Richard Serra: The Case of Tilted Arc

Background
GSA Art-in-Architecture Program
During the presidency of John F. Kennedy, and based upon the vision of Nelson Rockefeller
who founded the contemporary model for governmental support of the arts in the New York
State Council on the Arts, two programs were established to commission artworks for public
spaces. A federal agency, the General Services Administration or GSA, established the Art -in-
Architecture Program in 1963, with the National Endowment for the Arts' Art in Public Places
Program following in 1967. In the GSA Art-in-Architecture program, 1/2 of 1% of a federal
building's costs are to be allocated for public art. Since 1972, this has resulted in the
commissioning of over 200 paintings, sculptures, tapestries, and fiber pieces by artists known
either regionally or internationally. Commissioned artists have included Louise Bourgeios,
Alexander Calder, Mark di Suvero, Louise Nevelson, Isamu Noguchi, George Segal, Tony
Smith, Frank Stella, and Claes Oldenburg.
Although administrated in different ways, the purpose of both the GSA and the National
Endowment for the arts programs is aesthetic&emdash;that is, to enhance public places and to
expand public awareness of contemporary art by the installation of artworks by contemporary
U.S. artists. The GSA's Art-In-Architecture Program views its commissions to artists as part
of an effort to build a "national collection" of artwork by contemporary U.S. artists that will
be exhibited in a geographically dispersed manner. In order to insure a variety of artists from
various parts of the country, the award of a major commission is limited to one per artist.
Public commissions
The three major parties in public art commissions are:
1. the artists, who desire artistic freedom, recognition, and security for their work;
2. the commissioning public agencies, that are responsible for the aesthetic welfare of society
as well as meeting political and procedural expectations regarding their resources; and
3. the public, which lives with the work and gives assent or dissent to it.
The major issue of concern for each party varies. For the artist, it is aesthetic. For the public
agency, it is political and legal. For the public, it is aesthetic and sociological. These concerns
may converge; in the case of Tilted Arc, they do not.
About Richard Serra
Richard Serra is an internationally recognized minimalist artist. The minimalist arat
movement began in the 1960s. Artists sought to find essences through a reduction of form and
meaning. Serra's work is located in museums all over the world. His arcs are designed for
specific sites and establish spatial tension and an elegant&emdash;if brutal and
powerful&emdash;presence.
Other Serra site-specific works include Berlin Block for Charlie Chaplin (Berlin, 1977),
Terminal (Bochum, West Germany, 1977), Twain (St. Louis), La Palmera (Barcelona), Clara-
Clara (Paris, 1983). Experiencing the work is an important aspect of it. For instance, Clara-
Clara consists of two identical sections of a cone placed side by side with one section
inverted so that the slant of the two sections is in the same direction. As viewers experience
the sculpture, they sense speed and mobility. Another important aspect is the sculpture's
interaction with site. St. John's Rotary Arc (located in Manhattan, near the exit from the
Holland Tunnel) is shaped as a section in the circumference of an 800 foot wide circle. The
sculpture stands apart from the social world, occupying a site&emdash;the center of a traffic
circle&emdash; seen but rarely entered or traversed by pedestrians. Because Rotary Arc is
located in the center of a traffic circle but forms a part of an imaginary larger circle that
intersects the traffic circle, the piece creates a tension with its site.
As only parts of these sculptures can be seen from any one vantage point, they require that the
viewer take time with the sculpture&emdash;in walking, looking, remembering, and
anticipating. They change to the viewer's eye with each step, heightening his or her awareness
of the relationship of the sculpture to him or herself and to the surrounding space. Serra wants
to involve the viewer in his work, both spatially and temporally.
Critic Laura Rosenstock writes of Serra's works that they:
involve the viewer in [a] . . . creative, exploratory process. They heighten perceptual
awareness and virtually force interaction. They compel the viewer to confront his [or her]
experience and perception . . . in relation to both space and time . . . All Serra's sculptures are
concerned with what can actually be experienced and observed.
