• Registrator
• 26.04.2024.
• Tekst: Ljubica Vujović
• 0
  669

PAMTEĆI RIČARDA SERU (1938–2024) Tilted Arc (1981–1989)

24. aprila na Filozofskom fakultetu u Beogradu, u okviru Centra za američke studije, održano je komemorativno predavanje „Pamteći Ričarda Seru (1938–2024)“ posvećeno američkom skulptoru preminulom 26. marta 2024. godine. Predavanje je održala istoričarka umetnosti Ljubica Vujović. U nastavku se nalazi kratka priča o jednom od Serinih najpoznatijih, ujedno i najkontroverznijih radova – Nagnutom luku (1981–1989). 

 

 

Zamislite da prolazite pored skulpture na gradskom trgu – verovatno je da ćete videti bronzanu statuu iz 19. veka generala, vladara na konju, mermernu statuu alegorije nacije postavljenu na visoko postolje… Možda u prolazu bacite pogled na umetničko delo, a možda ga niste ni primetili, jer je to samo jedna od mnogih gradskih skulptura na koje su vaše oko i um već navikli. Ričard Sera je želeo da prolaznici imaju sasvim drugačiji odnos prema javnoj skulpturi. Tokom svoje karijere, Serin rad se bavio „načinima povezivanja odnosa kretanja, materijala i prostora“. Njegove instalacije destabilizuju doživljaj prostora dok pokušavamo da doživimo/osetimo/spoznamo skulpturalni volumen. Dok se krećete kroz radove koji su često dosta viši od prosečne visine čoveka, pritom projektovani kao pseudolavirinti, jedino šta možete videti je nebo (u tome se sastoji prostorna destabilizacija).

 

„Ukloniti delo značilo bi uništiti ga“. Ovom tvrdnjom Ričard Sera pokušao je promeniti tok rasprave na javnom saslušanju sazvanom radi Nagnutog luka.

 

Pošto je shvatio da većinu gradova širom sveta odlikuju urbanizam i zgrade projektovane pod pravim uglom, Sera je želeo da razvije skulptorski rečnik koji će se zasnivati na krivolinijskim formama. Takve forme ne bi ostavljale veoma snažan utisak u malom formatu koji bi mogao da stane u šaku, ili na sto, ali u monumentalnim dimenzijama kroz koje se može kretati, u koje se može ući, koje se mogu dodirivati i sa kojima je moguće saživeti se, je drugačiji odnos.

 

 

Umesto da se fokusira na posredno optičko iskustvo skulpture – gledajući je sa distance – Sera je želeo da prolaznici dožive skulpturu neposredno, fizički. Želeo je da dugačak, zakrivljeni metalni lim „u svom obimu obuhvatiti ljude koji hodaju trgom“, menjajući njihov doživljaj prostora dok se kreću na posao ili sa posla. Na taj način je prostor trga na kom se skulptura nalazi angažovan i probuđen. Sera je svoju publiku smatrao pokretnim bićima sa promenljivim perspektivama, a ne statičnim, pasivnim posmatračima. Redefinisao je prirodu skulpture, njen odnos sa publikom, odnos sa prostorom – više se ne mora izlagati na postamentu koji stvara i pojačava utisak „visoke“ umetnosti koja nije namenjena svima.

 

Odabirom da se rad izloži napolju (što predstavlja uobičajenu minimalističku praksu) menja se način konzumiranja umetničkog dela. Delo više nije samo ukras u nečijem domu, ili galeriji. Umetnost se defetišizuje Sada ju je teže uništiti, ne mora više da se čuva, može se dotaći i može se sa njom ostvariti i fizički dijalog.

 

Šta skulpturu uopšte čini javnom? Da li je to njena namena, lokacija, ili naručilac: pojedinac/udruženje/državna ustanova koja je podmirila troškove njenog izvođenja? Ukoliko iskoristimo sintagmu „skulptura u javnom prostoru“ onda nesumnjivo potvrđujemo prostor, odnosno lokaciju, kao definišući faktor. Ponovno oživljavanje prakse izlaganja skulpture u javnom prostoru tokom 1960-ih godina u SAD, podstaklo je niz diskusija i očekivanja javnosti nenaviknute na umetnost u svom, svakodnevnom, „neumetničkom“ okruženju. Problem prostora, odnosno lokacije, pokazao se ključnim za zajednicu. Mnoge rasprave na temu javne umetnosti zapravo se mogu shvatiti kao rasprave o upotrebi, odabiru, funkciji, nameni ili značaju tj. kolektivnoj simbolici određenog prostora za lokalnu zajednicu.

