BA Liberal Arts and Sciences

Major Humanities: European History and Culture

Bachelor Thesis

Supervisor: Dr. Kathryn J. Brown

SITE-SPECIFICITY IN RICHARD

SERRA'S STEEL SCULPTURES

Kitija Vasiljeva 477986

Word count: 14819

July, 2011

2

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines the different ways in which site-specificity functions in sculptures by American

artist Richard Serra. Serra is known for his large scale steel sculptures that he develops for a variety of

environments, both open and closed spaces. In the first part of this thesis, it is explored how Serra’s

interest shifted from the creation of an object to the use of material to reorganize space and make an

artwork integral to its site. This is analyzed through a variety of “processes” that are argued to be central

to Serra’s work – the process of creating a sculpture, the process of transforming material, the process

of organizing space, and the process of viewing a sculpture. In the second part of this thesis, the concept

of site is further investigated. It has been argued that Serra is mainly concerned with physical elements

of the site and how the work relates to it when developing the sculptures. However, this is a rather

simple classification, and to further explore the functioning of a site, three different environments -

museum/gallery space, rural landscape and urban public spaces - that Serra develops his works for are

examined. The framework of analysis is developed by answering the three following questions in each of

the sites: how site affects the development of a sculpture, how it works with a sculpture once it is

located there, and how it affects the perception of the viewer. It is concluded that there are many

similarities between rural landscape and museum work in the first category and between rural

landscape and public spaces in the second. In the third category, it is found that each of these sites

affect the conceptual and perceptual experience of the viewer in unique ways.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Towards Site-Specificity ....................................................................................................................... 6

Process of Creating a Sculpture ............................................................................................................ 8

Process of Transforming Material ...................................................................................................... 10

Process of Organizing Space .............................................................................................................. 11

Process of Viewing a Sculpture .......................................................................................................... 13

From Processes to Site ....................................................................................................................... 14

3. Site-Specificity in Serra’s Sculptures ................................................................................................... 16

Closed Spaces: Museums/Galleries .................................................................................................... 18

The Matter of Time, 1992 – 2005, Guggenheim Bilbao, Spain ......................................................... 19

Richard Serra Sculpture: 40 Years, 2007, Second Floor, MoMA, New York ...................................... 21

Promenade, 2008, Grand Palais, Paris ............................................................................................ 23

Open Spaces: Sculptures as Rural Landscape Works .......................................................................... 26

Pulitzer piece: Stepped Elevation, 1970-71, St.Louis, USA ............................................................... 28

Snake Eyes and Boxcars, 1993, California, USA ............................................................................... 30

Te Tuhirangi Contour, 2000-2002, Kaipara, New Zealand ............................................................... 32

Open Spaces: Sculptures in Urban Public Spaces ................................................................................ 35

Tilted Arc, 1981 (removed 1989), Federal Plaza, New York City ...................................................... 37

Fulcrum, 1987, Liverpool Street Station, London ............................................................................ 40

Influence of Site................................................................................................................................. 43

4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 45

5. Notes ................................................................................................................................................. 47

6. Reference List .................................................................................................................................... 48

4

1. INTRODUCTION

“I use steel to organize space”

Richard Serra

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the different ways in which site-specificity functions in

sculptures by American artist Richard Serra. Serra is known for his large scale steel sculptures that are

created for variety of environments – museum/gallery spaces, rural landscapes and urban public spaces.

“Site-specific works deal with the environmental components of a given places. The scale, size, and

location of site-specific works are determined by the topography of the site, whether it be urban or

landscape or architectural enclosure. The works become part of the site and restructure both

conceptually and perceptually the organization of the site. ... The specificity of site-oriented works means

that they are conceived for, dependent upon, and inseparable from their location. ... A new behavioural

and perceptual orientation to a site demands a new critical adjustment to one’s experience of the place,”

Serra explains (1994, p. 202-203). Thus, Serra’s sculptures are developed in relation to the

characteristics of a given site and once installed in the site they alter and give it a new relevance.

