Tilted Arc Essay
Taking A Stance On Public Art (Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc)
The monumental sculpture titled Tilted Arc by Richard Serra is considered by the general public to be a nuisance, eyesore, inconvenience, and certainly not a work of art. It has been commissioned by the Arts-in-Architecture program of the U.S. General Services Administration, which earmarks 0.5 percent of a federal building's cost for artwork.The sculpture was a solid, unfinished plate of Core-Ten steel, 120 feet long, 12 feet high, and 2.5 inches thick. As its name suggests, it was slightly tilted. Serra said of the design, "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."
In March of 1985 a public hearing was held for the sculpture, with 122 people testifying in favor of keeping the piece, and 58 in favor of removing it. A jury of five voted 4-1 to remove the sculpture …show more content…
It doesn’t fit the norm, it’s rusty, it’s in your face, but it is art. It’s the type of art you have to deal with, art that forces you to reevaluate you view of art every time you pass it. Richard Serra is quoted as saying “I don't think it is the function of art to be pleasing, art is not democratic. It is not for the people." This leads me to believe he knew exactly what he wanted his audience to feel and he accomplished that goal if only for a short amount of time. I believe the general public coined his style “shock art” because it wasn’t the norm. I assume that at the very least forced people to feel something and in the end isn’t that what all art is about and what all artists want. To be noticed not just applauded for how well you can color in the lines but how you can move and sway the masses into feeling with your work and
The monumental sculpture titled Tilted Arc by Richard Serra is considered by the general public to be a nuisance, eyesore, inconvenience, and certainly not a work of art. It has been commissioned by the Arts-in-Architecture program of the U.S. General Services Administration, which earmarks 0.5 percent of a federal building's cost for artwork.The sculpture was a solid, unfinished plate of Core-Ten steel, 120 feet long, 12 feet high, and 2.5 inches thick. As its name suggests, it was slightly tilted. Serra said of the design, "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."
In March of 1985 a public hearing was held for the sculpture, with 122 people testifying in favor of keeping the piece, and 58 in favor of removing it. A jury of five voted 4-1 to remove the sculpture …show more content…
It doesn’t fit the norm, it’s rusty, it’s in your face, but it is art. It’s the type of art you have to deal with, art that forces you to reevaluate you view of art every time you pass it. Richard Serra is quoted as saying “I don't think it is the function of art to be pleasing, art is not democratic. It is not for the people." This leads me to believe he knew exactly what he wanted his audience to feel and he accomplished that goal if only for a short amount of time. I believe the general public coined his style “shock art” because it wasn’t the norm. I assume that at the very least forced people to feel something and in the end isn’t that what all art is about and what all artists want. To be noticed not just applauded for how well you can color in the lines but how you can move and sway the masses into feeling with your work and