Serra is also interested in the physical properties of sculpture, in the weight, in the material.
Cor-ten steel, a manufacturing material subject to external rust, is one of his favorite media.
Tilted Arc

Richard Serra, "Tilted Arc," Federal Plaza, New York, 1981

Cor-ten steel. 12' x 120' x 2 1/2"
(Click on image for a larger view)
Argues art critic Robert Storr,
Tilted Arc stands as a monument to the convergence of formalist art and 'formalist'
politics&emdash;a politics, that is, of theory without praxis&emdash;with the aspirations of
the art falling prey to the manifest contradictions of the politics. Moreover, it is a reminder
that when the interest of artists and those of a largely uninformed and hostile community
collide, however self-evident the moral, social and aesthetic questions involved may seem, in
practical terms the burden of proof will always fall upon art's defenders.
The sculpture is of cor-ten steel, 120 feet long, 12 feet high, 2 1/2 inches thick, and 72 tons.
The Arc's surface is unadorned. It is located in the Federal Plaza (also known as Foley
Square) in lower Manhattan in front of the Jacob K. Javits federal office building and
surrounded by other federal and state buildings. The Arc tilts slightly toward the office
building and the trade courthouse and sweeps across the center of the plaza, dividing it into
two distinct areas. The area is one of the densest working areas in the country; the Javits
Building alone houses 10,000 government workers&emdash;the second largest government
office building in the country after the Pentagon. The Javits Building, built in 1968, is
generally regarded as unpleasant and difficult to work in, plagued with architectural and
engineering flaws. The Javits building houses the regional offices of the General Services
Administration, or GSA.
The Award Process
Tilted Arc was commissioned by the GSA as part of its Art-in-Architecture program. In the
mid-1970s, the GSA decided to commission a work of art for installation in the plaza in front
of the building's entrance&emdash;art was not commissioned when the building was
completed because the GSA's art-in-architecture program had been temporarily suspended. In
1979, the National Endowment for the Arts, whom the GSA had appointed to determine artist
and artwork, designated an advisory panel comprised of three art world professionals (Patricia
Fuller of the NEA, Joseph Colt of an architectural engineering firm, museum curators
Suzanne Delehanty of SUNY-Purchase, Ira Licht of the University of Miami, Florida, and art
history professor and art critic Robert Pincus-Witten of CUNY) to select a work, a process
instituted to assure artistic quality. The panel awarded Serra the commission to design a work
for the site. Following extensive engineering studies and prolonged negotiations with the
GSA's own design review panel, Serra's design proposal was approved. The work was
installed in the plaza in July, 1981. Serra was paid $175,000 for the sculpture; Serra testified
that he did not make money on the sculpture, a fact corroborated by the director of the Art-in-
Architecture Program because of the enormous expenses involved in creating and locating the
sculpture.
Tilted Arc does not convey the obvious symbolism of public sculpture such as the Statue of
Liberty. It is, however, not lacking in symbolism. Yet, while it may represent U.S.
individualism and inventiveness, such symbolism is not packaged in recognizable terms.

The Case: Serra v. the Office of Operations, GSA

Tilted Arc was greeted with hostility by many of the federal plaza office workers. Two months
after its installation, a petition with 1300 signatures of federal employees working in and
around the plaza requesting the removal of the sculpture was submitted to the GSA. The
architect of the Javits Building, Alfred Easton Poor, sent a letter to GSA in the fall after the
installation of the sculpture, objecting to Tilted Arc because it obstructed the view from one
building to another and from the building to the fountain also located in the federal plaza, and
because his firm, which designed the building, was not consulted. In 1984, a New York
congressman and a federal judge also asked it be removed.
Serra's case hinged on the government's violation (some consider abrogation) of his contract.
Serra contended that his inducement for entering into the contract was the promise that the
work would be permanently installed at the site for which it was designed. Although the
promise was oral, Serra claimed a breach of contract.
