His work doesn’t aim to create “beautiful” art but explore the politics of place and space. In her book about Matta-Clark, Object to be Destroyed , Pamela M. Lee describes the relationship between artist, artistic practice, and space:
Matta-Clark reflected critically on the temporality of the build environment, a materialist recoding of an “architecture of time.” For the presence of his work within both the urban and suburban sphere emanded that it be encountered as a socialized thing; and its imminent demolition ensured that it not be elevated to the rank of transcendent art objects.
Source: Lee, Object to be Destroyed, 11.
Matta-Clark’s work in New York relates to our class’ emphasis on the changes in New York beginning with Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs through today because his work specifically took into account the city’s unique spaces, bureaucratic processes (such as condemning buildings and auctioning off gutter spaces), during a period often recalled as the most vibrant time, artistically, for the city, and also as one of the most dangerous – in terms of city finances and crime. The CAA review of Object to be Destroyed notes Lee “locates [Matta-Clark] in a community associated with the burgeoning of alternative spaces for avant-garde art that was part of the gentrification of SoHo in the late 1960s.” Matta-Clark’s work functions as an interesting phenomenon: an artist interested in the decline of cities and whose work like Bronx Floors might be perceived as the artist participating in the city’s “destruction” – yet the artist is also associated with the gentrification of Soho.
UbuWeb has some great resources if you want to learn more about Gordon Matta-Clark: Gordon Matta-Clark at UbuWeb & Film
What do you think? In what ways did Matta-Clark shape New York? In what ways did New York shape his art? Do you think that he’s the precedent for what Richard Florida calls the “creative class”?
