The Tilted Arc
Art is something that has no right or wrong definition. There are different people that may see a piece of art and consider it beautiful, then there are people that may define art as ugly. The piece studied in this paper is the Tilted Arc by Richard Serra. The aim of this paper will be to determine whether the piece was a bad idea and whether there was justification in the hatred the artist and the piece itself faced.
The Tilted Arc, in my opinion, is a piece that one should consider as being relative to one’s taste. For some people, the piece was like a view into the future. The public, at first, was not justified in its rejection because the piece looked like something out of a sci-fi film (Weyergraf-Serra, and Martha 76). It gave the public a description and feel of a future where things are sleek in designyet simple.
However, over time, the material used in the construction of the sculpture and its location did not work in its favor. Despite the fact that the piece may have a futuristic feel to it, weather and nature in general attacked the sculpture and turned it into a piece of rusty metal lined in the middle of a city. The fact that it was located outside the Federal Building made the sculpture over time turn into an eyesore (Senie 23).
It is for this reason that there people have justification in rejecting the sculpture. It is acceptable if something that is considered as art can remain beautiful and full of insight in the eyes of the viewer. However, if not, the piece is one that should be taken down if it reduces the beauty of the area.
Senie, Harriet. The Tilted Arc Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. Print.
Weyergraf-Serra, Clara, and Martha Buskirk. The Destruction of Tilted Arc. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991. Print.