Serra crafted the Titled Arc sculpture for the Federal Plaza in New York, ten years prior to the government’s decision to demolish it. The artist dedicated substantial effort to producing authentic art. However, because of specific problems or situations, a Government agency expressed their disapproval and wished for its elimination. Naturally, the artist disagreed with this ruling and commenced advocating for his rights to retain some authority over his artwork.
Previously, the artist’s rights were unclear, resulting in protests to establish clarity. The article highlights the disparity between the artist’s rights pre and post the “Titled Arc” controversy. Presently, we continue to face comparable problems where individuals conceive projects, inventions, or innovations only to have them appropriated by others.
There have been instances where individuals develop a promising business idea, establish a company, and subsequently abandon it for various reasons after achieving significant success. This scenario bears resemblance to the challenges encountered by artists, who frequently do not possess full ownership over their own creations. In Serra’s situation, he crafted this sculpture at the behest of the government; however, a decade later, another governmental organization (the very one that commissioned the sculpture) sought its destruction on grounds of being deemed the “most unsightly outdoor artwork in the city.”
In his role as the regional administrator, William Dimond was responsible for leading the campaign against Titled Arc. He took various actions in relation to the destroyed sculpture. Initially, he tried to sell the artwork despite lacking ownership rights. Furthermore, he managed to convince the authorities at the Federal Building to showcase a sign indicating the new location of Titled Arc. However, they soon became worried about explicit graffiti on its surface. Additionally, certain security specialists from the agency even raised concerns that the sculpture could be used as a potential terrorist device.
Richard Serra takes the case to court in order to protect his constitutional rights, particularly freedom of expression, as the situation surrounding Titled Arc becomes more complicated. However, since Titled Arc is government property, Serra has no control or ownership rights over it. The government has the authority to destroy the sculpture if they wish. Essentially, when Serra sold Titled Arc to GSA, he gave up his right to express himself freely through the artwork. Upon realizing this, he regretted accepting the deal and stated that he would not have done so if he had known that the government would claim ownership and alter or destroy it (“Title Arc” Richard Serra).
And aesthetic dislike was sufficient to remove a work of art; however, in the end, the case was lost and Titled Arc couldn’t be saved. The government provided no support as there was no law to back him up. Nevertheless, the artist continued to advocate for moral rights legislation, which protects the relationship between an artist and their work even after it is sold, regardless of who owns it (Richard Serra, “Title Arc”). Senator Kennedy partially granted this legislation, making it illegal to intentionally distort, mutilate or destroy works after they have been sold.
Despite the fact that art is not considered a commodity and destroying a work of art is a federal offense, Title Arc was not protected. The case involving Title Arc highlights various political, social, and economic issues. It exemplifies the injustice individuals can impose on others. Instances have occurred where people have taken ownership of their own business or falsely claimed credit for someone else’s brilliant idea. Likewise, plagiarism in work or homework serves as another prominent example of this misconduct.
The interpretation of art is subjective and varies for each individual. For instance, the Titled Arc sculpture is perceived as unattractive and devoid of significance by many people, while others, including artists themselves, appreciate its beauty. The understanding of art relies on a person’s education and life experiences. Although some artists intend to convey specific meanings or narratives through their creations, ultimately, every individual will have a distinct perspective on the artwork influenced by the societal meaning attributed to it.
Art has the power to evoke various emotions in individuals, including hope, happiness, sadness, and comfort. In my opinion, by contemplating artwork, I am able to connect with the artist and gain insight into their personal experiences. Additionally, it expands my understanding of the world and offers a new outlook on life. While there may be occasions when I don’t completely comprehend an artist’s purpose behind their work, I never deem it foolish or unappealing because I recognize that it serves as an expression of someone’s emotions. Therefore, I strongly believe in showing respect for such expressions.
The author’s thoughts on the “Title Arc” should be universally respected and supported. I fully support their right to protect and preserve their work. As per the author, this is an expression of freedom that should not be restrained, even by governmental authorities. In fact, it is the duty of the government to promote and safeguard this right. Regrettably, in this specific circumstance, not only did the government fail to offer help, but they also exacerbated the problem.
The following is a list of references.
“Title Arc” is an artwork created by Richard Serra.
