Serrated Edges
The titan behind 'Tilted Arc' ascends the throne at MoMA

MORE
Currently Hanging
But you’ve got to start somewhere, right? Richard Serra Sculpture: Forty Years, on view at the Museum of Modern Art, would be an ideal pedagogical tool. It’s certainly kid-friendly. Mr. Serra has transformed the museum from a building full of stuff that’s good for you into a gargantuan playground of sloping corridors, towering hideaways and places to ditch your friends.
That the sculptures are kind of scary increases the fun. A commanding figure in the international scene, Mr. Serra has the pull and reputation to translate his ambitious vision into daunting realities. Anyone encountering his immense, undulating walls of Cor-Ten steel can’t deny the skill with which he draws spectators into the teetering parameters and hollows. Looping like Möbius strips, Mr. Serra’s “torques” engulf the viewer. We don’t look up at them; they look down at us.
Mr. Serra is probably best known for the Tilted Arc controversy. Bisecting Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan, his 120-foot-long running steel wall was commissioned by the General Services Administration in 1979 for the sake of the greater good. But to hell with aesthetics: Workers considered it a traffic obstacle. (The sculpture was also accused of attracting rats.) Public art typically functions as a modest complement to a city space. Mr. Serra put the 800-ton gorilla in the town square. Tilted Arc didn’t withstand the notoriety: It was removed and destroyed.
The sculptor’s early efforts are part and parcel of the heady milieu of the late 1960’s. Experiments with rubber, lead and neon reflect the pretensions of Conceptualism, Minimalism and performance art. A title, Remnant (1966-67), a hanging slab of vulcanized rubber, encapsulates the chief characteristic of Mr. Serra’s works around that time: inertia. They’re not self-sustaining art objects, but merely leftovers from specific actions: cutting, for instance, or tearing and splashing. Mr. Serra, in a fleeting moment of humility, admits that the “residues … didn’t always qualify as art.”
Nonetheless, he trumpets their purpose and presence: “Some of [them] were so replete in their exploration of material and the simplicity and singularity of the process that they would go unquestioned.” Has it occurred to Mr. Serra that the questions (forget the answers) weren’t worth the trouble?
The Prop series, dating from the late 60’s and early 70’s, incorporated a much-needed sculptural dimension and an intimidating—because potentially dangerous—equipoise. Utilizing thick lead planks and poles, Mr. Serra employed a house-of-cards logic. (One of the pieces is even subtitled House of Cards.) Precarious balance holds the props together. Four-foot-square sheets of lead touch, lean and balance with alarming necessity. In 2-2-1: To Dickie and Tina (1969-94), a pole glances lightly off a quintet of lead slabs, holding it all together and preventing collapse, disaster and lawsuits. A glass wall cordons the audience away from the Props, presumably because the slightest elbow bump would send them toppling. Threat is vital to Mr. Serra.
He’s a consummate showman, and an unforgiving one. Entering the sixth-floor galleries, visitors come upon Delineator (1974-75). A 10-by-26-foot sheet of steel lies on the floor: just another exercise in unadulterated material, you might think—until you look up. Affixed to the ceiling is another sheet of steel the same size. Mr. Serra’s shtick is to diminish the viewer, making him subservient to art and the artist’s will. Theatrical domination leads to awe—of a sort, anyway. Practicality becomes a focus: Gee, you think, it must’ve been a bitch to get that up on the ceiling.
From the mid-70’s on, Mr. Serra’s sculptures increasingly rely on engineering; the “how” outstrips “why.” This is especially true of Mr. Serra’s three-ring circus on the second floor: a parade of humongous funnels of steel, their surfaces burnished rich and ruddy with rust. Art often feels abandoned in MoMA’s cold and cavernous spaces, but the ebb-and-flow created by Mr. Serra’s edifices does much to remedy the shopping-mall ambiance. They’re great conversation starters: After the novelty of scale and size has lessened, museum-goers can mosey through the torques, squeezing around their edges and taking pleasure in Mr. Serra’s chutzpah and ingenuity. And again, we wonder how the installation crew dealt with these monsters. Next Page >



















It is fitting that there is mention of the unsophisticated eyes of children because the comments sound like something from a spoiled brat. I have not seen Serra’s MOMA show but I have seen Serra pieces in Bilbao and while I have no intention of blowing smoke up the artists’ ass, I do think his pieces deserve more consideration than passing savvy ambivalence. Why so dismissive? Does the elevated nature of Serra intentions (insinuation of elitism) offend? Don’t all artists aim to create (and I’m simplifying) something awe inspiring, meaningful in myriad ways, and/or simply elevate the discussion of art? Is it elitist to claim that true art appreciation requires constant education, like any other form of appreciation, and most people have lazy minds and don’t care to make the effort—why should art be made for them when “the audience” will be most happy with unchallenging art that matches the sofa?
In my experience, the Serra pieces were fascinating, and not for the “geez, it’s so big, how did they get it in here, Gilligan” kind of way. My experience was more of a, “I feel very small” kind of humility passing quickly into a fixation on how many perspectives were possible and ever changing with each step. I couldn’t get over the space bending, multidimensional possibilities. I also felt grateful to be able to be so close to something so large, imposing, authoritative, interesting and so carefully considered—like swimming next to a great whale. The texture is amazing in the way that something made of steel can be so rich and it is a palate that will be ever changing in its decay.
Why be fixated on “how”? Since when should art be limited by practicalities? Certainly the “how” is amazing but the dialogue should move on.
Serra’s work is original and that alone is rare and precious and certainly deserves more than cool shrug. Some artists do earn exalted positions quite rightfully and no one should begrudge them for their gifts. I do endorse a healthy cynicism about anything labeled ‘art’—there are crap couture gowns, gross haute cuisine, Jeff Koons, etc. but I don’t think this is a case of the Emperor has no clothes—and doesn’t deserve to be treated as such. I say things about supermodels like, “I hope she is dumb because no one deserves to be that beautiful and smart too” because 1.) I am jealous and 2.) I see it all the time. Fortunately, being numb to beauty does not keep it from being absolutely true that it is a remarkable piece of work. Sorry you’re so bored.