Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Tilted Arc

Tilted Arc is a site-specific minimalist by American artist , fabricated from Cor-Ten steel in the form of a gently curving, slightly tilted wall measuring 120 feet long, 12 feet high, and weighing approximately 73 tons, installed in Foley Federal Plaza in , , in 1981. Commissioned by the U.S. (GSA) under its percent-for-art program to enhance federal spaces, the work was designed to alter viewers' perception of the plaza by physically dividing and reorienting the open area, emphasizing experiential interaction over traditional sculptural form. Almost immediately after installation, it provoked widespread opposition from federal employees, residents, and plaza users who argued it obstructed pedestrian pathways, prevented communal gatherings, and rendered the space functionally unusable for its intended purpose, contrasting sharply with Serra's intent for immersive engagement. This led to a with over 1,300 signatures calling for removal, followed by adversarial hearings in 1985 where, despite a majority of artistic testimonials favoring retention, the GSA regional administrator ultimately ordered relocation in 1987 based on evidence of diminished plaza usability. Serra, asserting the piece's inseparability from its site and filing lawsuits alleging violations of free speech, , and the , lost all appeals, culminating in the sculpture's dismantling on March 15, 1989, after which its components were stored but never reassembled for display. The episode highlighted tensions between artistic autonomy and accountability in government-funded works, influencing subsequent policies on and community input in federal commissions.

Commissioning

GSA Art-in-Architecture Program

The General Services Administration's Art-in-Architecture originated from earlier federal efforts in the to incorporate fine arts into public buildings, with formal establishment in January 1963 as the Fine Arts in New Federal Buildings initiative, evolving into its current form in 1972 via a presidential directive from renewing and expanding 1962 guiding principles. This program mandates the allocation of at least 0.5% of total estimated construction costs for qualifying federal building projects—drawn from taxpayer-funded budgets—to commission site-specific artworks integrated into architectural designs. The initiative's empirical objectives center on using these commissions to elevate the functional utility and aesthetic quality of civic spaces, such as plazas adjoining structures, by embedding contemporary American that enhances environmental coherence and public engagement without standalone adornment. By prioritizing works that are permanently installed and responsive to site conditions, the program aims to foster measurable improvements in how interacts with daily user experiences, drawing on precedents where mitigates monotony and promotes perceptual awareness in government workspaces. In 1979, the program authorized funding for an artwork commission tied to the Federal Plaza adjacent to the in , applying the standard 0.5% budgetary set-aside to support integration with the site's architectural ensemble. This allocation exemplified the program's mechanism for channeling public resources into art deemed capable of advancing the practical and visual efficacy of federal outdoor areas, amid a broader portfolio that had yielded hundreds of such projects by the decade's end.

Selection of Richard Serra

In 1979, the U.S. (GSA), through its Art-in-Architecture Program, selected to create a site-specific for Foley Federal Plaza in . A review panel of art professionals evaluated artist submissions and chose Serra based on his expertise in minimalist, large-scale works fabricated from Cor-Ten steel, such as his earlier site-specific installations that emphasized spatial intervention and perceptual disruption. Serra's proposal highlighted the sculpture's intended function as an in the plaza's underutilized open space, designed to alter circulation, views, and acoustic qualities, thereby challenging the passive, decorative norms of traditional plazas and prompting active bodily with the site. The GSA approved conceptual sketches aligning with this vision, anticipating a work that would integrate , , and viewer experience in a manner consistent with Serra's prior commissions. In September 1979, Serra signed a contract with the GSA for $175,000, stipulating the sculpture's permanent placement at Federal Plaza as a non-relocatable, site-determined piece, with ownership transferring to the government upon completion. This agreement reflected initial programmatic expectations for enduring, provocative that prioritized artistic integrity over adaptability, criteria rooted in the program's goal of commissioning works integral to federal architecture rather than ornamental additions.

Design and Fabrication

Conceptual Intent and Site-Specificity

Richard Serra designed Tilted Arc to intervene in the undifferentiated space of Federal Plaza, challenging viewers' habitual navigation and perception of the urban environment. The sculpture's arc-like form, executed in Cor-Ten steel, bisects the plaza diagonally, creating a barrier that redirects pedestrian flow and frames sightlines in novel ways. This configuration draws from Serra's minimalist approach, prioritizing experiential disruption over aesthetic embellishment or symbolic content. Central to the work's rationale is its phenomenological emphasis on bodily awareness and spatial dynamics. Serra intended the slight tilt and curvature—calibrated after two years of observing site-specific pedestrian patterns—to heighten consciousness of movement, as the structure's appearance shifts with the viewer's position. He articulated this by stating, "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As he moves, the changes." Influences from Serra's earlier process-oriented experiments, such as lead splashing and the Shift series (1972), informed this focus on material presence and environmental interaction, where elements in landscapes similarly modulated through scale and . The piece's site-specificity renders it inseparable from Federal Plaza's geometry; its 120-foot length and 12-foot height, combined with the shallow arc and upward tilt toward the , exploit the plaza's proportions to define the space as an extension of the itself. Serra maintained that any relocation would negate these relational properties, equating removal with destruction of the artwork's integrity. This commitment echoes his broader philosophy of sculptures as contextual events rather than transportable objects.