Nevertheless, each of these sites creates its own unique context that influences the artwork and our

perception of it. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to investigate the three aforementioned

environments that Serra uses for his works and to understand how each of these sites affects different

phases in the "life" of a sculpture.

Serra started his artist career in the late 1960s in New York. In his early years he was interested in the

process of creating a sculpture and experimenting with variety of industrial materials to learn about

their qualities. Gradually Serra’s sculptures grew in size and scope and the spaces that they occupied

became relevant to the work and, later, an integral part of it. Serra was interested in the potential of a

sculpture and he wanted to create sculptures that were more than just observable objects; he wanted

to use space as an communicative element in its own right and to rearrange space and the way we

inhabit it through his sculptures. Thus, Serra’s sculptures can be compared to architectural forms;

however, the main difference is that Serra has no functional aims of his sculpture in mind. The viewer

plays a crucial role in Serra’s work and through his work the artist is interested in creation of an active

5

participant who is willing to explore his sculptures through the motion in space (Beardsley, 2000, p. 5).

Thus, the “space, time and the body are bound in a knot that cannot be undone: space-time is

unavoidably bodily and the body inescapably spatial-temporal” (Taylor, 1997, p. 44).

In order to investigate how site-specificity has come to play a central role in Serra’s sculptures, the first

chapter of this thesis is structured around ideas of ‘process’ that have been important to Serra. I shall

argue that there are four main types of ‘process’ in Serra’s works – the process of creating an artwork,

the process of transforming material, the process of organizing space and the process of viewing a

sculpture. The second part of this thesis will analyze site-specificity by taking examples of specific

sculptures from three environments (gallery spaces, rural landscapes, urban public spaces) revealing

contrasts and similarities that exist between them and the effects that they produce. The influence of

site is analyzed by taking three steps that are relevant to the sculpture – development of the sculpture,

working of a sculpture once it is installed and the impact on the viewer once he or she perceives the

sculpture.

6

2. TOWARDS SITE-SPECIFICITY

Serra was born in 1939 in San Francisco. His mother was remarkably supportive of his choice of

becoming an artist while his father’s profession as a pipefitter at the shipyards allowed Serra to become

acquainted with the production of steel at an early age. Serra often recalls the launch of an oil tanker at

the Marine Shipyard in San Francisco on his fourth birthday as a foundation for his art – the horizontal

curve made by the ship’s hull and the contradictory lightness and speed once the ship got off impressed

and fascinated Serra then and still does when reviving the image (Rosie, 2007). Serra studied English

literature at University of California, Berkeley for his bachelor, and to financially support himself in this

period he worked at a steel mill where he further learned about the qualities of steel as an industrial

material. In 1961 Serra started his studies at Yale University where he pursued a master’s degree in fine

arts. In 1964 he won a travelling scholarship to study in Paris and Venice for two years. These years in

Europe for Serra permitted exploration and stylistic experimentation; in Paris Serra was interested in the

works of Brancusi, while in Venice it was Giacometti that caught his attention. In one of the visits to

Spain Serra saw Velasquez’s Las Meninas that he marks as a turning point in his development as an

artist: “I thought in painting I'm not going to be able to implicate the viewer in the painting in the way

Velasquez did, and I'm not going to be able to hang a brush stroke from a fan to a dog's ... eyelid in one

stroke and put a whole cosmology there where I'm in the scene. I'm not going to, ... that stopped me,

and I thought, and I kept thinking about

Giacometti and Brancusi, and I thought well

there's a whole open possibility here of dealing

with space in another way” (Tusa, n.d., para.

36). It was sculpture that Serra turned to and

the very early experimentation in this field

were with live and, other cases, stuffed animals

in habitat groups kept in cages. Serra explains

that this was playful and experimental student

work – at the time he was interested in

discarded materials and at home he had set up

a kind of zoological experiment (McShine, 2008, Richard Serra. Live Animal Habitat, 1965-66. Mixed media.

