Help me appreciate public art.

[Dinsdale]

Earlier this week I stopped by to check out a new installation of public art in Chicago. Titled Agora, it is a grouping of 105 or 106 headless, armless torsos, all standing with one foot in front of the other as tho in midstride. I found some photos here.

I freely admit that I am extremely ignorant when it comes to art, but I enjoy viewing art in its varied forms. In my ignorance, a lot of what I appreciate in art are things that strike me as “pretty” or “neat.” Public art probably does best in my mind when it is monumental in scope, or interacts with the setting in some manner that impresses me. Or reminds me of something, or stirs some other emotion or reaction in me.

After walking around Agora for a while, it made little impression on me one way or another. The figures were smaller than I had expected - maybe 8-10 feet high - so I didn’t feel dwarfed by them. They stand in a pretty large field, which I felt further decreased the impact of their size. You had to get right among them to see how they changed and framed views of the surrounding scenery.

I guess since this is such a large (and expensive) installation, I was expecting it to cause more of a reaction in me. I’m not expecting any of you to prove that this is or isn’t great art. I’d just appreciate it if you could offer some questions or observations that might help me focus my thoughts about it.

[Stan_Shmenge]

A lot of modern art is crap. Don’t feel like you aren’t getting it. There is nothing to get. Except the occasional large grant at the taxpayer’s largess.

[Bridget_Burke]

If you’re interested, see what the artist & others have to say.

The 76-year-old artist avoided spelling out exactly her intent with her piece, telling reporters, "art is beyond words.‘’ But she did allow that filling out the 1,800-pound cast-iron figures with heads and arms "would be literal. It would be television.‘’
Abakanowicz has said her works, which can be found around the world, reflect anxiety over crowds, over isolation and over the dangers of lockstep societies – feelings she developed as a child when her family lost their country estate to invading Nazis, forcing her to grow up in a densely populated Warsaw neighborhood.

Designed to be walked through and around, Agora, being erected on cement pads at Michigan and Roosevelt, presents a setting in which the visitor "can ask questions and maybe find an answer,‘’ she said. "You can come alone and maybe be inspired.‘’

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/113668,CST-NWS-torsos27.article

“Agora” is the name for the marketplace or square where the popular political assembly met in ancient Greece. Abakanowicz’s “Agora” thus has outsize, mythic figures with one or the other foot thrust forward as if walking. The figures face in all directions on a sprawling toned-concrete base, forming thickening and thinning crowds as one moves from south to north. Four figures also stand in different places apart from the groups and, symbolically, outside of the group-think that has led the artist to describe crowds as “brainless organisms acting on command, worshipping on command and hating on command.”

The disposition of the figures has changed entirely since a computerized rendering of 20 months ago. The artist sited each component for maximum effect, creating passageways for viewers (who are meant to move among the figures) as well as complex patterns of light and shade plus a composition that can be seen whole mainly from high-rise buildings on two of its sides.

Each figure is a fragment without heads or arms. That was the source of their “controversy” long before the pieces arrived. However, fragmented figures are part of a long tradition in sculpture, and these are additionally shell-like, conveying the power of torsos, legs and feet only from the front and a fragility from the incompleteness behind. The sameness of the forms and their equal height suggests the anonymity of a forest even as each one has particularizing differences in surface, barklike patterns. The current red-brown color – it will deepen with time – is stirringly set off not only by the sky but also by the colors of nearby buildings.

Seen in midmorning on a sunny day, the piece – which has many more components than the artist’s other permanent figure compositions in Israel, Italy and the United States – is far removed from the grisly atmosphere that some viewers living in the area feared.

Chicago Entertainment - Chicago Tribune

These are just alternate viewpoints of “the piece.” Even the artist’s comments are secondary to the actual work of art.

Since this is a permanent installation, I’d suggest return visits. Pick different seasons, different times of day or night. Take friends. Take enemies.

Let it work on you. Maybe you’ll “understand” it better with time. If not, no problem! There will not be a test.

[DianaG]

@Happy Wanderer

A lot of modern art is crap. Don’t feel like you aren’t getting it. There is nothing to get. Except the occasional large grant at the taxpayer’s largess.