Materials, Dimensions, and Construction Process

Tilted Arc was fabricated from plates, a type of engineered to develop a protective rust upon exposure to the elements, eliminating the need for painting or maintenance. The plates measured approximately 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) in thickness, contributing to the sculpture's robust, industrial aesthetic. The completed work formed a single, gently curved wall 120 feet (37 ) in length and 12 feet (3.7 ) in height, with a total weight of approximately 73 tons. Commissioned in 1979 by the U.S. (GSA) under its Art-in-Architecture Program, the sculpture's fabrication process involved custom production of the large components, which were assembled to achieve the site's specific and tilt prior to installation in early 1981. The total cost of $175,000 was fully funded by the GSA.

Installation and Early Responses

Erection and Unveiling in 1981

Tilted Arc, a site-specific sculpture by Richard Serra, was installed in Federal Plaza, Lower Manhattan, New York City, in July 1981 as part of the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA) Art-in-Architecture program. The work consisted of thirty COR-TEN steel plates, each 40 feet long, 12 feet high, and 2.5 inches thick, arranged to form a 120-foot-long curving wall that bisected the 60,000-square-foot plaza, obstructing direct pedestrian crossings and altering the site's spatial dynamics. The erection process culminated on July 16, 1981, following fabrication at a and transportation to the site, where the plates were precisely positioned and welded to achieve the intended tilt and arc configuration. Engineering assessments confirmed the structure's stability upon completion, with the 75-ton installation secured to withstand environmental loads without immediate modifications. The sculpture's unveiling in drew attendance from GSA officials responsible for the commission and figures from the world, marking the public debut of the work in its intended urban context. Early press coverage emphasized its monumental scale and the deliberate intervention into the plaza's open space, establishing a baseline for subsequent discourse.

Initial Public and Expert Reactions

Upon installation in July 1981, Tilted Arc prompted immediate informal feedback from federal workers at 26 Federal Plaza, who cited obstructed sightlines across the plaza, interference with pathways, and the surface's tendency to attract as detracting from the site's usability. By September 1981, approximately 1,300 employees had signed petitions organized by agencies including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (around 1,000 signatures) and the Environmental Protection Agency (around 300 signatures), describing the sculpture as casting an "ominous and threatening shadow" and functioning as a "graffiti-catcher." The General Services Administration (GSA), which commissioned the work, initially acknowledged a mix of praise and criticism, defending its artistic merit under the while noting the early employee discontent. Art experts and critics provided contrasting views: New York Times critic Grace Glueck characterized it as "an awkward, bullying piece" that marred the plaza, reflecting broader unease with its imposing form. However, some contemporaries in the art community valued its site-specific disruption of conventional space, appreciating the 120-foot-long, 12-foot-high steel wall as a heroic embodiment of modernist sculpture's capacity to challenge urban perception and functionality. Local officials echoed employee reservations, questioning the piece's compatibility with the plaza's role as a communal area for government workers, though organized opposition had not yet formalized.

Escalating Public Opposition

Functional Obstructions and Safety Concerns

The Tilted Arc sculpture, spanning 120 feet in length and tilting into the path of Federal Plaza, disrupted established traffic patterns by bisecting the open space and forcing users to navigate around its curved steel barrier. Federal employees reported that the installation compelled detours for routine crossings between buildings at 26 Federal Plaza, hindering efficient movement during daily commutes. This obstruction extended to the plaza's recreational functions, rendering it unsuitable for informal gatherings such as lunch breaks, as the artwork divided the area and limited open assembly space previously available to workers. By September 1981, approximately 1,300 employees had signed petitions demanding the sculpture's removal, citing its interference with plaza usability for both transit and social activities. Safety concerns arose from the sculpture's design, which created blind spots that impeded oversight of the plaza, potentially allowing concealment for threats such as terrorist activities. Detractors highlighted risks including the artwork serving as a or hiding spot, alongside reports of it attracting rats, accumulating , and becoming a target for through .