Nonextant

7

p. 20). He would give different barnyard materials to various animals that he kept in cages and see what

kind of habitats they would naturally make. He later incorporated these cages in his first solo show at

Galleria La Salita, in Rome, in 1966. Even though after the show Serra did not pursue working with

animals, these early works already show the importance that Serra attributes to experimentation, as

well as demonstrate his interest in the way that spaces can be formed and inhabited. It also challenged

the role of the viewer as in addition to looking at the ways that animals were 'building' their habitats

they were also forced to think about the larger context of the norms that govern the museum spaces.

Later, the same year, Serra returned to the United States. He settled down in New York where at the

time artists were interested in breaking the long dominance of Abstract Expressionism and its emotional

excessiveness. Pop art started blurring the boundaries between high art and low popular culture.

Minimalism was focused on the use of industrial materials, modular units, and moving the creation of

the artwork’s meaning toward the interaction between the work’s raw materiality and the bodily

behaviour of the viewer (Boetzkes, 2009, p. 695). While Performance Art challenged the conventions of

traditional forms of visual art emphasizing temporality and presence. Living in this environment Serra

was influenced by the creativity and strive for the novel, and his attention turned to the question of the

process of creating an artwork and learning about the qualities of different industrial materials. Now

more than 40 years later Serra looking back says that the process of exploration has been a driving force

throughout his career as a sculptor and has allowed him to continuously grow and develop (Molesworth,

2008, p. 40). If in his early years in New York he was interested in the process of creating an artwork and

experimenting with industrial materials then later his interests expanded to the space that sculptures

occupied. At the beginning of the 1970s Serra's main sculptural concern was to shift interest from the

creation of an object to the use of material to reorganize space and to make an artwork integral to its

site. Parallel to this development Serra also questioned how this shift affects the viewer and his or her

viewing experience. Thus, the aim of this chapter is to explore these aspects of Serra's work.

Furthermore, I shall focus on changes that Serra’s work brings about to the role of the viewer and to his

or her experience of the work. I would argue that analysis of the different ‘processes’ that are central to

Serra’s work help us to understand this shift that occurred in his artistic career. Therefore, the chapter is

structured by looking at Serra’s works through the four processes of: creating an artwork, transforming

material, organizing space, and viewing a sculpture. Even though each of these categories will be treated

separately and, perhaps, even chronologically, it has to be noted that they are intertwined and to a

8

certain extent all of them are addressed in each of Serra's sculptures, nevertheless, some take a central,

and others a peripheral role1.

PROCESS OF CREATING A SCULPTURE

To cast, to roll, to mature, to hole, to bind, to heap, to gather… are some of the verbs of Serra's work

Verb List Compilation: Actions to Relate to Oneself created in 1967-68. Serra made this list to guide his

experimentation with industrial materials – vulcanized rubber, lead, fiberglass that he was working with

at a time (Molesworth, 2008, p. 36). Every day in a studio he picked one verb and applied it to the

material he had at hand, thus, learning about the qualities of industrial materials in creation of a

sculpture that needed different approach from the

traditional sculptural techniques of casting or

carving. One of the works from this period is a piece

called To Lift (1967), which is made of vulcanized

rubber by simply lifting up the longest edge of a

rubber sheet in the centre and letting it stand,

forming a hood or tent-like shape. Now looking back,

Richard Serra says that this piece triggered his

interest in the continuous play between interior and

exterior spaces throughout a sculpture (Rosie, 2007).

A year after completion of the verb list, in 1969, Serra performed his first work of Splash series by

throwing molten lead in the corner in the Whitney Museum. Developing the action-driven aspects of

Abstract Expressionism, the focus point is the process of creating rather than the object that is created.

The metal that cooled down set at the foot of the vertical surface of the wall and developed shapes and

forms that resembled neither a painting nor a sculpture (Musée du Louvre, 2011). His experimentations

continued and the same year he started his Props series aimed at learning about the gravity, balance

and weight. He created over 70 works in these series examining configurations that can be made of free

standing lead plates and polls, sometimes using gallery walls. The well-known work from these series is

One Ton Prop (House of Cards) (1969) where four lead plates are leaning against one another creating a

form of a cube. Looking at this work, one cannot stop thinking of the heavy weight of these plates,

however, the vertical positioning that is maintained only through the balancing of the plates between

Richard Serra, To Lift, 1967. Vulcanized rubber, 91.4 x

203.2 x 152.4 cm. Collection of the artist.

