Q1: The NEA changed its guidelines to stipulate that public artwork needed to be more "integrated" and "appropriate to the immediate site," in response to the increasing amount of ornamental "plop art" (65), a term used by opponents of Tilted Arc. While it can be argued that Serra's work is not explicitly as applicable to the community as Ahearn's sculptures, who's to say that Tilted Arc does not have a positive impact on the citizens of New York? I can imagine people stopping to look at it and contemplate some deeper meaning about life while passing by on their way to work. Why is it that there are so many opponents of this? The security expert talking about how it impedes surveillance just seems ridiculous to me. I have a feeling that politics have something to do with it.
Q2: The NEA's "panel of three" to select the artist, and then another group of three from the GSA to approve the design sounds like a terrible idea. How are artists supposed to "integrate" their art with the community if the community isn't even part of the decision process? Instead it's a top-down, exclusive process that leaves the artist guessing and hoping that he/she can get approval from both the bureaucrats and everyday people. This system seems very flawed to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if this happened to artists other than Serra and Ahearn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment