I touched WAKE
It's not really news anymore, but it is still a very sharp thorn in my side that nobody is supposed (theoretically, ‘allowed’) to touch any of the art at the Olympic Sculpture Park. Really, don’t touch it, don’t walk on the grass, stay on the path and leave no trace but your Starbucks cup. The only experience of this vast and expensive sculpture park you get to have, is one dictated by the managerial oversight committee, the many thuggish security guards roaming the place, and please read the signs again. We said, DON’T Touch The Art!
Long ago and far away, some people in this great city of Seattle thought, ‘hey- let’s turn this open space into a usable civic place, and fill it with art!’ What a great idea- an incubator for community, a gathering place. It’s amazing, really- that nine acres of formerly nothing has been transformed into so much look but don’t touch.
So they spent countless millions of dollars to borrow, purchase or rent art from high-falutin' artists, install it outside for all the seagulls to gather on, and then tell me that MY FINGERPRINTS might harm the rusted metal???? Curator, please.
I'm a Seattle native. Interactivity and curiosity run in my bloodstream like so much caffeine and jazz. I ride merry-go-rounds, swing on sets, climb trees and ride bikes. Kinetic is our region’s middle name. I also attend the Burning Man festival (insert your jaded bitching here), and one of the tenets of installing a piece out there in the harsh desert environment is that it’s got to be interactive in some way. Which is to say that full-grown adults can *play* with the art! Turn this crank, smell this flower, climb up on this, kiss it, taste it, ride it, spin, burn or otherwise alter this THING with your presence. DO it. Now. Enjoy. I’m used to art being something I get to have a dialogue with, not a dictated, paper-thin, visual-only experience.
Am I a little peeved? You betcha I am. In the case of Wake- what part of 300 tons of steel says FRAGILE? I mean, I’m sure Richard Serra doesn’t want people to carve their initials in to the patina, any more than any great old oak tree wants teenagers in the throes of puppy love to pull out a pen knife and immortalize a moment in bark. However, out in the world, people carve on things, and touch them. Perhaps, if it weren’t for the PLEASE DON”T TOUCH THE ART signs everywhere, petulant graffitos might leave well enough alone.
Does creator’s intent figure into the equation at all? Evidently it doesn’t. Serra himself says that it’s not about the piece, nor about the environment it’s in, it’s about your experience of walking through Wake, of being with the installation, seeing how the shapes of the air change as you move within its massive walls. He’s not quoted anywhere that I can find, asking people not to touch the piece. It’s publicized as being weatherproof steel. So whose decision was it? I wish I had the answer.
I demand justice. I want to talk to the artists about their opinions of their art being placed outside, and I want to talk about touching sculptures. Am I going to actually contact Richard Serra (or his people)? Nope, as is my Seattleite birthright, I’m going to play the passive-aggressive card, and let this blog entry serve as my proverbial nasty note to the roommate, hope that if he happens across it, he’ll write me a permission slip to touch his art. Until then, I will continue to touch it when the guards aren’t looking.


Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
I've touched Serra
I've shaken his hand while he was installing a piece at the Guggenheim In Bilbao, Spain. And after I shook his hand, I rubbed the sculpture that he was there installing. I felt it's texture, its temperature, I heard the echo of my breath reverberate along it's steely spine.
I agree, and understand, that if i laid down on Monet's water lilies like I want to, it would cause them harm that would eventually deny others the pleasure of seeing it. The salt and oils from my fingers would erode the paint, or the fabric of an ancient textile, or the finish on centuries old jewelry. I get that.
But a sculpture that is not only outdoors, but exposed perpetually to salt air and the soot from traffic. There is nothing that you and I can do to harm it. And the artist in me who screams to get out cannot imagine that ANYONE who would create art on such a scale would want us to sit back with folded arms and simply nod approvingly. It's nonsense.
There are two other sculpture parks that I love. One is the small and eclectic sculpture park across from the entrance to Roche Harbor. A huge and random collection of things that beg to be held and touched and experienced. But my favorite is in Saint Louis, Laumeier Sculpture Park. This 90+ acre park in Saint Louis houses some of the most amazing large scale outdoor sculpture I've ever seen. But that's not why I love it. I love it because it also houses countless picnics, naps, painters, kites, (lovers), wanderers, and dreamers, all of whom are invited to experience the art fully. They touch it, climb on it, bond with it. And do so with the innate knowledge that art is in and around all of us.
Stand and look at Serra sculpture? No. He wouldn't want that. Calder? Please, that man was a child who played with toys til the day he died, he wouldn't want the sterile voyeuristic experience either.
All that does is support the notion that art is for others, it is not ours, we are not allowed to have or BE it.
Wrong.
Touching
The folks at SAM seem particularly crazed about the work they hold. Even using a phonecam in the museum itself will get a glare and a reprimand from any guard who notices. I was at the Met in NYC a few months ago and everyone took pictures of everything. They ask you not to use flashes as they can harm the art-work and anyone competent enough to know how made sure to turn theirs off. Maybe the Met is just too big and too crowded to make a No Photographs rule realistic, whereas SAM tends to be quiet and empty the vast majority of the time.
I tend to see it more as an inferiority complex on the part of SAM. They've never had much art worth bothering with and now that they do they seem zealously overprotective.
I would guess that most sensible people will assume that if a piece of sculpture is resilient enough to put out in the elements with rain, wind, salt-water spray and seagulls, it oughta be able to handle a gentle pat once in a while from an admiring viewer. Yes, it will probably add wear but if you're parking that much sculpture outside you should be ready to handle the upkeep. I think that the moderate increase in maintenance cost is well worth it for the much greater enjoyment people will get out of the park.
It's like visiting that old relative who has plastic covers on all of the chairs. Sure the thing might last a little longer or cost slightly less to take care of but the value of having it there at all is reduced to the point where the thing is just ignored. It's uncomfortable and directly impinges on the sense of openness that I think the park is trying to foster.