Those supporting the retention of Tilted Arc on the Federal Plaza did not all claim to like the
work, but all took stands on behalf of artistic freedom of expression and protection from
censorship under First Amendment rights. They also emphasized the site-specificity of the
work, which supported Serra's contention that its removal would be tantamount to its
"destruction" and that the GSA had an obligation to maintain the contractual agreement.
Diamond and others wishing the removal of the sculpture argued that official responsibility
for the public's aesthetic and nonaesthetic welfare was being violated by the permanent
presence of a disliked work. They also argued that public art must not offend the public that
pays for it and that to retain a work against the public's wishes would interfere with the
public's "freedom of expression," which the agency was obliged to protect. They also claimed
that the GSA owned the work and this gave the GSA the right to remove it; that any guarantee
of permanence was contingent upon circumstance because neither the building itself nor the
site could be expected to endure permanently.
The GSA contract provided that:
1. Serra shall determine the artistic expression, subject to its being acceptable to the
government.
2. The work shall be of a material and size mutually agreeable to the government and artist.
3. Serra will submit a sketch or other document that conveys the work he propose to furnish
within 180 days of the contract execution date (Sept. 1979).
4. The GSA has 30 days after this submission to determine the acceptability of the proposed
artistic expression.
The case was summoned by William Diamond, regional administrator of the GSA, who in
1984 had circulated a petition demanding the removal of Tilted Arc. He had obtained nearly
4,000 signatures supporting the removal of Tilted Arc. In March of 1985, Diamond convened
a three-day public hearing before a five-person panel to consider the disposition of Tilted Arc.
The panel included Diamond himself, Michael Findlay of Christie's; Thomas Lewin, an art
collector and lawyer; Paul Chistolini, and Gerald Turetsky. Two persons on the panel had been
appointed to the GSA by Diamond himself. Presiding was Judge Edward D. Re, Chief Justice
of the United States Court of International Trade, who also has lobbied heavily to reopen the
criticism after three years of relative quiet. No one from the art community whose specific
expertise was public sculpture was appointed. Some of the arguments presented during those
hearings follow.
The Arguments for the Removal of Tilted Arc
Representative Ted Weiss:
Imagine, if you will, this curved slab of welded steel twelve feet high, 120 feet long, and
weighing over seventy-three tons bisecting the street in front of your house,and you can
imagine the reaction to Tilted Arc of those who live and work in the area.
Adding to the shock effect is the sculpture's natural oxide coating, which gives it the
appearance of a rusted metal wall. Many who first viewed Tilted Arc regarded it as an
abandoned piece of construction material, a relic perhaps too large and cumbersome to move.
The artist is said to have intended with this piece to "alter and dislocate the decorative
function of the plaza." If that was the intent, one may conclude from the sculpture's harsh,
disorienting effect that the artist has eloquently succeeded.
But what of those who live and work nearby? The sculpture cuts a huge swath across the
center of the plaza, dividing it in two and acting as a barrier to the building's main doorways.
Access to the building is awkward and confusing, and the normal walking patterns of those
who enter and exit the building are disrupted.
The time has come to find a new location for Tilted Arc.
Mr. Serra argues that because his work is site specific, moving it to another location would
destroy it. It has, he maintains, a proprietary claim upon the plaza just as real as that of a
painting to its canvas. I suggest that there are other valid claims upon the plaza that conflict
with Mr. Serra's, and that the scales tip in their favor. The community--those thousands of
people who live and work in the area--has the right to reclaim this small oasis for the respite
and relaxation for which it was intended.
Phil La Basi
I have been a federal employee for twenty-two years, about eleven years in this building.
First of all, I would like to say that I really resent the implication that those of us who oppose
this structure are cretins or some sort of reactionaries.
It seems to be very typical of self-serving artists and so-called pseudo intellectuals that when
they disagree with something someone else has to say, they attack the person. So I am not
going to attack the artist.
