Personally, I like hearing him talk about the purposelessness of art – which makes complete sense when considering sculpture or poetry, and how he extends this idea as a way of bashing Frank Gehry and attention-hungry architects…
I also like how he makes grand, self-congratulatory statements and then says he isn’t being self-congratulatory. It’s always nice to come across an honest statement in contradiction with itself.]]>
On a sidenote, I didn’t know about Tilted Arc, but from this interview, my interpretation would be that the government removed it because they did “get it” and didn’t like the connotations.
From my point of view, Tilted Arc could be seen as an editorial comment about people in the space leading up to the building… a wall, yes, but more provoking a response to the feeling of an obstacle blocking a straight pathway, the process of walking around it to get to where you’re going, the emotional reaction of each person while they’re arc’ing themselves… and a perception of the arc changing as you walk around it. The curve and lean of the piece is a part of the commentary, and as people walk around it, the horizon and volume of the shape changes, thus changing the perception of the journey.
Perhaps it’s a more powerful piece in context of its dismantling: people’s perceptions of it as an idea (whatever your interpretation) is much stronger because of both the political reaction and sociological dialog that it sparked.]]>