Aesthetic and Practical Criticisms

Federal employees and plaza visitors frequently characterized the Tilted Arc as an "ugly wall" or "eyesore," arguing that its rusted surface and imposing form clashed with the Brutalist design of Federal Plaza without providing any aesthetic enhancement or visual appeal. The sculpture's weathered appearance, intended as a by artist , was perceived by many as dilapidated and uninviting, exacerbating rather than alleviating the plaza's utilitarian starkness. Critics highlighted the work's apparent inaccessibility to non-specialist audiences, viewing it as an elitist imposition funded by taxpayer dollars through the General Services Administration's Art-in-Architecture program, which allocated approximately $175,000 for its commission in 1979. Despite this public investment, broad disapproval among office workers and residents underscored a mismatch between the sculpture's conceptual intent and everyday public tastes, with petitions circulating to demand its removal reflecting low rates of appreciation outside art circles. On the practical front, the Tilted Arc generated ongoing maintenance challenges, including frequent graffiti removal and litter accumulation around its base, which imposed unanticipated custodial burdens on federal facilities staff. The structure's design, while site-specific, inadvertently encouraged vandalism and vermin, such as rats, further straining resources allocated for plaza upkeep and questioning the long-term fiscal prudence of the installation. These issues compounded perceptions of poor value for the public expenditure, as the work demanded disproportionate care relative to its perceived negligible benefits.

Formal Hearings and Administrative Review

1985 Public Hearings

The General Services Administration (GSA) convened public hearings on the fate of Tilted Arc from March 6 to 8, 1985, in a courtroom to solicit input from affected parties amid mounting complaints from federal workers and residents. The sessions, extended to three days to accommodate demand, featured over 180 registered speakers who provided oral testimonies, with written submissions also accepted. Of the speakers, 122 advocated retaining the sculpture in Federal Plaza, while 58 called for its relocation, reflecting a divide between artistic advocates and practical users despite the numerical majority favoring preservation. Federal employees and plaza users dominated opposition testimonies, emphasizing how the 120-foot curved steel wall impeded pedestrian flow, created safety hazards by blocking sightlines, and fostered litter accumulation behind its barrier. Witnesses, including like Griffiss of the U.S. of Engineers, derided it as "nothing more than a rusty wall of " that served no utilitarian purpose and marred the open space. New York Times critic Grace Glueck echoed broader public sentiment in contemporaneous reporting, describing Tilted Arc as "one of the ugliest pieces of in the city, a domineering work that bullies, rather than enhances, its site." Proponents, largely artists, architects, and art professionals, countered by stressing the work's site-specific intent, arguing that relocation would destroy its contextual dialogue with the plaza's architecture and users. Artist testified on the sculpture's conceptual foundations, explaining its role in redefining spatial experience and inhabitant interaction, asserting that it transformed passive viewing into active engagement. The proceedings unfolded in a charged atmosphere, with debates highlighting tensions between abstract artistic expression and everyday functionality, though no verified instances of pre-hearing threats or directly tied to the forums emerged in records. Prior to the hearings, opposition had crystallized through a signed by nearly 1,300 federal employees at 26 Federal Plaza demanding removal, underscoring discontent among daily commuters that contrasted with the hearing's speaker demographics. This democratic process, intended to gauge views, captured raw sentiments but revealed disparities: while artistic communities mobilized for testimony, broader user petitions indicated stronger latent opposition among non-art-world participants.

Panel Deliberations and 4-1 Vote for Removal

Following the public hearings from March 6 to 8, 1985, a five-member panel appointed by the General Services Administration (GSA), chaired by Regional Administrator William Diamond, reviewed transcripts and testimony to evaluate the sculpture's ongoing presence in Federal Plaza. The panel included GSA officials such as acting Deputy Regional Administrator Gerald Turetsky, alongside other members selected for their administrative and artistic perspectives. Despite 122 speakers advocating retention and only 58 favoring removal, the panel emphasized documented obstructions to pedestrian flow, safety hazards, and aesthetic disruptions to the plaza's open space, which served over 7,000 daily federal workers and visitors. In a 4-1 vote, the recommended relocation, determining that Tilted Arc's fixed, site-specific design—intended by Serra to alter perceptual experience through its placement—irreparably conflicted with the plaza's primary function as a utilitarian under stewardship. Panel findings highlighted that alternatives like partial modification or retention would fail to restore the site's and visual coherence, as evidenced by consistent complaints of impeded and visual barrier effects since 1981. The dissenting member argued for preserving artistic integrity, but the majority prioritized empirical assessments of detriment over contractual site-specificity claims. Diamond publicly announced the recommendation in early June 1985, stating that the decision reflected responsiveness to user needs in managing taxpayer-funded property, thereby affirming the plaza's role as functional civic over indefinite artistic imposition. This outcome forwarded the case to GSA headquarters for final administrative review, underscoring a process grounded in hearing-derived evidence rather than unilateral artistic veto.