 

 

Jedna od najozbiljnijih javnih rasprava i kontroverzi povela se oko skulpture Nagnuti luk. Konkretan slučaj ne razotkriva samo društveno–političko razmatranje i umetnički tretman javnog prostora; štaviše, ilustruje angažman zajednice.

 

Godine 1979. GSA (General Services Administration) angažovao je Seru da izradi delo za Federal Plazu na donjem Menhetnu, kao deo javnog programa za umetnost i arhitekturu. Period evaluacije trajao je dve godine tokom kojih je Sera detaljno razradio i obrazložio potencijalni rad, pridržavajući se propisanih procedura, dok skulptura konačno nije odobrena od strane GSA kancelarija u Njujorku i Vašingtonu. Drugim rečima, niko nije mogao biti iznenađen njenim izgledom. Nakon njenog postavljanja 1981. godine, Agencija je primila nekoliko negativnih komentara, što je protumačeno kao uobičajen, „ljudski“ odgovor na novinu. Međutim, kontroverze i burna javna rasprava počinju 1984/5. godine kada Vilijam Dajmond postaje regionalni administrator GSA u Njujorku. Sa današnje distance, reklo bi se da je Nagnuti luk bio žrtva Dajmondove (konzervativne) političke karijere u usponu. Inicijalno, Dajmond predlaže da se skulptura izmesti, konstanto ističući kako njegov stav nije estetski, te ne predstavlja cenzurisanje umetnosti, već pokušaj rešavanja destruktivnog dejstva koji rad ima po društvenu funkciju trga. Kao rezultat javne debate, 1985. godine podneta je federalna tužba koja je dovela do javnog suđenja koje se smatra najozloglašenijom kontroverzom o skulpturi u istoriji prava u umetnosti. Dajmond je sazvao javno saslušanje kojim je sam predsedavao. Nakon što je donesena očekivana odluka – da se skulptura izmesti – Dvajt Ink, GSA administrator u Vašingtonu, predložio je da se formira stručna komisija koja će pregledati problem. U decembru 1987. Sera je po pljusku stajao i objašnjavao uslovnost lokacije pred formiranim panelom stručnjaka koji je nakon Serinog izlaganja jednoglasno glasao da skulptura ne može biti pomerena bez uništenja njenog umetničkog integriteta.

 

 

Osnovni argument protiv dela počivao je na premisi da je skulptura zasenila lokaciju i primorala je da funkcioniše kao njen nastavak – trg postaje sekundaran u odnosu na skulpturu. Peticiju za premeštanje potpisalo je preko 1300 građana zaposlenih na samoj plazi, smatrajući da im delo ometa svakodnevnu rutinu. Problem nije bio u tome da im ometa samo kretanje, pre se radilo o tome da im ometa pogled na drugu stranu trga, odnosno na ono što se nalazi iza nje. Sa druge strane, bilo je i onih koji su se zalagali za očuvanje skulpture smatrajući da bi uklanjanje na zahtev nekolicine narušilo Serino pravo na slobodu govora, garantovano Prvim amandmanom, te da bi stoga takav gest bio neamerički. Ovakva argumentacija pokazatelj je koliko je umetnost koja se nalazi u javnom prostoru važna za formiranje identiteta zajednice, kao i projekciju zajedničkih vrednosti. Pri tome, naglašeno je da mnoga umetnička dela često postaju remek–dela tek nakon početne kontroverze (na primer, Maneova Olimpija).

 

Čak 85% ispitanika tokom saslušanja svedočilo je u korist skulpture, međutim u javnosti je konstruisan utisak da je većina bila protiv rada. Zašto?

 

Smatrano je da je javnost trebalo informisati (npr. puštajući kratke video projekcije u lobijima zgrada koje se nalaze na trgu – ako su takve prakse uobičajene za muzejsku publiku, utoliko pre su bile neophodne za širu javnost). Potreba da razumemo i identifikujemo ono što vidimo je elementarna potreba. Ako ne možemo da smestimo umetničko delo u razumljiv kontekst, osećamo se emotivno i intelektualno ugroženim (skulptura je poređenja sa Berlinskim zidom, doživljavana je neprijateljski).

