I wanted to give you more information on the two artists/projects I mentioned in class yesterday: Vito Acconci and Lawrence Weiner. Those of you interested in getting more information, please research further. Feel free to add to your e-portfolio.
Related to our discussion of public/private space and peformance as a genre:
Vito Acconci, Following Piece, 1969 (you can Google image) Following Piece is one of Acconci’s early works. The underlying idea was to select a person from the passers-by who were by chance walking by and to follow the person until he or she disappeared into a private place where Acconci could not enter. The act of following could last a few minutes, if the person then got into a car, or four or five hours, if the person went to a cinema or restaurant. Acconci carried out this performance everyday for a month. And he typed up an account of each pursuit, sending it each time to a different member of the art community.
Related to our discussion of public art and “mapping” the city (like the MOMO tag discussed in NY Times article). A work of Weiner’s text art was in the “Haunted” show.
Lawrence Weiner, NYC Manhole Covers, 2000 (www.publicartfund.org) New Yorkers, whose night sky is often too bright to see the stars, must look down instead of up to get their bearings. Artist Lawrence Weiner, having grown up in the Bronx and a long-time West Village resident, pays homage to this ritual of looking down, watching feet hit the pavement, avoiding construction zones, curbs and debris, to arrive at a destination. Weiner’s project is based on the very materiality of New York, iron immersed in asphalt. The text refers to the grid of the city, “in direct line with another and the next.” And to the asphalt surface of the street as merely a barrier between sky scrapers, brownstones and sidewalks, and subways, underground parking garages and basements. It also refers to the odd democracy of the New York City. While a city of vast extremes, the rich and poor, powerful and disenfranchised still all wait for the same “don’t walk” signs to change when crossing the street. Standing on line, riding the subway, walking down the street, New Yorkers are always “in direct line with another and the next.”
Colin McCann, Let the Great World Spin (novel by Hunter faculty) The novel takes place in NYC during the days/weeks in August 1974 when Phillippe Petit walked between the World Trade Center Towers. I read quotes where the tightrope walk was described by 2 characters: that by walking there he made the city art and himself a monument (aka a work of art). PLEASE RESPOND. Do you agree?
I agree that Petit’s walk above the city between the two towers transformed him into art. The image of him walking along such a thin wire, which was probably barely visible from the ground, captivated passersby and held their attention. As we discussed in class, this is a generalized definition of what public art is- something that you aren’t actively seeking out, but that you can enjoy once you come upon it. I also think that Petit meant for his walk to be art, both performance and visual. The image of him in the sky has been reproduced many times by photography. It is easy to forget looking at these images that the figure so high up is actually a person; Petit becomes depersonalized by the viewer due to the distance and irrationality of his actions.
In response to Melissa’s comment about public art being something you just come across, as opposed to something you seek out, I have to agree. Part of the beauty of temporary art is the fact that it is somewhat exclusive. If you had the luck of happening upon a man suspended thousands of feet in the air on a thin wire, performing, then I imagine you not only see, but rather bear witness to something very special.
It reminds me a bit of live theatre- it happens once, and then it will never be done exactly the same again. And that’s the beauty in it.
I also agree with McCann’s idea that Petit made both the city and himself into art. By accomplishing such a dreamlike feat, he succeeded in making the Twin Towers seem more human, if not a piece of art, which at the time of construction failed to gain favor from public. And then he went on by walking on such a thin rope so high above in the sky, and gave passersby and those who would meet his experience through different mediums – such as us who got to have an almost first person experience through the documentary – a breathtaking experience that would linger in their minds for a long time. As we discussed in class, this is a type of public art; one that you enjoy more as you come across it, rather than the ones you see in a museum, which you nevertheless enjoy, but doesn’t give you the same kind of an unexpected pleasure.
I really appreciate performance art. What Phillipe Petit did, and we witnessed, was performance art at its finest. It was well planned, skillfully executed, and still thought provoking when discussed over 30 years after its limited lifespan. But I feel that McCain, in your quote, give Pettit too much credit. The city was there before he was there. And it was art then. There was art in the design of the Twin Towers before Phillipe strung wires between them. I don’t think that the people, no matter how well documented, can become monuments. Even though, it was a true leap of faith and very historic at the time, it is not the only thing that Phillipe lives as tribute too. His act may have have seen superhuman, but I hope he doesn’t live in the past.
I agree that the city was already art before he walked on the wire (but many people don’t see the city or architecture that way). I would argue that perhaps by walking between the towers Petit changed the perception of the World Trade Towers; that viewers now saw something other than two buildings — perhaps they saw the towers as gigantic modern sculptures or forms in space or supports to hold the line. That is what art does – changes the way we see the world.
In terms of the “monument” concept, one of the definitions of “monument” is: “any enduring evidence or notable example of something”: as in –a monument to…..also it is defined as: “A person considered as a heroic figure or of heroic proportions.” By doing this act he has left an imprint in the minds of anyone who witnessed the walk, saw the movie or saw a photo of the event. In this way–and especially now that the Twin Towers no longer exist, his action: and the image of his action is inexorably linked with Petit in history.
Art is an exceedingly broad term, and often I think, we forget that. Looking around, one sees art everywhere. There is design in every sign and advertisement; every building was designed by an architect; every car on the road is a product of someone’s imagination. Even still, these examples are constraining. Lets extrapolate from dance. Dance is an art that finds beauty the human form. Now, if we call dance an art, can we not also call all athletics art? I imagine watching Michelangelo paint was a lot like watching Michael Jordan play basketball. Michael Jordan was an master improviser, and his game is like a jazz performance; yet it has the elegance, the attention to form, the economy of movement, the choreography of a dance. His every step is calculated, and his every movement is planned. So by my definition, we csnnot help but see Monsieur Petit as not only an artist, but a master, and his walking as a masterpiece.
See any relationship between the athletes and artists you mention here and David Ellis?
For me, what makes contemporary art so interesting is the controversy that comes with it. You have one hundred people sitting in a room and you show them something classic, like the Mona Lisa, you’re almost guaranteed to get all of them to agree that, yes, the painting is a piece of art. You show that same group of people Phillippe Petit tight rope walking between the World Trade Center Towers, you’re going to get a variety of answers. For me, personally, I would agree that what Petit is doing is art. He is taking something that people know and are familiar with, and transforming into something all his own. He is expressing himself all while challenging others to see the world they pass everyday in a new way. This is why I think contemporary art, like that of Petit, is so important. It forces people to look at things in a way they might never have before, and that is the point of art, to allow the viewer a new perspective on things.
I would reluctantly say that Phillippe Petit’s walk of death is art. I say reluctantly because it’s not a usual form of art. Art has a very natural progression where you look at the art piece, and then you analyze how the art piece makes you feel, and then you analyze why the art piece makes you feel that way. I feel that although Petit’s walk made me feel some kind of emotion, it was almost forced in a negative way. I don’t have a reaction to every type of art, but it’s hard not to react to someone walking on a piece of rope between two of the tallest towers in the world. The grandeur, wonder and meaning of the towers primes us to similarly see his actions on the towers as grand and meaningful. I can definitely see Tom’s side of the argument, and I feel as though what I have said might be cynical or hypocritical. However, I can’t help but shake the feeling that I should be watching Petit’s walk with more horror or than amazement, and sometimes I fail to see the art in that.