Legal Proceedings

Serra's Lawsuits and Contract Claims

In December 1986, filed a in the United States District Court for the Southern District of against the General Services Administration (GSA), alleging breach of the original commission contract for Tilted Arc. The suit centered on the 1980 contract under GSA's Art-in-Architecture program, which Serra contended implied the sculpture's permanent installation at Federal Plaza due to its site-specific design, where relocation would fundamentally alter or destroy the work's intended experiential integrity. Serra argued that moving the 120-foot-long, 12-foot-high Cor-Ten steel arc would equate to its annihilation, violating the contract's terms on placement and the government's assurances during the commissioning process that the work was tailored exclusively to that urban site. Serra's claims extended to protections akin to , predating the (VARA) of 1990, by invoking copyright law provisions for the artwork's integrity and asserting that GSA's actions infringed on his droit moral through unauthorized modification. He further claimed trademark-like rights, positing that removal would damage his professional reputation by associating his name with a dismembered version of the piece, contrary to the contract's preservation of artistic intent. Seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, Serra demanded the GSA halt all removal preparations, framing the dispute as a property rights issue where the government's ownership did not extend to destructive alterations without consent. GSA countered that in reclaiming the plaza's functionality superseded Serra's interpretations, arguing the agreement allowed for based on evolving site needs and community input, without explicit guarantees of . Serra's filings emphasized first-approval for any changes, positioning the as a defense of against bureaucratic overreach, though GSA maintained the 's language prioritized federal operational flexibility over immutable site-specificity.

Federal Court Decisions and Precedents

In Serra v. United States General Services Administration, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the GSA on March 3, 1987, dismissing Serra's First Amendment free speech claims by holding that the agency's decision to relocate Tilted Arc constituted a content-neutral administrative action aimed at accommodating public use of Federal Plaza, rather than suppressing the artwork's expressive content. The court further rejected Serra's Fifth Amendment due process arguments, ruling that the GSA retained full ownership of the sculpture upon purchase and exercised reasonable discretion under its contract and statutory authority to modify site conditions without depriving Serra of property interests, as no perpetual installation right was contractually guaranteed. Serra's breach-of-contract claims were also dismissed, with the district court determining on July 14, 1987, that oral assurances of permanence allegedly provided by GSA officials lacked enforceability and did not override the agency's administrative oversight of federally owned property, emphasizing that artist commissions remain subordinate to evolving public welfare considerations in government procurement. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed these holdings on June 3, 1988, clarifying that by selling Tilted Arc to the GSA, Serra relinquished any First Amendment veto over its relocation, as taxpayer-funded public art does not confer absolute expressive protections against democratic administrative revocation when substantial government interests—such as site functionality and user safety—are implicated. These rulings established key precedents in , underscoring the government's broad discretion over commissioned works installed on , where artist contracts yield to administrative judgments on without necessitating content-based scrutiny. The decisions rejected notions of site-specificity as creating inalienable , affirming instead that such works serve public ends and may be altered or removed when they impede those ends, as determined through procedural reviews like the GSA's panel process. Subsequent denial of by the on October 2, 1989, solidified these outcomes, preventing further escalation and reinforcing that no constitutional shield exists for artists against government reallocation of commissioned sculptures based on post-installation public feedback.

Removal and Immediate Aftermath

Dismantling in March 1989

The General Services Administration (GSA) dismantled Tilted Arc from Federal Plaza overnight on March 15, 1989, following the denial of Richard Serra's final legal appeals for a stay. Federal workers cut the 120-foot-long, 12-foot-high Cor-Ten steel wall into three pieces for removal to storage, an action carried out under GSA supervision amid protests from Serra and supporters who decried it as destruction of . Security measures included police presence to manage demonstrations, ensuring the process proceeded without major disruption despite Serra's public characterization of the removal as governmental . The operation, estimated to cost approximately $50,000 based on prior assessments, marked the end of the sculpture's eight-year tenure and allowed for the plaza's to its original open configuration, which federal officials anticipated would better serve public use.

Storage, Scrapping, and Serra's Protests

Following its dismantling on March 15, 1989, the three sections of Tilted Arc were initially stored in a government parking lot in , , under the custody of the General Services Administration (GSA). In September 1999, the pieces were relocated to the GSA's Middle River Depot storage facility in Middle River, . By summer 2005, following the sale of the Maryland site, they were transferred to the GSA's Storage facility in , where the components have remained preserved as artifacts but never reassembled. Richard Serra vehemently protested the removal and subsequent storage, declaring in his 1989 essay that the U.S. government had "destroyed" the work by severing its integral site-specific relationship to Federal Plaza, rendering relocation impossible without violating the artwork's conceptual integrity. He characterized the action as an exercise of proprietary rights that equated to cultural destruction, filing additional administrative complaints with the GSA to demand recognition of the work's irreparable loss, though these efforts yielded no reinstatement or alternative exhibition. Serra's contract had stipulated permanence at the site and his veto over any relocation, which the GSA initially promised to honor but ultimately disregarded amid public and administrative pressures. The outcome underscored the tension between physical preservation and artistic intent: despite the GSA's maintenance of the corroded Cor-Ten steel elements in controlled storage, the absence of reerection confirmed Tilted Arc's effective destruction as a functional public , with no viable path to elsewhere due to Serra's opposition and the work's dependence on its original spatial context. Serra maintained that this handling exemplified institutional disregard for minimalist principles, where and form were causally inseparable, leaving the remnants as mere relics rather than a relocated entity.

