The Titled Arc was an sculpture that Serra did for the Federal Plaza on NY 10 years before the government decided to destroyed. The artist work really hard to give them real art. But then for some problems or circumstances a Government agency didn’t want it and they want to remove it . So the artist obviously didn’t agree with that and he stared looked for his rights, for be able to have some control over his art.
But In the past these rights weren’t very clear so the artists had to protest for leave clear those rights. The basic idea of the article is trying to show us what was the artist rights before and after the big argue with the “Titled Arc” happened. Now in these times we have probably liked the same issues, when someone have an idea to create something like a project, invention or innovation and then somebody stole the idea.
There have so many cases when someone has a good idea about create some business so they started to create the company and then when the company it is big and successful for some reason the owner its dropout from the company. It is a relation between these issues with the artist problems because they don’t have any rights about his creation. Serra did this sculpture because the government required him to did it, then 10 years later an agency of the government (which was the same asked Serra to build it) wanted to destroyed because it was the “ugliest outdoor work of art in the city”.
William Dimond was the regional administrator of the agency and the man responsible for the campaign against Titled Arc, he did a lot of things for destroyed Titled arc; he tried to sell the work he couldn’t of course because it wasn’t his work, he convinced the Federal Building employers for sign about relocated Titled Arc, even they start to complain the sculpture about the obscene content of graffiti in the surface and some physical security specialist employed for the agency said that the sculpture could use as a terrorist device.
The case start to be more complicated and Serra take the case to court because he wanted his constitutional rights be respect like the free expression. But Titled Arc was from the government which it means that he hadn’t any control or rights over his work and if the government wants to destroyed it could did it. In other words Serra revokes his free expression right in the sculpture when he sold it to GSA. When he knew that he said: “ if I had known that the government would claim Titled Arc as its own speech and would claim the right to after and destroy it, I never would have accepted the deal” ( “Title Arc” Richard Serra).
And a esthetic dislike was enough to remove a work of art, and at the end he fails the case, he couldn’t save Titled Arc, the government leave him alone it wasn’t any law which could support him. But, he still had been asking for the moral rights legislation which is a “relationship between an artist and his work even after the work had been sold, and no matter to whom” (“Title Arc” Richard Serra). So the senator Kennedy allows part of that legislation, he prohibits the intentional distortion, mutilation or destruction or works after they have been sold.
That means that art wasn’t a commercial product and that the destruction of a work would be a federal crime. However that wasn’t enough to save Title Arc. So we can see a lot of politic, social and economic issues through all this case of Titled Arc. this is just one case about the injustice that some people can do against another, as I mention before we have another cases when the owner of his own business was dropout or when someone makes own a wonderful idea that is from another or a simple and clear example its when someone plagiarism the work or homework from another.
For every particular person arts have different meanings, for example the Titled Arc for a lot of people means an understood sculpture, ugly, without meaning etc… for another artist and some other persons was beautiful. So the meaning of the art is different for each persons and it depends for the education and type of life that they have. It is truth that some artist made his work of arts with meanings and some another have a story, but at the end each person will have a different perspective about the picture, and it depends of the meaning that the society gives to the art it is like the work of art would show.
Many art brings to the people feelings like hope, happiness, sadness, comfort etc.. For me art is the way which I can understand the artist, I can know a little about his life watching his art. Is the way that I can know a little more about the world and it helps me to have another perspective to see the life. Sometimes I don’t understand the work of art from some artist, but I never think that is stupid or ugly, because I know is the feeling expression of someone and I have to respect that.
Like all the people on that time should respect “Title Arc”. I am totally agree with the author ideas, he have all the right to defend his work, to try so harder for saved them. Because as he said it was free expression and that’s a moral right that nobody should take away from us, even the government. In fact the government should defend it, and give support to that right. Is a shame the in these case the government instead to help worsened the case.
“Title Arc” by Richard Serra