What I see there is something that looks like a tank trap to prevent an armed attack from
Chinatown in case of a Soviet invasion. In my mind it probably wouldn't even do that well,
because one good Russian tank could probably take it out.
To be very serious, I wouldn't call it Tilted Arc. To me it looks like crooked metal or bent
metal. I think we can call anything art if we call that art. I think any one of these people here
could come along with an old broken bicycle that perhaps got run over by a car, or some other
piece of material, and pull it up and call it art and name it something. I think that was what
was done here . . .
Joseph Liebman
I am the attorney in charge of the International Trade Field office, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, with offices located at 26 Federal Plaza.
I have worked at 26 Federal Plaza since 1969. While the plaza never fulfilled all my
expectations, until 1980 I regarded it as a relaxing space where I could walk, sit, and
contemplate in an unhurried manner. Every now and then rays of sunshine bathed the plaza,
creating new vistas and moods for its vibrant, unchallenged space.
I remember those moments. I remember the cool spray of the fountain misting the hot air. I
remember the band concerts. I remember the musical sounds of neighborhood children
playing on the plaza while their mothers rocked baby carriages. I remember walking freely in
the plaza, contemplating the examination of a witness, undisturbed by the presence of other
people engaged in conversation or young lovers holding hands. I also remember my dreams of
additional seating areas, more cultural events, temporary outdoor exhibits of painting and
sculpture, and ethnic dance festivals.
All of those things are just memories now.
Regardless of the thoughtfulness and artistic accomplishment of its creator, Tilted Arc fails to
add significant value to the plaza. The arc has condemned us to lead emptier lives. The
children, the bands, and I no longer visit the plaza. Instead, the arc divides space against itself.
Whatever artistic value the arc may have does not justify the disruption of the plaza and our
lives.
The arc, a creation of mortal hand, should yield. Relocate it in another land. Reprieve us from
our desolate condemnation . . .
Judge Dominick DiCarlo
I had my first encounter with Tilted Arc after learning that I was being considered for
appointment to the United states Court of International Trade. I was driving on Centre Street
when I saw it. What is it? It's a 120-fot-by-twelve-foot rusted piece of iron. Having just
returned from visiting our embassies in Rome, Islamabad, Rangoon, and Bangkok, I
concluded that this rusted iron object was an anti-terrorist barricade, part of a crash program
to protect United States government building against terrorist activities. But why such a huge
barricade? Was this an overreaction? Why in cities where terrorist activity is much greater are
comparatively attractive highway dividers and concrete pillars sufficient to do the job?
After my appointment to the court, I was told that this was art. Was it a thing of beauty?
Could be, since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Could its maker be making a political
statement? Perhaps it was a discarded and rusted piece of the iron curtain. Or perhaps its
author was expressing his views on trade policy. This is the Court of International Trade. Was
his iron barrier symbolic of a protectionist viewpoint?
We don't have to guess why the iron wall was placed in the plaza. Those responsible have told
us. It was to alter and dislocate the decorative function of the plaza, to redefine the space, to
change the viewers' experience of that plaza. Simply put, their intention was to destroy the
plaza's original artistic concept, the concept of its architects.
To object to the removal of the iron wall on the basis of an honest, moral right to preserve the
integrity of the work is astounding, since the sculptor's intent was to destroy another artistic
creation . . .
Peter Hirsch
I am the research director and legal counsel for the Association of Immigration Attorneys. We
are constantly at 26 Federal Plaza, since that is where the Immigration Service is located.
My membership has authorized me to say that we are entirely opposed to Tilted Arc. My own
personal view is that a good place to put Tilted Arc would be in the Hudson River . . .I am told
that they are going to have to put artificial things in the river to provide shelter for the striped
bass. I think Tilted Arc would make a very fine shelter.