Legacy

Impacts on Public Art Procurement

The controversy surrounding Tilted Arc led the General Services Administration (GSA) to implement procedural reforms in its Art in Architecture program, emphasizing greater involvement to mitigate future disputes. In response to criticisms that the had not been adequately consulted during the original 1979 commission, GSA amended its policies in 1988 to incorporate enhanced awareness and input mechanisms, including a trial process that added two local residents to selection panels for community perspectives. These revisions, developed following the 1985 public hearings, shifted commissioning authority toward regional administrators, who appointed a majority of panel members, decentralizing decisions from national-level oversight. GSA also introduced guidelines for artwork , establishing a minimum five-year post-installation, during which removals could occur based on usability assessments without requiring formal artist consent, contrasting with stricter proposals like the ' (NEA) suggested 10-year review involving professional input. By 1998, updated GSA protocols explicitly stated that adverse public opinion alone did not justify removal for works commissioned after 1991, aligning with protections under the while prioritizing functional considerations such as site accessibility and maintenance. These institutional adjustments contributed to broader U.S. trends in , fostering heightened scrutiny of site-specific commissions that could impede plaza usability, with a pivot toward adaptable works evaluated against empirical metrics like foot traffic and spatial flow. The Tilted Arc prompted internal GSA deliberations on public accountability, resulting in a program trajectory that favored collaborative, community-oriented projects over imperious installations, as evidenced by the NEA's parallel shift away from standalone object sculptures by the early 1990s.

Debates on Artistic Freedom vs. Public Utility

The controversy surrounding Tilted Arc encapsulated a fundamental tension between and the functional demands of , with proponents of preservation framing removal as an act of that undermined contractual freedoms and expressive rights. and supporters, including segments of the art community, contended that the site's specificity rendered relocation tantamount to destruction, arguing that such intervention set a eroding artists' ability to challenge conventional spatial norms without bureaucratic override. This view gained traction among over 100 testifiers at the public hearings who favored retention, emphasizing the sculpture's role in provoking perceptual engagement over mere decoration. Opponents, primarily federal workers and plaza users, prioritized utilitarian access, citing the 120-foot Cor-Ten steel barrier's obstruction of pedestrian pathways, perceived safety hazards, and aesthetic discord as justification for prioritizing communal usability over abstract intent. Empirical indicators of discontent included petitions amassing 1,300 signatures from Federal Plaza employees by September 1981 and approximately 4,500 complaints lodged with the (GSA), reflecting direct user feedback rather than detached critique. The GSA-appointed panel's 4-1 vote for relocation in April 1985 underscored this sovereignty, validating public input in taxpayer-funded installations where elite curatorial choices had imposed inflexible designs misaligned with daily needs. A causal examination reveals site-specificity's inherent trade-offs: while enabling innovative site-responsive works, it precludes adaptation, amplifying conflicts when public rejection arises from tangible disruptions rather than mere unfamiliarity. Post-removal redesigns, such as Martha Schwartz's of benches and plantings, restored the plaza's openness for events and circulation, illustrating how rigid permanence can prioritize conceptual purity at the expense of adaptive public benefit. This case highlighted risks in undemocratic commissioning processes, where institutional preferences—often insulated from user realities—clash with empirical demands for spaces that facilitate rather than impede collective utility, without necessitating outright suppression of challenging .