Ah, my thirst for knowledge has been sated. :rolleyes:

[RTA]

@Happy Wanderer

A lot of modern art is crap. Don’t feel like you aren’t getting it. There is nothing to get. Except the occasional large grant at the taxpayer’s largess.

There’s a saying in the art world: “Opinions are like assholes - once in a while, you’ll hear one.”

[Stan_Shmenge]

@RTA

There’s a saying in the art world: “Opinions are like assholes - once in a while, you’ll hear one.”

The “art world” is one reason so much crap art is being produced. A lot of art that is presented is on the basis of who you know, who you blow, etc. I have no problem with some self-absorbed no-talent crapping in a jar and calling it art. Just don’t expect me to buy it, or subsidize it in any way. Notice that I said “a lot”, not “all”.

[Talon_Karrde]

A lot of non-modern art is crap too. That doesn’t really mean anything.

[lissener]

90% of everything is crap. People think non-modern art is less crappy because they only see the 2% or 3% that has stood the test of time.

Trust me, plenty of people stood around in tights and codpieces, dying of the Plague, saying, “Most moddyrne arte be crappe.”

[Miller]

@Happy Wanderer

A lot of modern art is crap. Don’t feel like you aren’t getting it. There is nothing to get. Except the occasional large grant at the taxpayer’s largess.

Most classical art was crap, too. We tend to forget that, because we didn’t bother saving the crappy classical art. Two hundred years from now, “Modern” art will be similarly winnowed, and people will wonder why there’s so much crap Hyperspace art, when the great masters of the Modern period turned out such wonderful stuff.

[Chronos]

Public art probably does best in my mind when it is monumental in scope, or interacts with the setting in some manner that impresses me. Or reminds me of something, or stirs some other emotion or reaction in me.

In your ignorance, you’ve managed to hit on what it is that art is. Art is that which evokes emotions. Art that isn’t very good at evoking emotions isn’t very good art.

Of course, this is subjective. It’s possible that this piece invokes very strong emotions, in some of the people who see it. But if you happen to not be one of them, well then, the art didn’t do a very good job for you. There will be other exhibits.

[RTA]

@Happy Wanderer

I have no problem with some self-absorbed no-talent crapping in a jar and calling it art. Just don’t expect me to buy it, or subsidize it in any way.

Yes, I feel the exact same way about Star Trek but I don’t go into threads about Star Trek and go “Bleh Star Trek is so stupid!”.

You never supported Piero Manzoni’s work with your taxes; he’s Italian. Also, that was over 40 years ago. Also, I guarantee you couldn’t afford a 30g can of his turds, even if you wanted one.

I’d suggest visiting a few galleries and museums and opening your mind to the things that are really going on in art right now, rather than falling back on the O’Reillian canard that it’s all either cans of poo, or Christ-in-a-jar-of-urine. It betrays enormous ignorance of the subject of modern and contemporary art.

[Key_Lime_Guy]

@Talon Karrde

A lot of non-modern art is crap too. That doesn’t really mean anything.

@lissener

90% of everything is crap. People think non-modern art is less crappy because they only see the 2% or 3% that has stood the test of time.

Trust me, plenty of people stood around in tights and codpieces, dying of the Plague, saying, “Most moddyrne arte be crappe.”

@Miller

Most classical art was crap, too. We tend to forget that, because we didn’t bother saving the crappy classical art. Two hundred years from now, “Modern” art will be similarly winnowed, and people will wonder why there’s so much crap Hyperspace art, when the great masters of the Modern period turned out such wonderful stuff.

Let’s say these replies are true (although I don’t know how to verify them). Why should that fact forestall us from being critical of the art our our time? Because there was crappy art in the past (that disappeared), we should have crappy art in the present? Doesn’t make sense to me. Shouldn’t civilization progress?

Plus, ‘crappe’ is a relative term. I think a lot of people would agree that classical crap was a lot better than modern crap. Moreover, I don’t think much of the classical crap was publicly supported, which is an essential element of the OP’s implied rant I think.