Danny Katz
My name is Danny Katz and I work in this building as a clerk. My friend Vito told me this
morning that I am a philistine. Despite that, I am getting up to speak. Listen fast, because I
hear seconds being counted and tempers are high.
The blame falls on everyone involved in this project from the beginning for forgetting the
human element. I don't think this issue should be elevated into a dispute between the forces of
ignorance and art, or art versus government. I really blame government less because it has
long ago outgrown its human dimension. But from the artists I expected a lot more.
I didn't expect to hear them rely on the tired and dangerous reasoning that the government has
made a deal, so let the rabble live with the steel because it's a deal. That kind of mentality
leads to wars. We had a deal with Vietnam.
I didn't expect to hear the arrogant position that art justifies interference with the simple joys
of human activity in a plaza. It's not a great plaza by It's not a great plaza by international
standards, but it is a small refuge and place of revival for people who ride to work in steel
containers, work in sealed rooms, and breathe re-circulated air all day. Is the purpose of art in
public places to seal off a route of escape, to stress the absence of joy and hope? I can't
believe that this was the artistic intention, yet to my sadness this for me has been the dominant
effect of the work, and it's all the fault of its position and location.
I can accept anything in art, but I can't accept physical assault and complete destruction of
pathetic human activity.
No work of art created with a contempt for ordinary humanity and without respect for the
common element of human experience can be great. It will always lack a dimension.
I don't believe the contempt is in the work. The work is strong enough to stand alone in a
better place. I would suggest to Mr. Serra that he tasks advantage of this opportunity to walk
away from this fiasco and demand that the work be moved to a place where it will better
reveal its beauty.
More arguments can be found in the references (see end of this document).

Arguments to Preserve Tilted Arc

Artist Richard Serra
My name is Richard Serra and I am an American sculptor.
I don't make portable objects. I don't make works that can be relocated or site adjusted. I make
works that deal with the environmental components of given places. The scale, size, and
location of my site-specific works are determined by the topography of the site, whether it be
urban, landscape, or an architectural enclosure. My works become party of and are built into
the structure of the site, and they often restructure, both conceptually and perceptually, the
organization of the site.
My sculptures are not objects for the viewer to stop and stare at. The historical purpose of
placing sculpture on a pedestal was to establish a separation between the sculpture and the
viewer. I am interested in creating a behavioral space in which the viewer interacts with the
sculpture in its context.
One's identity as a person is closely connected with one's experience of space and place.
When a known space is changed through the inclusion of a site-specific sculpture, one is
called upon to related to the space differently. This is a condition that can be engendered only
by sculpture. This experience of space may startle some people.
When the government invited me to propose a sculpture for the plaza it asked for a
permanent, site-specific sculpture. As the phrase implies, a site-specific sculpture is one that is
conceived and created in relation to the particular conditions of a specific site, and only to
those conditions.
To remove Tilted Arc, therefore, would be to destroy it . . .
It has been suggested that the public did not choose to install the work in the first place. In
fact, the choice of the artist and the decision to install the sculpture permanently in the plaza
were made by a public entity: The GSA. Its determination was made on the basis of national
standards and carefully formulated procedures, and a jury system ensured impartiality and the
selection of art of lasting value.
The selection of this sculpture was, therefore, made by, and on behalf of, the public.
The agency made its commitments and signed a contract. If its decision is reversed in
response to pressure from outside sources, the integrity of governmental programs related to
the arts will be compromised, and artists of integrity will not participate. If the government
can destroy works of art when confronted with such pressure, its capacity to foster artistic
diversity and its power to safeguard freedom of creative expression will be in jeopardy.
Fred Hoffman
I am an art historian and curator of contemporary art associated with many of the leading
cultural organizations in Los Angeles.
We can learn more about ourselves, about the nature of our social relations, and about the
nature of the spaces we inhabit and depend upon by keeping Tilted Arc than we ever could by
languishing in the alleged pleasures of a Serra-less plaza.