Influence on Minimalist Sculpture and Serra's Oeuvre

Tilted Arc exemplified the site-specific ethos central to late Minimalist sculpture, prioritizing experiential disruption over aesthetic contemplation. By bisecting Federal Plaza with a 120-foot-long, 12-foot-high Cor-Ten steel wall installed at a 3.5-degree tilt on March 16, 1981, Serra transformed the plaza from a passive civic space into an active site of confrontation, compelling viewers to navigate altered paths and perceptual fields rather than observe from afar. This approach extended Minimalism's emphasis on industrial materials and scale—evident in precedents like Tony Smith's large steel forms—but radicalized it by rendering the work non-relocatable and antagonistic to utilitarian flow, thereby critiquing the commodification of public environments. The sculpture's 1989 removal amplified Minimalism's internal debates on permanence and public engagement, influencing subsequent artists to interrogate sculpture's role in urban contexts with greater caution toward institutional . Critics noted that Tilted Arc's failure underscored Minimalism's vulnerability when scaled to public commissions, where abstract formal experiments clashed with bureaucratic oversight, prompting a reevaluation of site-specificity as potentially self-defeating without contractual safeguards for artistic . This legacy is seen in post-1980s Minimalist derivatives, such as Dan Graham's pavilion-like interventions, which balanced disruption with partial accommodation of viewer agency to mitigate backlash. Within Serra's oeuvre, Tilted Arc marked a toward intensified resistance against relocation, solidifying his commitment to sculptures as irrevocable spatial propositions rather than portable objects. Post-removal on , —achieved by torch-cutting into 12 segments despite Serra's lawsuits—Serra largely eschewed outdoor commissions, channeling his into museum-based works like the 1997 Torqued Ellipses series at the , which internalized the plaza's immersive kinetics within controlled interiors. The episode reinforced Serra's pre-existing philosophy, articulated in his 1970s writings, that must "destroy" architectural complacency to elicit bodily awareness, but it also imposed practical constraints, limiting his urban interventions and amplifying his adversarial stance toward commissioning bodies like the General Services Administration.