 

Nagnuti luk zamišljen je kao medij u artikulaciji odnosa između pokretnog tela i samog prostora; skulptura je artikulisana u odnosu na prostor koji odlikuje pokretnost! To nije prostor parka u kom su ljudi pasivni, sede, odmaraju, piknikuju, već plaza koju veliki broj ljudi svakodnevno koristi hodajući ka, odnosno iz, zgrada.

 

16. marta 1989. skulptura je razmontirana od strane GSA i sklonjena (sahranjena) u skladištu u Bruklinu. Pokazalo se da je suština problema bila u tome da su dvojaki kriterijumi primenjeni na muzejsku vs. umetnost u javnom prostoru. Serina umetnička praksa koja je prethodno uspešno realizovana u brojnim umetničkim prostorima sada je oštro kritikovana. Razlika je u prostornom kontekstu u kom se delo nalazi i u okviru koga se sagledava, kao i u očekivanjima javnosti. Problem umetnosti u javnom prostoru, može se rešiti. Štaviše, mora se rešiti. Kako? Razgovorom sa zajednicom i putem stalnih programa javnog, umetničkog obrazovanja.

 

Ovaj primer otvara vrata veoma važnoj diskusiji: da li je snažno, provokativno, umetničko iskustvo rezervisano za muzejski prostor, samim tim i pretežno „elitnu“ publiku, odnosno predisponiranu publiku?

 

Da li javna umetnost treba da bude praktična? Provokativna? Lepa? Ko je publika javne umetnosti? Ko ima pravo da odlučuje o tome šta će se naći u javnom prostoru?

 

Ako je sudbina Nagnutog luka bila takva kakva je, postavlja se pitanje: da li je to uspešno ili neuspešno delo? Da, ono je uklonjeno, ali jer je provociralo. Nije li provokacija pokazatelj da je delo zaista živelo?

 

***

On April 24, at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, a commemorative lecture titled Remembering Richard Serra (1938–2024) was held under the auspices of the Center for American Studies. The lecture, delivered by art historian Ljubica Vujović, honored the life and work of the American sculptor who passed away on March 26, 2024. Below is a brief exploration of one of Serra’s most renowned and controversial works, Tilted Arc (1981–1989).

 

Imagine walking past a sculpture in a public square. Most likely, you would encounter a 19th-century bronze statue of a general, a ruler on horseback, or a marble allegory of a nation perched atop a high pedestal. You might glance at it in passing or not notice it at all—it’s just another urban sculpture your eyes and mind have grown accustomed to. Richard Serra, however, aimed for a completely different relationship between passersby and public sculpture.

 

Throughout his career, Serra explored „the interplay of movement, material, and space.” His installations destabilize our spatial perceptions as we attempt to experience or comprehend the sculptural volume. Walking through his works—often towering well above human height and designed as pseudo-labyrinths—leaves us with only the sky in view, creating a spatial disorientation. Instead of encouraging a distanced, optical appreciation of sculpture, Serra wanted his works to be experienced directly and physically.

 

With Tilted Arc, Serra envisioned a long, curved sheet of steel “enveloping those who traverse the square,” altering their spatial experience as they moved through it on their daily commutes. In doing so, the square itself became activated, engaged, and redefined. Serra considered his audience as mobile, dynamic beings with shifting perspectives, rather than static, passive viewers. By doing so, he reimagined the essence of sculpture—its relationship with the audience and with space—breaking away from the convention of pedestal displays that reinforce the aura of high art meant only for select audiences.

 

By situating his work outdoors—a common minimalist practice—the way art is consumed fundamentally changes. It ceases to be a decorative object confined to homes or galleries. Art becomes defetishized. Now, it cannot be easily destroyed, nor does it require careful preservation. It can be touched and engaged with in a physical dialogue.

 

What makes a sculpture truly public? Is it its purpose, location, or the commissioner—a private individual, organization, or state institution that financed it? If we use the term sculpture in public space, we inevitably emphasize location as the defining factor. The resurgence of public sculpture in the U.S. during the 1960s sparked discussions and expectations among an audience unaccustomed to encountering art in their daily, non-artistic environments. Space—or location—proved to be a critical concern for communities. Many debates surrounding public art can be interpreted as discussions about the use, selection, function, purpose, or collective symbolism of a space within a local context.

 

“Removing the work would mean destroying it.” With this statement, Richard Serra sought to shift the discourse during a public hearing on the fate of Tilted Arc.

