preferred choice of art (Kleiner 792). Zukin believes the economic principle is the cause for the rejection of public art by today's societies (4).

The economic principle creates more work for individuals, who become busy, make more money, become comfortable, attach importance to their opinions, and respect each other (Zukin 5). This is true for Manhattan is a hub of diverse commercial activities that draws people from different parts of the world. In addition, the individuals working and visiting the Jacobs Javits Federal Building, have economic as well as political power, and have an attachment to their opinions. Following Zukin's (2003) argument, it is no wonder the "Tilted Arc" received immediate criticism from the public (4). This is with the initial petitions demanding its removal, mostly from those that worked in the Federal building adjacent to the plaza. An important public figure very vocal on the subject was Chief Judge Edward, and actively circulated petitions and protested against the sculpture. The Chief Judge referred to the sculpture as the "rusted steel barrier" prior to its completion (Levine 53). This public rejection of the sculpture saw the GSA receive four thousand five hundred letter and appeals requesting the removal of the piece for its inconvenience, ugliness, incomprehension, and intimidation (Levine 54). This led to a public hearing on the march of 1985, that saw art experts, sculptors, workers, art administrators, politicians, curators, dealers, painters, playwrights, and performance artists testify. Of the 180 witnesses called to the hearing, 122 requested the preservation of the sculpture, with only 58 calling for its removal. Despite their small number, those for the removal of the sculpture won.

Levine (2002) identifies the lack of connection between the sculpture and the public as the cause for its removal (54). The public did not comprehend nor connect with the sculpture, its language, or theme. This analysis finds that the sculpture was removed following the strong political and economic forces in the public that "disliked" it. The political and economic forces of the city choose to listen and respect the wishes of the public, rather than that of the few professional artists. This turn of events adheres to Zukin's (2003) theory in "Whose Culture? Whose City?" where the greatest economic and political forces control the building of a city (6). In Zukin's theory, the opinions of the people matter for they control and determine the political and economic forces. For this reason, the ruling class listened to the public outcry and removed the sculpture. In the destruction of the "Tilted Arc," Manhattan adhered to Zukin's principle where culture is an economic base (7). In this society, the public that pays values its public sphere or space as an object of visual consumption. Therefore, by the "Tilted Arc" being a public eye sore, it failed to meet their visual need for consumption. This failure meant that the paying public had more will force over the body of professional artists to have the sculpture removed. For this reason, despite the overwhelming support for the sculpture from the artistic world, the paying or economic Manhattan won. Therefore, these economic and political reasons prevent the "Tilted Arc" from being a "public art." The "Tilted Arc" seized from sharing a similar assumption with the public, fueling public rejection.

For these reasons, the many witnesses of the "Tilted Arc," and those that testified in the public hearing feared the sculpture's representative character. They raised concerns of what the sculpture would say to the world about their local government, their community, and their nation (Levine 65). For example, one of the witnesses cited the many visitors that visited the federal building to apply for naturalization and immigration. They felt the rusty presence that blocked pathways and walkways in the plaza would create an image of a hostile America. This was a picture of contrast to the hope of emerging from the building with new hope, promise, and dreams of a better future for their families and themselves (Levine 65). The witness identifies that these visitors would have negative images of the nation, as the sculpture would remind them of the iron curtain from which they escaped. Another witness that worked for the Bureau of Investigation, had concerns the sculpture was an indication America had departed from its aesthetic traditions. Therefore, in a society that used public spaces to interact and debate political and social issues, the sculpture was turned into a social and political debate. The public space and public sphere principles postulated by Levine, Neal, Habermaes, and Zukin, explain the transformation of the sculpture by public perception. In that, a sculpture that was created without indecency, violence or political partisan was turned into a political and social controversy (Levine 65). The explanations given by the opponents to the sculpture indicate a need for social and political identification in public art.

On the other hand, those that support the "Tilted Arc" were impassioned about its representation of the public. Proponents put their emphasis of support on the artwork's non-conformity, for they saw it as proof of the commitment to freedom of expression by America (Levine 65). One of the witnesses for the preservation of the sculpture believes it is the expression of a society that is dedicated to the preservation of individual rights and freedom. This was also support by the art historian, Sandler Irving, that the only form of a democratic society is the achievement of a valid public art, by allowing different artists to express themselves freely (Levine 65). Professional artists believed that in this manner, art becomes a valid form of expression of democracy, by communicating unorthodox and marginal perspectives that prove the society's commitment to diversity and tolerance.

Gilbert identifies controversy over a public art like the "Tilted Arc," as accredited to the issue of symbols and images being real to the public (20). The public in U.S. holds the perception that the politics especially right-wing politics holds influential power in symbols and images. Therefore, in their eyes public art takes the form of art and critic, in a constant contextualization, that represents the culture, politics, history, and art of the society (Gilbert 22). Manhattan felt the "Tilted Arc" did not meet this concept of public art, thereby did meet the idea of aesthetics of the era.

An author like Fred Kleiner (2010) believes the "Tilted Arc" failed in gaining the approval of Manhattan due to the prevailing social and political conditions of the era. In the early 1980s, public art raised questions on the nature of public art, public reception of experimental art, the rights and responsibilities of the artist in executing commissions for the public (Kleiner 792). The second discussion issues at the time are the application of similar or different guidelines for public art as those of gallery art. Despite these issues, Kleiner identifies that the public believed Serra imposed his values and tastes on the public. Serra applied avant-garde, which is the challenging of convention by rejecting tradition, disrupting complacency of art viewers (Kleiner 792). The application of avant-garde is a theory Levine (2003) proposes as the cause for the rejection of the "Tilted Arc." By imposing his ideals in his sculpture, Serra made the public art be rejected by the same viewer it was to impress and represent.

Therefore, in every respect for the principles of public space and public sphere, the "Tilted Arc" was a representation of public art. This analysis finds that the decision to remove the art from public space was driven by a lack of understanding and education on the meaning of public art. The public were also not educated through art catalogues the meaning of the "Tilted Arc," its place as a public art, or its interaction with public sphere. It is the opinion that the GSA imposed the art onto the public without factoring in the changing social and political interests in public emblems. Moreover, the GSA committee overlooked the power of the paying public, or economic and political class that enforces respect on its opinions. The "Tilted Arc" failed to depict its true intention of democracy, meet public interest, tastes, and preferences. The colossal manner in which it blocked their pathways and walkways represented an interruption of their public sphere.