References

  1. [1]
    Richard Serra, Tilted Arc - Smarthistory
    Richard Serra wanted passers-by to have a very different relationship to public sculpture. His 1981 sculpture Tilted Arc was a 12-foot-tall, 120-foot-long, 15- ...
  2. [2]
    Richard Serra's Tilted Arc | GSA
    Aug 31, 2022 · A summary of the events that led to the removal of Richard Serra's sculpture, Tilted Arc.
  3. [3]
    Public Art, Public Controversy: The Tilted Arc on Trial
    In all, 181 people made statements. 118 spoke in favor of retaining the sculpture at its site, and 63 urged its removal. The final decision shocked the art ...
  4. [4]
    Serra v. US General Services Admin., 667 F. Supp. 1042 (S.D.N.Y. ...
    Serra's First Amendment claim is that Tilted Arc is constitutionally protected expression and that GSA's decision to relocate the sculpture violates his freedom ...
  5. [5]
    https://www.artistrights.info/decision_serra-v-us-general-services-administration
  6. [6]
    Federal Management Regulation; Art in Architecture
    Feb 2, 2022 · In 1963, GSA started the Fine Arts in New Federal Buildings program, a percent-for-art policy that in 1972 became the Art in Architecture ...<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Subpart 536.70 - Art in Architecture. | Acquisition.GOV
    (b) In January 1963, GSA established the AiA Program. (c) In November 2005, 41 CFR Part 102-77 Art-In-Architecture was published requiring Federal agencies ...
  8. [8]
    GSA Art in Architecture Program Celebrates 50 Years, 500+ public ...
    Oct 27, 2022 · The AiA program was established in 1972 by President Nixon after he issued a directive renewing and expanding the 1962 Guiding Principles ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] GSA Art in Architecture Policies and Procedures
    The funding for each Art in Architecture project is at least 0.5 percent (one-half of one percent) of the building project's total estimated construction cost ( ...
  10. [10]
    Art in Architecture Program | GSA
    Sep 13, 2024 · GSA's Art in Architecture Program commissions artworks that are integral parts of the architectural fabric of new Federal buildings.
  11. [11]
    Tilted Arc, The Public Policy Context - Harriet Senie
    The rise and fall of Tilted Arc occurred against a background of shifting paradigms in public policy for art in general and public art in particular.
  12. [12]
    Decision_Serra v. U.S. General Services Administration - Artist Rights
    Judge Pollack granted summary judgment to GSA on Serra's constitutional claims on the grounds that the decision to relocate "Tilted Arc" was a content-neutral ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] "The Tilted Arc Controversy" by Richard Serra - Cardozo AELJ
    2d at 1047 (giving a brief discussion of the hearing and the result). 16 See id; see also Richard Serra. Tilted Arc, available at http:www.pbs.org/wgbh/cul.
  14. [14]
    Here Are 3 Facts About Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc'—A Sculpture So ...
    Apr 8, 2024 · Discover the controversy behind Tilted Arc, a monumental steel sculpture by the artist Richard Serra which was removed from public view.
  15. [15]
    [PDF] 6th INTERVIEW WITH ARCHITECTURE: CASE OF RICHARD SERRA
    Tilted Arc was one of Serra's urban projects; it was dismantled in the ... viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As he ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Richard Serra/sculpture - MoMA
    He has experimented with process art, "casting" molten lead into the angle formed by floor and wall to create a series of Splash. Pieces, and with constructed ...
  17. [17]
    In a potato field north of Toronto, a massive hidden artwork teaches ...
    Sep 21, 2021 · We're learning the tale of an important artwork called Shift made by a renowned artist in a potato field that somehow was forgotten, and what it means to keep ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Geometry Experiments with Richard Serra's Sculpture
    a sculpture in New York Federal Plaza. “Tilted Arc” was a cylindrical section with a shallow curvature of dimensions 36.6 m length, 3.66 m height and only 6 ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Serra's Public Sculpture: Redefining Site Specificity - Monoskop
    Author's note: This essay represents my position on site specificity as I was led to consider the issue in relation to the crisis over Richard Serra's Tilted ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Geometry Experiments with Richard Serra's Sculpture
    “Tilted Arc” was a cylindrical section with a shallow curvature of dimensions 36.6 m length, 3.66 m height and only 6 cm thickness, made with Corten steel, an.
  21. [21]
    Natural Effects of Curved Steel in Public Art - The Chicago Curve
    Feb 26, 2020 · As well, he was the artist behind the infamously famous “Tilted Arc” which was a solid, unfinished plate of COR-TEN, 120 feet x 12 feet x 2.5 ...
  22. [22]
    Serra's Tilted Arc and Public Art
    Is this public funding of art a good idea? d. The long steel wall (120 feet long by 12 feet high) that Richard Serra produced was ...
  23. [23]
    It's Not What It Is, It's Where It Is: Welcoming a New Richard Serra ...
    Jul 10, 2019 · Tilted Arc, Serra's 12-foot-tall, 120-foot-long wall of steel that curved across the busy plaza of the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in lower ...Missing: length height
  24. [24]
    [PDF] One place after another: site-specific art and locational identity - CUNY
    versy concerning Richard Serra's steel sculpture Tilted Arc. Commissioned by the. US. General Services Administration in 1979 and installed in 1981, the 12 ...
  25. [25]
    Art: The Trials Of Tilted Arc - Time Magazine
    Jun 3, 1985 · It was certainly major: a curving, unbroken wall of steel plate, twice the height of a tall man and 120 ft. ... The cost: $175,000.Missing: fabrication Bethlehem timeline
  26. [26]
    Richard Serra: Tilted Arc - The Brooklyn Rail
    Tilted Arc was a rebuke to Reagan's banner of freedom—a code word for his policies of national renewal. Alongside the barriers of privatization, the arc traced ...
  27. [27]
    Tilted Arc - Ronald Varney
    Apr 30, 2024 · Tilted Arc was a 120-foot long, 12-foot high steel slab that was controversial and eventually removed from its location.Missing: Bethlehem cost timeline<|control11|><|separator|>
  28. [28]
    SERRA WORK STIRS DOWNTOWN PROTEST - The New York Times
    Sep 25, 1981 · A recently installed sculpture by Richard Serra is stirring controversy in lower Manhattan. ''Tilted Arc'' is a subtly curved wall of three ...