 

Recognizing that most cities worldwide are defined by rectilinear urban planning and architecture, Serra sought to develop a sculptural vocabulary based on curvilinear forms. While such forms might leave little impression when presented on a small scale—as a tabletop model or a handheld piece—they take on an entirely different significance when rendered in monumental dimensions. These large-scale works invite movement, touch, and immersion, creating an experience where viewers coexist with the sculpture, rather than merely observing it.

 

One of the most significant public controversies surrounding art arose with Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc. This particular case reveals not only the socio–political considerations and artistic treatment of public space but also highlights the active involvement of the community.

 

In 1979, the General Services Administration (GSA) commissioned Serra to create a work for Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan as part of its Art in Architecture program. The evaluation period lasted two years, during which Serra meticulously developed and justified the proposed work, adhering to established procedures. The sculpture was ultimately approved by GSA offices in both New York and Washington, leaving no room for surprise regarding its appearance.

 

When Tilted Arc was installed in 1981, the agency received a few negative comments, which were initially dismissed as a natural, only human reaction to something new. However, controversies erupted in 1984–85, when William Diamond became the regional administrator of the GSA in New York. In hindsight, Tilted Arc can be seen as a casualty of Diamond’s rising (conservative) political career.

 

Diamond proposed relocating the sculpture, repeatedly emphasizing that his objections were not aesthetic or an act of censorship, but rather an attempt to address the work’s alleged disruptive impact on the plaza’s social functionality. The ensuing public debate led to a federal lawsuit in 1985 and a public hearing widely regarded as one of the most infamous legal battles over sculpture in the history of art law. Diamond chaired the hearing himself.

 

When the expected decision to relocate the sculpture was made, Dwight Ink, the GSA administrator in Washington, proposed forming a professional panel to review the issue. In December 1987, under pouring rain, Serra defended the site–specific nature of his work before the expert panel. After his testimony, the panel unanimously concluded that the sculpture could not be relocated without compromising its artistic integrity.

 

The primary argument against Tilted Arc was that the sculpture overshadowed its location, forcing the plaza to function as an extension of the artwork. The plaza, critics argued, became secondary to the sculpture. Over 1,300 individuals working in the area signed a petition claiming the piece disrupted their daily routines—not by obstructing movement but by blocking their view of the other side of the plaza.

 

On the other hand, supporters of the sculpture argued that removing it at the request of a vocal minority would violate Serra’s First Amendment right to free expression, making such an act fundamentally un–American. This debate underscored the critical role of public art in shaping community identity and reflecting shared values. Furthermore, it was noted that many artworks now considered masterpieces (e.g., Manet’s Olympia) initially faced significant controversy.

 

During the hearing, an overwhelming 85% of respondents testified in favor of the sculpture, yet public perception was manipulated to suggest that the majority opposed it. Why?

 

It was argued that the public had not been adequately informed. Suggestions included showing short video presentations in building lobbies around the plaza. If such practices are standard for museum audiences, they are even more critical for the broader public.

 

The need to understand and contextualize what we see is fundamental. When we cannot place an artwork within a comprehensible framework, we feel emotionally and intellectually threatened. For some, Tilted Arc evoked hostility—it was even compared to the Berlin Wall. This reflects the challenge public art poses: engaging communities to rethink their spaces and their meanings.

 

Tilted Arc was conceived as a medium for articulating the relationship between a moving body and space—a sculpture designed in direct relation to a space defined by movement. This was not the static environment of a park where people sit, relax, or picnic, but a plaza actively traversed daily by large numbers of people moving to and from the surrounding buildings.

 

On March 16, 1989, the sculpture was dismantled by the GSA and removed (effectively buried) in a warehouse in Brooklyn. The core issue proved to be the double standards applied to museum art versus art in public spaces. While Serra’s artistic practice had been successfully realized in numerous art spaces, it faced harsh criticism in this context. The difference lay in the spatial framework within which the work was presented and perceived, as well as the expectations of the public.

 

The challenge of public art—how it is created, presented, and received—can be addressed. More importantly, it must be addressed. How? Through dialogue with the community and the implementation of continuous public art education programs.

 

This case opens the door to an essential discussion: Is powerful, provocative artistic experience reserved only for museum spaces and, by extension, an elite or predisposed audience?

 

Should public art be practical? Provocative? Beautiful? Who constitutes the audience for public art? And who has the right to decide what occupies public space?

 

If the fate of Tilted Arc is taken as a measure, one must ask: Was it a successful or unsuccessful work? Yes, it was removed—but precisely because it provoked. Isn’t provocation evidence that the work truly lived?