One of the fundamental realities about an important work of art such as Tilted Arc is that it
does not simply sit down, roll over, and play dead. This work does not have as its intention
pleasing, entertaining, or pacifying. By structuring an experience that is continually active,
dynamic, and expansive, Tilted Arc makes sure that we do not fall asleep, mindless and
indifferent to our destiny and to the increasing scarcity of freedom in an increasingly banal,
undifferentiated, and style-oriented world . . .
William Rubin
I am director of the Department of Painting and Sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art.
Like many creations of modern art, Tilted Arc is a challenging work that obliges us to question
received values in general and the nature of art and of art's relation to the public in particular.
About one hundred years ago the Impressionists and post-Impressionists (Monet, Gauguin,
Czanne, for example), artists whose works are today prized universally, were being reviled
as ridiculous by the public and the established press. At about the same time, the Eiffel Tower
was constructed, only to be greeted by much the same ridicule. Leading architects of the day
as well as writers and philosophers, to say nothing of the man on the street, condemned the
tower as a visual obscenity.
As these examples suggest, truly challenging works of art require a period of time before their
artistic language can be understood by a broader public.
I must say that I have never heard of a decision to remove a public monument being settled by
popular vote. If that is what is being contemplated here, it seems to me a most dangerous
precedent. Moreover, the decision should, it seems to me, involve the sentiments of a much
wider circle than simply those who work in the immediate neighborhood. For society as a
whole has a stake in such works of art.
Certainly the consideration of any such move should not be a response to pressure tactics and,
above all, should not take place before the sculpture's artistic language can become familiar.
I therefore propose that a consideration of this issue be deferred for at least ten years.
Joel Kovel
I am a writer and a professor at the New School for Social Research.
This very hearing proves the subversiveness, and hence the value, of Tilted Arc. Its very tilt
and rust remind us that the gleaming and heartless steel and glass structures of the state
apparatus can one day pass away. It therefore creates an unconscious sense of opposition and
hope.
This opposition is itself a creative act, as, indeed, this hearing is a creative act. I would submit
that the true measure of a free and democratic society is that it permits opposition of this sort.
Therefore, it is essential that this hearing result in the preservation of Serra's work as a
measure of the opposition this society can tolerate.
Donald Judd [sculptor]
We need to revive a secular version of sacrilege to categorize the attempt to destroy Richard
Serra's work in Federal Plaza in Manhattan.
Art is not to be destroyed, either old or new. It is visible civilization. Those who want to ruin
Serra's work are barbarians . . .
Holly Solomon
I have a gallery in SoHo and now I've moved to Fifty-seventh Street. I don't feel qualified to
discuss the law part of this and I don't feel I have time to discuss the taste or the art historical
importance of this piece. I can only tell you, gentlemen, that this is business, and to take down
the piece is bad business. Mr. Serra is one of the leading sculptors of our time. I sell many
paintings. I try very hard to teach people about contemporary art, but the bottom line is that
this has financial value, and you really have to understand that you have a responsibility to the
financial community. You cannot destroy property.
Frank Stella [painter]
In the matter under discussion here the government and the artist, Richard Serra, have acted in
good faith and have executed their responsibilities in exemplary fashion.
The objections to their efforts are without compelling merit. The objections are singular,
peculiar, and idiosyncratic. The government and the artist have acted as the body of society
attempting to meet civilized, one might almost say civilizing, goals&emdash;in this case, the
extension of visual culture into public spaces.
The attempt to reverse their efforts serves no broad social purpose and is contrary to the
honest, searching efforts that represent the larger and truer goals of society.
Satisfaction for the dissenters is not a necessity. The continued cultural aspirations of the
society are a necessity, as is the protection of these aspirations.
The dissenters have accomplished enough by having their objections heard, discussed, and
publicized. Whatever merit their case may have, it is not part of the public record and will
have its proper influence in future decisions involving matters of this kind.