  29. [29]
    Page not found
    **Summary:**
  30. [30]
    Culture Shock: Flashpoints: Visual Arts: Richerd Serra's Tilted Arc
    Estimates for the cost of dismantling the work are $35,000, with an additional $50,000 estimated to erect it in another location. Richard Serra testifies that ...Missing: fabrication Bethlehem timeline
  31. [31]
    Tilted Arc - Archive of Destruction
    Titled Arc by Richard Serra was installed outside government buildings in Federal Plaza, New York, in 1981. It was, in effect, a wall of steel measuring 3.6m ...Missing: 25 style
  32. [32]
    Tilted Arc - Vandalism from Above and Below - Alfred & Marie
    May 31, 2016 · The sculpture Tilted Arc manifests the radicalization of site specificity by Serra. However, the reactions to the artwork also clarify, that ...Missing: proposals | Show results with:proposals<|control11|><|separator|>
  33. [33]
    What made Richard Serra's Tilted Arc sculpture so controversial?
    To the office workers, the artwork appeared to them as ugly and oppressive, an obstacle that had the potential to catch graffiti. Outright protests began ...Missing: aesthetic criticisms eyesore
  34. [34]
    Lost Art: Richard Serra | Tate
    Richard Serra's Tilted Arc was a massive public sculpture installed outside government buildings in Federal Plaza, New York, in 1981. It was, in effect, a wall ...Missing: calibrated geometry
  35. [35]
    Horowitz on Tilted Arc
    A controversy created to give the appearance of the public triumphing over an elitist/patronizing Artworld. i. A battle staged with increased frequency ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Cloud Gate, Tilted Arc | The Point Magazine
    Mar 9, 2012 · Its critics accused it of attracting graffiti and rats, and imagined that it might be used as a shelter for terrorists intent on attacking the ...
  37. [37]
    “Tilted Arc” Hearing - Artforum
    At this writing, the New York GSA panel has recommended that the sculpture be relocated and has submitted its decision along with the hearing transcripts to the ...
  38. [38]
    OFFICE WORKERS AND ARTISTS DEBATE FATE OF A SCULPTURE
    Mar 7, 1985 · Complaints from employees in the Federal building began pouring in shortly after the piece was installed in 1981. Yesterday, before a five- ...Missing: gusts | Show results with:gusts
  39. [39]
    New Yorkers, Artists Tilt Over 'Arc' - The Washington Post
    Mar 6, 1985 · New York Times art critic Grace Glueck recently called "Tilted Arc" "one of the ugliest pieces of public art in the city, a domineering work ...Missing: disdain | Show results with:disdain
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Arts - New Jersey
    At the March hearing, Richard Serra ex- plained the concepts behind Tilted Arc and its interrelationship to the plaza and its in- habitants: "My sculptures are ...
  41. [41]
    Public Art/Public Space: The Spectacle of the Tilted Arc Controversy
    Serra fought the. GSA in the courts until 1989, at which point, his appeals exhausted, the GSA was permitted to destroy Tilted Arc. While Tilted Arc was by its ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Culture Shock: Flashpoints: Visual Arts: Richerd Serra's Tilted Arc
    Richard Serra's Tilted Arc 1981. In 1981, artist Richard Serra installs his sculpture Tilted Arc, in Federal Plaza in New York City. It has been commissioned ...
  43. [43]
    'TILTED ARC' TO BE MOVED FROM PLAZA AT FOLEY SQ.
    Jun 1, 1985 · ''The people have spoken, and they have been listened to by their government,'' said William J. Diamond, the regional administrator of the ...Missing: members vote
  44. [44]
    Serra Set Precedent: An Art Law Homage to Richard Serra
    Apr 15, 2024 · Katie White, Here Are 3 Facts About Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc'—A Sculpture So Controversial It Was Put on Trial, artnet (Apr. 9, 2024), https ...
  45. [45]
    Richard Serra, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States General Services ...
    Judge Pollack granted summary judgment to GSA on Serra's constitutional claims on the grounds that the decision to relocate "Tilted Arc" was a content-neutral ...
  46. [46]
    847 F.2d 1045
    Judge Pollack granted summary judgment to GSA on Serra's constitutional claims on the grounds that the decision to relocate "Tilted Arc" was a content-neutral ...
  47. [47]
    Moving Day Arrives for Disputed Sculpture - The New York Times
    Mar 11, 1989 · As workers arrived yesterday at Federal Plaza to prepare to dismantle the piece - a 12-foot-tall curving and inclined wall of rusting steel - ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  48. [48]
    Tilted Arc - Wikipedia
    Following an acrimonious public debate, the sculpture was removed in 1989 as the result of a federal lawsuit and has never been publicly displayed since, in ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] General Services Administration (GSA) Records about the Tilted Arc ...
    Feb 10, 2025 · GSA dismantled and removed Tilted Arc from Federal Plaza on March 15, 1989. ... Subject: Installation of Tilted Arc. I ·ust received a co of the ...
  50. [50]
    The History of Tilted Arc Is Long - Greg.org
    Apr 3, 2024 · The General Services Administration commissioned Tilted Arc from Richard Serra in 1981 as part of a Percent for Art program. The GSA's regional ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] GSA Art in Architecture Selected Artworks 1997 - 2008
    The roster of recent commissions by the GSA's Art in Architecture program reveals a whole inventory of innovative approaches to the marriage of art and ...
  52. [52]
    Serra's Tilted Arc and Public Art
    Panel of 4 GSA administrators voted for removal (Diamond stacked the panel with his own employees says Horowitz) ... WAS REMOVAL OF TILTED ARC (=TA) A DEMOCRATIC ...Missing: members William
  53. [53]
    JUDGE RULES AGAINST SCULPTOR - The Washington Post
    Sep 1, 1987 · After three days of public hearings and 4,500 complaints from federal employes and local residents, the GSA decided in 1985 to move "Tilted Arc" ...
  54. [54]
    Richard Serra's Tilted Arc - Western University
    Richard Serra's Tilted Arc. A Monumental New York Memory. SARAH MULLEN. Richard Serra (1939-) is an American minimalist artist known for ...
  55. [55]
    How Richard Serra Shaped the Discourse about Public Art in ... - Artsy
    May 2, 2016 · Combining the action of Abstract Expressionism with the raw, procedural grind of Process Art, his sculptures recast Minimalism on a monumental scale.Missing: proposals | Show results with:proposals