[Stan_Shmenge]

@RTA

Yes, I feel the exact same way about Star Trek but I don’t go into threads about Star Trek and go “Bleh Star Trek is so stupid!”.

You never supported Piero Manzoni’s work with your taxes; he’s Italian. Also, that was over 40 years ago. Also, I guarantee you couldn’t afford a 30g can of his turds, even if you wanted one.

I’d suggest visiting a few galleries and museums and opening your mind to the things that are really going on in art right now, rather than falling back on the O’Reillian canard that it’s all either cans of poo, or Christ-in-a-jar-of-urine. It betrays enormous ignorance of the subject of modern and contemporary art.

You make a lot of assumptions about my net worth, and my art education. My Stepmother ran a gallery and was an accomplished artist, and I am also an artist with formal training in both technique and art history. And wtf is an O’reillian canard?

And for the second time, please notice I said “a lot” not “all”. Pollock, I get it. Christo? I get it. Mondrian? I get it. Warhol? I get it. This I don’t get. It looks like some junk out of a trash can. In fact, modern art has been mistaken for trash more than once, and justifiably so, IMHO. If I was the janitor, I would have done the same damn thing. If this is art, so is my whole damn messy house. To me, art has to have some meaning and inspire some feeling. Bonus points for employing technique that requires time and skill to master. A scrap of paper and a cardboard tube leave me cold on all counts.

I like Star Trek, but I would be the first to admit that most episodes (and indeed at least one entire incarnation) range from not very good to wincingly bad. So why are supporters of a lot of what passes for art these days so sensitive? Are they afraid the emperor really does have no clothes? And as far as Manzoni is concerned, if that kind of thing floats your boat, have away at it. Perhaps he is sending you a message when he craps in a can and makes you buy it. Perhaps the joke is on you. I know that if people were buying cans of MY shit, I would be laughing my ass off at them behind their backs. If he is saying that a lot of art critics and fans are mindless dupes that would fawningly swallow any kind of crap, at least we are both on the same page in that regard. Or perhaps he was just commenting on the quality of Italy’s industrial output. Either way, maybe I am starting to like this guy after all!

[Stan_Shmenge]

And will anyone dispute the assertion that the art world today is rigidly controlled by a handful of kingmakers many of dubious taste, who decide who and what is hot and who and what is not, and the process is often more political than merit based? And no, I am not a frustrated artist. I do it for my own amusement and have no delusions about my own talent, but the miniscule taste of the “art world” I got in art school was enough for me. :eek: Lotta strange folks inhabiting that world. If I have to choose between being an artistically talented introvert with chronic depression, or a happy hack, I will take hack every day, thanks!

[Stan_Shmenge]

And this is the last connect-a-post. Promise. Notice that this thread is about public art, one of the MOST messed up and politicized areas of art, where more crap is allowed to slip through than in perhaps any other area of culture. Dumbass city councilmen get involved, committees are formed, etc.

For a while here, in West Hollywood (where they should know better for Pete’s sake), there stood the most gawdawful eyesore piece of crap you have ever seen in your life. It provoked MASSIVE public outrage with it’s crappyness. I had to drive by that particular turd every day for a while. There was much rejoicing at it’s removal. A lot of public art is crap. Not all, but a lot.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Key Lime Guy

…Plus, ‘crappe’ is a relative term. I think a lot of people would agree that classical crap was a lot better than modern crap. Moreover, I don’t think much of the classical crap was publicly supported, which is an essential element of the OP’s implied rant I think.

Who do you think paid for the classical crap? Some of the Dutch “masters” were patronized by merchants who wanted to show they had class. But Kings, Popes, Dukes & Bishops were the great patrons of their age. And they got their money the old fashioned way–taxation, tithing & looting enemy cities. Some great works were financed thusly–but museum storerooms are full of murky paintings of saints & allegorical figures that nobody wants to see. Various wars & rebellions have thinned out European “public art”–although there’s no shortage of undistinguished equestrian statues of forgotten heroes.

The people of Chicago did not pay for “Agora.”