9

one another gives the impression of lightness – it seems as if the smallest blow of wind would destroy

this neatly created equilibrium. In three years Serra had

created variety of works made of industrial materials and

clearly been highly invested in the creation process of a

sculpture exploring its possibilities and testing its limits.

However, he was not satisfied with his achievements; he

wanted to create a work that could not only been walked

around and looked at but also could be walked into – the

sculpture that has an interior space. It was his work

Strike: To Roberta and Rudy (1969 – 71) that opened this

new field of exploration of space and later proved to

become central to Serra's work. Strike was a steel plate

that was positioned in the corner of the gallery room

bisecting the right angle where wall met wall, and it had to occupy a site to become a sculpture (Crimp,

1986, p. 44). This was the work, I would argue, that served as a break in Serra’s output: he turned from

being interested in creating an object to creating an object for a specific site. I will return to this

suggestion in the section entitled ‘Process of organizing space’.

Strike indicated another important break – it was the first work that was industrially manufactured. As

Serra's sculptures continued to grow in size and scope, he could no longer create the sculptures himself

but needed professional labour in order to produce, as well as install them. He has cooperated with

steel mills in different countries. However, given the complexity of his work it has always been a

challenge for steel manufacturers. Currently, Serra is cooperating with highly advanced steel plant in

Germany – Pickhan Heavy Fabrication that also

provides a construction team for installation of his

sculptures. Even though sculptures are manufactured

Serra is still closely involved in all stages of the

creation of a sculpture starting from developing

maquettes (models) of flat plates of steel, revising

engineers’ blueprints on the sculpture to visiting the

factory throughout the fabrication process and

supervising the installation of the sculpture. However, Richard Serra overseeing the installation.

Richard Serra, One Ton Prop (House of Cards),

1969. Lead, four plates, each 140 x 140 x 1.9 cm.

Collection of the artist.

10

there is a shift in thinking about a sculpture – a sculptor in traditional sense is understood as one who

makes, sculpts a work with his own hands, while Serra's sculptures are conceived by the artist but

created in the industrial plant. Kwon has explained that with the evacuation of `artistic` traces, the

artist’s authorship as producer of objects is reconfigured as his/her authority is to authorize in the

capacity of director or supervisor of (re)production” (1997, p. 99), thus the shift occurs “from the artist as

the producer of the artwork to the provider of aesthetic, often `critical artistic` services” (1997, p. 103).

PROCESS OF TRANSFORMING MATERIAL

Creating the verb list and then persistently applying a different verb every day to discover the qualities

of vulcanized rubber and lead – the materials Serra was working with in the late 1960s shows that the

artist attributed an important role to the material he uses in his work from the very beginnings of his

career. There seems to be a logical development in the materials that Serra has used. Firstly, he started

with vulcanized rubber as it was the most flexible and formable material (Updike, 2007, para. 8). In his

Prop series he turned to lead, as he thought that gravity is more palpable in lead than in rubber. As his

pieces grew in size and he wanted to emphasize the qualities of weight and gravity, Serra needed to find

tougher material than lead. The choice of steel was not arbitrary as Serra has been exposed to steel as a

material from an early age – he lived near shipyards, his father was working as a pipefitter there and

later as a student he worked in a steel mill,

thus he was familiar with the qualities of this

industrial material. Moreover, it was also the

image of this material that Serra could

challenge. Steel is conventionally perceived

as a purely industrial material that is used in

buildings, railways, bridges or major

appliances. It is its functional qualities that

are mostly emphasized, and usually steel is

not thought in terms of its aesthetic value

seeing it as beautiful or elegant, which Serra

has proven otherwise through his work. The

other interesting aspect of the material is Serra's choice to use weathering steel instead of, for example,

Richard Serra, Intersection II, 1992-93. Weatherproof steel, four

identical conical sections, 4 m x 15.7 m x 5.4 cm. The Museum of

Modern Art, New York. Gift of Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder.

