Public Art
In the public arts article, Saltz analyzes and criticizes modern public art in New York City. Although Saltz fancies himself as an art connoisseur, he finds modern public art in New York City to be superficial and distasteful. Contrary to the public art of an older generation, the art from the current generation always seems to be too much, as if it’s trying too hard. He criticizes the lavish spending of such projects as Pier 55 and it’s “intricate picturesque landscape” when money could be much better spent sprucing up the crumbling public infrastructure. In addition to his blasting of Pier 55, Saltz heavily denounces the forthcoming Culture Shed currently being designed near the north end of the High Line. This, Saltz believes, is simply the result of the general public’s modern taste in the unnecessarily complex with it’s futuristically flashy design and it’s ridiculously advertised “interpretable transparencies,” which in reality are just windows. Basically, Saltz believes that all of these modernly designed public spaces, including the High Line, overlook the effect that successful works of the past were able to produce; the ability to make the onlooker feel something. Whether these works reminded you of your past or just assured you that the future isn’t as bleak as it may seem, they do so simply by being there and making you think, not by flashily captivating your interest for a brief moment. Saltz would agree that the only way to gauge the successfulness of a great public work is by it’s ability to connect with the onlooker on a deeper level.
Saltz identifies the root of the problem as the misguided sources of funding from politicians, architects, and directors. He additionally condemns the idea of allowing the general public to decide on its own what public structures should look like as evidently occurred with the construction of the High Line. After all, would you want government to be run entirely by the general public? Of course not. We need to hire public officials who are experts in their fields to make some of the most important decisions. That’s not to say that the general public should not have a say in the matter, but that at the end of the day we must allow the experts to put their plans into the action, unrestricted in their visions from an outside party. Take for instance the sculptures outside of a Bronx police station designed by sculptor John Ahearn. Ahearn was tasked to design something “colorful” and that “work[ed] with the community.” The resulting sculptures led to Ahearn being branded as a racist simply because his vision was restricted by the instructions he was forced to comply with. At the end of the day, Saltz’s satirical tone underlines the inevitable dumbing down of public art that he feels we will continue to see pop up around the city. While I myself will continue to adore the masterpiece that I see as the High Line, this article has opened my eyes to the simplicity of my taste in public art. However, I also believe that it has granted me the opportunity to deepen my understanding and appreciation of more sophisticated public art; art that has the power to evoke emotions, good or bad.
2 Comments
Michael Gerber
February 29, 2016What struck me most about your reply was what you said at the end; that the article has opened your mind to “the simplicity of my taste in public art”. Art’s only job is to make people feel, regardless of what that may be. I don’t think there can be a “simplistic taste” in art; there’s just taste.
I don’t mean to subvert any possible revelation you might have had about art, or where your taste lies in the spectrum, and if this article made you think about that than the author did a great job getting his point across. But on the off chance that you feel like your taste is somehow below that of a critic, I think that would be an unfortunate way to see art. Everyone seems to have their own opinion on the HighLine; there are people who like it, people who dislike the people who like it, people who ironically dislike the people who dislike the people who like it, and people who are resigned from the conga line of animosity and can’t wait for when the snake finds its way back to its tail. Everything is ok, and as an engineering student, I appreciate the few things in life that everybody can be right about.
Hope you see it my way!
Lucius Seo
March 1, 2016Traditionally, however, art was not a mode to make people feel; it was more of a communication/connection passage between people. Think about the Sistine Chapel, for example. The stories in the Bible would be painted across the ceiling, not to make people feel emotions primarily, but to let the illiterates know about the Bible. The feelings would come as a result, not as the purpose.
This is my point: I don’t think Ben should worry about “simplicity,” because quite often art is not meant to be understood by small minority of elites who studied in depth. Moreover, if the art is present in a “public” space, it is meant to please the “public,” not the elites alone.