Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc'

Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc, a 120 ft long 12 ft tall site-specific sculpture spanned the Foley Federal Plaza in Manhattan from 1981 to 1989.
Support
Patreon: patreon.com/user?u=43563849
Venmo: @Robert-Samartino

[@marlondeason4806]

At art school a video of this sculpture was show in a lesson on site-specific works. The angle of the footage was from a window in an office tower. It showed the plaza at rush hour. The crowds of people walking through the plaza were split like a school of fish by 'Tilted Arc' as it bisected the space. My instructor didn't comment on this aspect of the work but I couldn't help thinking the effect was intentional. I didn't know it was commissioned for a federal building. I thought he was just making an elaborate desk toy for the amusement of the rich executives looking down on the people below.

[@rebecky5ever]

One of my art teachers at college had a theory that Richard Serra made the piece to anger the government and to show the people the inordinate amount of money the government allocates to nonsensical things. I know that's just a theory but it's a really good one.

[@ynat957]

That could mean that Serra believes his artworks are nonsensical which I think is wrong. His artworks have a deeper meaning and philosophy.

[@fueyou]

Sounds like BS to me.

[@intothefray5627]

Brother this video is excellent. You have given me art inspiration with this wonderful video. Thank you for making this ❤

[@robsamartino71]

Thank you!

[@MsDeathfox]

Serra intended for the work to be disruptive. In his article "TIlted Ark Destroyed" he wrote: "Works which are built within the contextual frame of governmental, corporate, educational, and religious institutions run the risk of being read as tokens of those institutions. [...] Every context has its frame and its ideological overtones. It is a matter of degree. But there are sites where it is obvious that an art work is being subordinated to / accommodated to / adapted to / subservient to / useful to. [...] In such cases it is necessary to work in opposition to the constraints of the context so that the work cannot be read as an affirmation of questionable ideologies and political power. I am not interested in art as affirmation or complicity." This was written in an article defending his work. I do not defend Tilted Ark, as I find some aspects of the work problematic, but nevertheless I appreciate this aspect of opposition. I am not entirely sure whether this was part of his initial plan for the work or if he used it after its removal as an argument to defend it.

[@CaioAraujoRibeiro]

I'm interested to know what aspects you find problematic about it!

[@bilalhussein9730]

@@CaioAraujoRibeiro It's the equivalent of young people who think by burning down a Walmart they have hurt the 'big man'. No, all you did was give the workers and passerby misery and annoyance. Serra was a thoughtless boob in this instance.

[@CaioAraujoRibeiro]

@@bilalhussein9730 Interesting. Thank you for the response

[@babs3241]

I can definitely see both points of view, but this sounds like a case where the commissioning body and the artist should have communicated better before the installation--a case of an entity that considered public art and afterthought, and so just asked artists to name someone well-regarded so that they could say, "You see, we only got the best!"--and wasted the time and hard work of the artist they chose because his style was ill-suited to the environment they wanted to create. There must have been an artist who could be true to himself or herself, and yet make a work that honored the site in a way that people would have enjoyed experiencing as they went to the building. There didn't need to be a conflict.

[@robsamartino71]

That is undoubtedly true. What I find interesting is that Serra believed the controversy to be about freedom of speech. The idea of the work failing was so unacceptable that he instead believed that he was being censored by the government.

[@citileft]

Wonderful presentation!!

[@robsamartino71]

citileft thank you very much!

[@davidmayhew8083]

I would have cut a two foot diameter hole near the center and just above where people could have used it easily to view the opposite side.

[@robsamartino71]

🤣🤣

[@kennethbarber438]

8:35, Louis Sullivan

[@shaggyrandy1264]

Well done, but why is a statement alone considered to be a work of art?

[@robsamartino71]

Shaggy Randy because there are no conventions from which art can be defined. Postmodernism has reduced art to its most general definition

[@izpotter]

i wish they could bring it back as a way to honor him and bring justice to Serra. I have learned watching the trial that he was able to collect more signatures for his petition than the petition to take the sculpture out. So, not fair and not impartial. An infringement of his free speech and his contract with the gov.

[@frankrizzo7781]

That is total bullsh?t. When it was removed it could have become a more powerful piece. Serra did not have the insight and his ego and pride were to damaged to understand how powerful the piece had become. Now cut into three piece it can be displayed in part or in piece. Instead with his ego still bruised the sit in storage never to be seen again.

[@freegedankenzurbaukunst5613]

We are , in fact , seeing it through that vid . What's is missing : the experience . They removed the possiblity of experiment it , in situ . They'd have kept it / Serra won . They removed it / Serra , still , won . The power of Art