11

copper or nickel steel. This type of steel does not need painting as it creates its own protective

membrane through oxidization by layering which occurs for the first 8 – 10 years after its production

(Rosie, 2007). It means that the surface of the sculpture changes its colour until the oxidization process

is finished and it has a rusty character before it obtains its dark amber colour. This is an important point

for the purposes of my argument: Serra’s choice of material means that the ‘finished’ work changes its

look over time and remains, thus, in an extended phase of development.

Steel has remained the main material that Serra works with, and large steel sculptures have become his

signature. Even though he has worked with this material for almost 40 years, he is still interested in

pushing the technologies of production further and continuing to explore the possibilities of this

material. For example, his Torqued Ellipses series was an innovation in form since it could not be found

in nature or architecture (The Museum of Modern Art, 2008). It is an elliptical form where the ellipse at

the bottom mirrors that at the top and it is rotated in the relation to itself, thus exploring the ‘elastic’

possibilities of steel. When Serra imagined this piece and made a maquette, there were neither

computer programmes that could design this structure, nor technology that could build it. However, it

was developed and now has become a form that is used in construction and engineering. Nevertheless,

Serra has explained that the possibilities of steel are not endless as material itself imposes form on form

and the surface or thickness of material already creates a certain conditions and limitations on the

structuring of the form (Rosie, 2007). Thus, Serra's sculptures can be divided in two large groups

regarding the usage of material: the first one being steel rolled into plates, like in, Intersection II (1992 –

93), Blind Spot (2002 – 2003), or The Matter of Time (2005) and the second one – steel is used as a

forged material, like in Spin Out (For Bob Smithson) (1972 – 73), Equal Parallel: Guernica-Bengasi (1986),

or Promenade (2008) (Cooke, 2007, para. 5).

PROCESS OF ORGANIZING SPACE

It was through the experimentation with weight, gravity and balance that Serra started thinking about

sculpture's relation to the space in which it is located. After Splash in the Whitney Museum, Serra

created a similar work in Jasper Johns’s studio by throwing molten lead into the junctions of walls. Serra

recalls that he was struck by one of the small steel plates that were wedged into the corner of the room;

the plate was held in a vertical position only by the juncture of a floor and a wall (Rosenstock, 1986, p

11). It inspired him creating Strike: To Roberta and Rudy (1969 – 71) consisting of a hot-rolled steel plate

12

placed in the corner of the room that held it in the vertical position. This piece reforms the room space

by dividing it and at the same time creating new spaces. It

blocks the view for the observer and he or she is forced to

walk around it in order to grasp the whole space. Serra

was interested in this configuration and later created

Circuit II (1972 – 86), which consists of four hot-rolled

steel plates being placed in each corner of the room

creating diagonal axes across the room, leaving the centre

open. This work creates even more complex new spaces

by dividing the room into four parts and allowing the

viewer to grasp the whole only from the centre. These

plates seem to dominate the space because of their scale

and position but at the same time once you enter the centre they just seem to occupy the room by

simply interacting with the space around it. With this piece one can clearly see that the space this

artwork is located in is part of the work and an interaction is created between the sculpture and the

room it occupies. This work is site-specific as it

is created for this particular room and

perception of the work would change if it had

been located in a room that was, for example,

twice the size or with a low ceiling. These

pieces show the development in Serra's work

where his interest turned from interest in the

process of creating objects to interest in the

process of using material to organize space.

Thus it can be said that space in itself became

a material for Serra.

Serra started creating site-specific works for closed spaces, however, over time he became interested in

the open environments as well. It is for both rural and urban landscapes that Serra has made sculptures.