So the site of “Agora” needs more benches for visitors to take the time to look at the piece as if it were a mirror. That, much less than the $10 million cost of the sculpture (paid by the Polish government, its ministry of culture and a private foundation) is the gift to Chicago: an environment for puzzling over our own behavior.

www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0611160028nov16,1,1949872.story?coll=chi-leisure-hed

[Cervaise]

@Happy Wanderer

Notice that this thread is about public art, one of the MOST messed up and politicized areas of art, where more crap is allowed to slip through than in perhaps any other area of culture. Dumbass city councilmen get involved, committees are formed, etc.

This is key. One must distinguish between so-called Public Art, which is to say installation-type stuff selected and paid for by institutional bodies for more-or-less permanent display in some public venue, and modern art in general.

Consider the process: A public art grant or financial bequest or whatever is made. Some institution – city hall, a university, a sports-facility organizing committee, etc – is then responsible for turning that money into an art installation. A bunch of money-minded people are named to a committee, who may or may not know anything about art. They sift through various proposals and argue about the relative merits and downsides of each. Maybe the proposals are revised as the Mission Statement gets updated. Months go by. Committee members change. The budget gets cut.

And at the end of it, after all the various opinions are averaged, after all the compromises are hammered out, is it any wonder that what gets chosen is not something inspiring but something designed to be as non-offensive and generically pleasant to the most number of people possible?

From my perspective, one learns little about Art by studying Public Art, but much about politics and the process of government. And the most successful Big Artists are those who are skilled at navigating this byzantine backwater; look at Christo, for example, who produces almost entirely meaningless work but who is an absolute genius at working the system. In fact, now that I think about it, Christo’s unparalleled manipulation of moneyed institutions may in fact be where his true art lies, and where his artistic legacy can be found, and not so much in the miles of shiny plastic he deploys from time to time.

I’m a strong defender of modern art; people who say the whole thing is a sham are just plain ignorant, in my opinion. However, again, there’s very little Art in Public Art, for the reasons given above.

[Stan_Shmenge]

Cervaise-

Thanks for detailing out the process by which public art is selected. I hadn’t the stomach for it. You get the Upton Sinclair award for exposing how sausage is made!

To get back to the OP:

As far as the Agora is concerned, from the photos, it passes my test for art on all three counts. I’ll start with technique. Lotsa that. Check. It inspires a feeling- “kinda creepy”, check, and has meaning, check. Is it great? Not in my opinion, but one of the things about art is sometimes time is what does the telling. Lots of artists never made a dime in their life, but their work is priceless both monetarily and culturally now.

I purposely did not read the other reviews yet, but I did look at the pictures you linked. My impression was that the moderately over-sized figures are small enough to be comparable to us, but large enough to overshadow us, to show us that they are really us, just magnified so you can see and take notice. The fact that we are all walking with purpose, but no head or arms? Well, one of the things about art is every person who experiences it experiences it at least somewhat differently, and none of those experiences is always exactly what the artist might have intended. I am not sure that is even possible. In this case, the message is a little heavy handed, IMHO, but that’s ok sometimes. In this case, I feel it weakens the piece. The work seems impactful enough. Not everyone has the budget of a Christo, (And yes, RTA, I am aware that Christo funds his own work) and do we really want half of Grant Park covered with giant headless, armless, people? Didn’t think so. I mean, where would people play ball? There is a reason why Christo’s works are temporary. They tend to take over a place and sometimes they fall on people’s heads.

Now upon reading post Bridget’s fist post, I see I am pretty on the mark, especially considering the artist’s background. I also see that it is a permanent installation. I look forward to visiting it the next time I am in Chicago. The message seems timely. Let’s hope it does not become moreso.

One thing you must realize about public art is that there are different categories. Some of it merely serves as decoration, and often has no meaning other than beauty and possibly whimsy or drama or grandeur. Some can be very good, but actual artistic merit, well it can rise to it sometimes, but not often.

Other public art is in fact art. The Picasso in Daley Center Plaza comes to mind. The presence of it alone transforms the drab urban canyon into one of the world’s “great places”. It’s image has become iconic of Chicago.