To destroy the work of art and simultaneously incur greater public expense in that effort
would disturb the status quo for no gain. Furthermore, the precedent set can only have
wasteful and unnecessary consequences.
There is no reason to encourage harassment of the government and the artist working toward a
public good. There are no circumstances here to warrant further administrative or judicial
action. If the matter stands as it is, no one will experience any serious harm or duress and one
more work of art will be preserved.
This dispute should not be allowed to disrupt a successful working relationship between
government agencies and citizen artists.
Finally, no public dispute should force the gratuitous destruction of any benign, civilizing
effort.
More arguments can be found in the references (see end of this document).
The Question
Did the public and government officials have the right to dictate the removal of a public
sculpture commissioned and contracted for with government funds? On the one hand, the
community who had to live with the sculpture (and who indirectly paid for it through public
funds) was not consulted in the selection of artist or artwork. The work was, according to
many, confrontational and at the very least, imposing. On the other hand, the artist had been
duly selected and contracted by a panel of art experts and a government approved process. He
met the stipulations of his contract. Moreover, most art professionals believe that public art is
and must be challenging and that if the public is the guardian of what is selected for public art,
the sphere of what will be shown will be severely narrowed and much contemporary (and thus
less accepted) art styles will be censored.
Final Summary
Over 180 people testified at the three day hearing held in March 1985, more than 120 of
whom vehemently supported Tilted Arc's retention. The panel voted 4:1 for the removal of the
sculpture.
The final decision was made by Dwight Ink, acting administrator of the GSA in May of 1985
that the sculpture would be moved; he left the decision process for the new location to the
National Endowment for the Arts, a federal agency specifically charged with nurturing and
fostering the arts in the U.S.
Dwight Ink, in his decision, wrote that
1. he rejected physically destroying Tilted Arc because "regardless of the artwork's limited
acceptance by nonartists," destruction is "not compatible with a free society which prides
itself on encouraging free expression."
2. He felt that the concerns of the workers must be considered, particularly since housing
employees in public service is a primary mission of the GSA, and therefore "the regional
administrator should seek a new location for the Arc where it would not suffer significant loss
of integrity; where it can be better understood and appreciated; and where it would be a less
vulnerable target for graffiti." He asked that the National Endowment for the Arts review
alternative locations and consult with Serra and members of the arts community as well as
community representatives.
3. That the Arc would remain in place while alternative locations were sought and that
information about the sculpture to help explain its concept should be placed near the Federal
Plaza doors.
4. That guidelines for selecting future artworks under the Arts-in-Architecture program should
be modified to include:
a. integration with the architectural concept for public buildings;
b. participation by the local community and by architects in the selection of both artist and
artwork;
c. attend to the impact of the proposed art on the employees of the building and the public;
d. expand the participation of NEA experts in GSA Arts-in-Architecture programs.
5. That future decisions regarding Art-in-Architecture programs should follow the
recommendation of the 1980 Task Force on the Art-in-Architecture Program, except that the
architect-engineer prescribed in the recommendations should be a voting member of any
panel.
6. That the GSA Regional Administrator [Diamond] should explore several low-cost options
for improving the environmental character of the Federal Plaza whether or not Tilted Arc was
moved. (Weyergraf-Serra & Bushkirk, 158-160)
Upon hearing of the decision to remove Tilted Arc, Serra sued the government and Diamond
and Ink for punitive damages: $40 (or $30&emdash;varying accounts) million for a violation
of his contract (since under current U.S. law, he had no right to appeal the removal or
destruction of his piece). He claimed that to relocate the work was to destroy it and that part
of his contract was that the work would be given permanency. His lawyer, Gustave Harrow,
chose not to sue over First Amendment rights&emdash;which seemed too tenuous. The
government contended that relocation would not constitute a breach of contract and that as
owner of the work, the GSA could do with it what it liked. August, 1987 Judge Milton Pollack
of the US district Court in Manhattan dismissed Serra's suit against the GSA, ruling his court
did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and rejecting Serra's claims that his First and
Fifth Amendment rights had been violated.