Regardless of the environment, his sculptures are designed in relation to the site which they redefine

once they have been installed (Rosenstock, 1983, p. 12). Serra explained that he “wanted to get away

from the imagistic value of an object in an empty space and instead put the focus on the experience of

Richard Serra, Circuit II, 1972 -86. Hot-rolled steel, four plates,

each 2.5 cm x 3.1 m x 7.9 m. Collection of the artist.

Richard Serra, Strike: To Roberta and Rudy,

1969–71. Hot-rolled steel, 246.4 x 731.5 x 3.8

cm. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New

York.

13

the entirety of the context... In most of my works the site is part and parcel of the content” (McShine,

2008, p. 32). As soon as the sculpture is installed it becomes integral part of its environment which

means that it changes together with the site. This is especially important in open spaces as the works

are subject to natural environment. Moreover, as mentioned above, sculptures themselves change due

to oxidization of their surface. This transformation of the material in itself also enhances the point that

sculptures appear not as a pure objects, but rather sites where activities occur and are conducted

(Molesworth, 2008, p. 42). Thus, his works transform their surroundings and claim it their own place,

space, and situation (Cooke, 2008, p. 90-91).

PROCESS OF VIEWING A SCULPTURE

Serra has always been interested in the relationship between the viewer and the object. He went to

dance performances to observe contemporary dancers for the purpose of understanding how they

relate movement to material and space (Rosie, 2007). In his early pieces, like, Prop series or To Lift the

viewer was an observer, he or she could walk around the sculpture and view it from all sides, but the

interior space was not accessible (Rosenstock, 1986, p. 12). However when Serra started creating

sculptures that were site-specific and

space became part of the sculpture, the

viewer had to enter or walk-in the space(s)

that the sculpture created in order to see,

as well as experience it. As Taylor explains

Serra's "decentering of the work of art

involved a thoroughgoing critique of linear

perspective, which has informed art and

determined perception since Renaissance,

an object that has no center is not an

integrated whole but an open structure that

never achieves closure. As the work is

decentered, its site shifts, which is Serra’s point when he stresses that ‘the expanse of the work allows

one to perceive and locate a multiplicity of centers.’ These multiple centers, however no longer are ‘in’

the object; rather, ‘the center, or the question of centering, is dislocated from the physical center of the

Richard Serra, Elevations, Repetitions, 2006. Weatherproof steel, 16

plates, each 152.4 x 929.6 x 15.2 cm. Gagosian Gallery, New York.

14

work and found in moving center.’ The site of this moving center or these moving centers shift from the

object towards the subject [viewer]. More precisely, the work of art becomes an event or process that

occurs between the art object and the subject [viewer] drawn (in)to it” (1997, p. 40). This means that

Serra is inviting the viewer to explore the sculpture through movement. The artwork is no longer an

object that one looks at, but is rather a space that is reorganized by the sculpture. The viewer is,

therefore, invited to explore this altered environment that offers new directions and perspectives by

walking through it; and he or she is made newly aware of the relation of sculpture to his or her own

sensory experience as sensations are felt in space and time. Thus, Serra's work explores the question of

perception that is grounded in a living, moving and reacting body (Krauss, 1986, p. 28).

These large steel sculptures are created in such a way that they cannot be seen as a whole from any one

viewpoint, the sculpture changes depending on the position of the viewer. It is also through complex

and fragmented structures in sculptures with passageways, enclosures, vistas, openings, and interior

spaces that the viewer’s movement is enhanced and new trajectories are explored. The works, thus, can

only be grasped by the viewer as he or she collects impressions of passing moments from continuous

movement that are later recalled in one's memory.

FROM PROCESSES TO SITE

It is Serra's interest in exploration and experimentation that has driven his development as an artist and

has eventually led him to take site as the primary theme in his sculptures. He started by testing the

qualities of different industrial materials and being concerned with the process of creating a sculpture.