Then there is the dreck, and there is far too much of that, and a lot of that, unlike cans of crap, IS publicly funded.

Rereading my initial post, I was fairly dismissive. My intent was to reassure the OP not to worry too much if the don’t “get it”. Sometimes there really is nothing to get. I was being a little snarky with my point, I didn’t mean for it to turn into a threadjacking dispute about the merits of modern art in general, which has merit, but sometimes borders into sham territory.

I agree with Bridget in that you need to re-experience a lot of art. Pieces can grow on you that you didn’t like at first. If you are from Chicago, you must have spent some time in, or at least passed by Daley Center Plaza. When they first put the Picasso in, a lot of people said WTF? But now, can anyone imagine that space without our beloved Picasso? (yes my location is Burbank, but I still claim Chicago and, GO BEARS!)

Many cities have guidebooks for public art, and even guided tours, where you can not only get to see some pieces that are selected to be decent, but you will also be given some insight that will help you understand them, and you can discuss your impressions with others as well. Any time you travel to another city, try to squeeze in a half a day to take a tour as well. If you are in the LA area, the entire rail system contains and sometime IS some decent “decorative” public art. Buy a day pass, and station hop. Just stay off the Blue Line after dusk, unless you roll that way LA also has some decent public art that isn’t part of a subway platform.

All that being said, sometimes the best way to experience public art is by chance encounter. You are walking down the street and suddenly something totally unexpected is there for you to marvel at!

Happy hunting!

[Miller]

@Key Lime Guy

Let’s say these replies are true (although I don’t know how to verify them).

It’s not really something that needs to be verified, I don’t think. Do you really believe that prior to the 20th century, all artists everywhere only made really, really good art? Of course not. There were hacks, and failures, and fads then just as there are today. This is implicit in the nature of human creativity, regardless of the media in which that creativity is being expressed.

Why should that fact forestall us from being critical of the art our our time?

I don’t think anyone is saying that. However, there is a tendency you see a lot to judge all of modern art by it’s least elements. Some guy empties his trash can in the corner of a gallery and calls it art, and all of a sudden, the entire field of modern art has been discredited. The point being made in the posts you quoted is that it is as unfair to judge all of modern art by the most egregious or impenetrable examples, as it would be to judge all classical art by the legions of murky allegorical paintings, half-assed portraits of obscure nobles, and the nth iteration of the crucifixtion.

Because there was crappy art in the past (that disappeared), we should have crappy art in the present? Doesn’t make sense to me. Shouldn’t civilization progress?

It’s not a matter of “should.” It’s just the way art works. Artists go out and try to do something new. Most of them fail. A few of them succeed. Five hundred years later, everyone remembers the successes, and no one remembers the failures. Civilization, as you say, progresses, but you can only move forward if you’re willing to make mistakes. And you’re going to end up making a lot more mistakes than you are successes. The thing to remember when looking at bad art is that, without the errors of bad art, we wouldn’t learn enough to ever make good art. A lot of people get really bent out of shape at the idea that some infinitesimal portion of their tax dollar might go to create a work of art they don’t like. Me, I just look at all that bad art as a downpayment on some future masterwork.

Plus, ‘crappe’ is a relative term. I think a lot of people would agree that classical crap was a lot better than modern crap.

On the other hand, “crap” being a relative term, who gives a shit what “a lot of people” think? I sure as hell wouldn’t agree. Heck, I’d be hardpressed to agree that the best classical art is better than the best modern art. I’ve never seen a classical work of art that had the same sort of visceral impact I felt the first time I saw Guernica in real life.

Moreover, I don’t think much of the classical crap was publicly supported, which is an essential element of the OP’s implied rant I think.

Actually, pretty much all classical art was publically funded. Maybe not so much by the Renaissance, when you started to see significant wealth in the hands of secular individuals not affiliated with the government, but even then, most of the great art of the day was commissioned by the church or by assorted noble rulers.

[lissener]

Here’s a post I wrote a while back, in a thread in which similar topics were being discussed. Too lazy today to restate for this thread.