The hostility with which Tilted Arc was greeted might, according to many experts, have been
predicted since the Art-in-Architecture Program did not follow its own guidelines for
installation of public sculpture. These procedures mandate "introductory" programs for
community groups to enhance their understanding of commissioned works, and generally
require that considerable local public relations work be done in advance of any installation.
Efforts to educate the public both before and after the installation of Tilted Arc were basically
nonexistent. A small scale model of the artwork was displayed in the lobby of the Javits
Building before its installation: the model gave little real notion of the size and impact of the
full piece. A pole-and-string stake-out of the piece on the Plaza itself also failed to give an
accurate impression of the mass and solidity of the artwork. Finally, when opposition to the
piece was voiced after its installation, no educational efforts were made.
The GSA and the NEA during the 1970s repeatedly discussed the need for community
involvement in making decisions about sculptural installations. A particularly difficult record
exists concerning local acceptance of cor-ten steel works, and moreover, especially those
installed in congested areas. In the case of Titled Arc, the "community" was identified as art
cognoscenti rather than workers in buildings surrounding Federal Plaza and community
residents in areas adjacent to the plaza.
It is alleged that Tilted Arc did not disrupt normal pedestrian traffic patterns&emdash;the
shortest routes to the streets from the building were unobstructed. But it did implant itself
within the public's field of vision. It moreover commanded attention. In reorienting the use of
Federal Plaza from a place of traffic control to a sculptural place, Serra "uses sculpture to hold
. . . [the] site hostage, to insist upon the necessity for art to fulfill its own functions rather than
those relegated to it by" its functions. "For this reason, Tilted Arc . . . [was] considered an
aggressive and egotistical work, with which Serra place[d] his own aesthetic assumptions
above the needs and desires of the people who must live with his work." On the other hand,
Nelson Rockefeller, who established the model for public arts based on his model of the New
York Council of the Arts, equated American artists with American individualism and the
ability of the artist "to contribute to society as a whole through free use of his [or her]
individual gifts in . . .[an] individual manner" (ACA, 7). Contemporary artwriter Douglas
Crimp has argued that,
our society is fundamentally constructed upon the principle of egotism, the needs of each
individual coming into conflict with those of all other individuals, Serra's work does nothing
other than present us with the truth of our social consition. . . [we share a] belief that all
individuals are unique but can exist in harmony with one another by assenting to the benign
regulation of the state . . . the artist is expected to play a leading role, offering a unique
'private sensibility' in a manner properly universalized so as to ensure feelings of harmony"
(Krauss, 53-55).
Moreover, most art professionals in the art world believe that public art is and must be
challenging.
While Storm King Arts Center indicated "They would be delighted to receive Tilted Arc" in
December, 1984, they did not want to install it against the wishes of its creator and that it
would accept the piece only with the artist's consent. The work remains in storage.
Art critic Robert Storr criticizes Serra for his "failure to deal directly&emdash;much less,
generously&emdash;with his least articulate but most important adversaries&emdash;that is,
those who on a daily basis must live with his work" as a kind of elitism and arrogance (p.
281).

References
ACA Books,.Public Art/ Public Controversy: The Tilted Arc on Trial (NY: American Council
for the Arts Books, 1987).
Battin, Margaret P.; Fisher, John; Moore, Ronald; & Silvers, Anita. "Critical Judgment: The
Dispute over Tilted Arc." Chapter in Puzzles about art. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989.
Krauss, Rosalind E. Richard Serra/ Sculpture. Edited and with an introduction by Laura
Rosenstock. NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 1986.
Storr, Robert, "Tilted Arc: Enemy of the People?" In Arlene Raven (Ed.), Art in the Public
Interest , 269-285. (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1989).
Weyergraf-Serra, Clara & Martha Bushkirk (Eds.). The Destruction of Tilted Arc: Documents
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991).