Later this interest was expanded by experimenting with the creation of sculptures that engage in a kind

of dialogue with their surroundings that eventually led to sculptures designed for specific sites. As Serra

explains this notion of site-specificity “led to work that completely destroyed the notion of object by

emphasizing the interrelationship with a given site. When site and work become inseparable it implies

that the perception of the work does not remove us from the real world but rather involves us in it”

(Serra, 1994, p. 235). Thus, Serra became interested not only in redefining the traditional conception of

the sculpture as an object that can be viewed and looked at, but also wanted to create works that would

gain their meaning from their location and the interaction with it. It also meant that the viewer changed

from a pure observer to being involved in the work and experiencing through movement in space. Serra

explains that he is “trying to deal with the substance of space, to make it affect your body in ways that

15

haven’t happened before. These pieces aren’t primarily predicated on your eye, as much as on the

movement of your body. Basically you’re walking and relating to an experience of space that you could

not have doped out with your eye” (Cooke & Govan, 2007, p. 26). Therefore, his sculptures not only

involve viewers, but also invite them to reconceptualize the way in which they inhabit space and interact

with various sensory stimuli that are encountered within that space over a period of time.

In this chapter I have shown how Serra's interest has shifted from the processes of creating a sculpture

and transforming materials to using sculpture as a means of reorganizing and rearranging physical

spaces. This shift has also changed the role of the viewer from the mere observer to activate participant

who experiences artworks through bodily movement in space. Serra's large scale steel sculptures aim to

make the viewer aware of the ways that he or she inhabits spaces and create new connections between

the viewer and the world. Serra's site-specific sculptures have been created for different environments,

including closed and open spaces, and in the next chapter of the thesis I will explore how these sites

affect the design, meaning, and reception of the artwork.

16

3. SITE-SPECIFICITY IN SERRA’S SCULPTURES

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze and compare influences that different sites have on Serra’s

sculptures and our perception of them. An important function of site-specificity is the way in which the

physical dimensions of a certain site impact upon a sculpture and, conversely, the way in which

sculpture prompts investigation of a certain locale. Site-specific works of art can be understood as works

that articulate and define themselves through properties, qualities or meanings that are produced in the

relation between object and a position it occupies (Kaye, 2000, p. 2). As Kwon puts it, site-specific art

takes "the site as an actual location, a tangible reality, its identity composed of a unique combination of

physical elements: length, depth, height and texture of walls and rooms; scale and proportion of plazas,

buildings, or parks; existing conditions of lighting, ventilation, traffic patterns; distinctive topographical

features, and so on" (2004, p. 11). She further argues that the concept of site-specificity has evolved

over time and identifies three historical paradigms that have developed to define the notion of site-

specificity, namely, phenomenological/existential; political/institutional and discursive. Artists working

in the first paradigm are concerned with the relation between the viewer's encounter of the work and

the physical site it occupies. The political/institutional paradigm moves to understanding the site not

only as a physical location, but as part of the wider institutional framework in which the work of art is

displayed and viewed. Finally, the discursive paradigm moves away from the site as a particular

environment and, instead, sees the site as a discourse of knowledge and ideas (Gaiger, 2009, p. 47). This

distinction is helpful when thinking and classifying different artists according to the ways specific sites

function in connection with their work.

I would argue that Richard Serra falls in the first category (phenomenological/existential). In my view

Serra is mainly concerned with the physical elements of the site, how the work relates to it and, in turn,

how site affects the perception of the viewer. However, this classification offers rather simple model for

understanding the function of site-specificity in Serra's sculptures (i.e. that he develops sculptures in

such a way to integrate them into a particular environment). Therefore, I shall further investigate the

notion of site by distinguishing between three categories of site in connection with Serra’s sculpture,

namely, how site affects the development of a sculpture, how it works with a sculpture once it is located

there and, thirdly, how it affects the perception of the viewer. In order to make a comparison within and

across different environments at least two works are studied in each of the following sites – museum

17

space, rural landscape, and the urban environment. Throughout the following discussion it will become

clear that there are many similarities between rural landscape and museum work in the first category

and between countryside and public spaces in the second. I shall argue that each of these sites affect

the conceptual and perceptual experience of the viewer in unique ways.

18

CLOSED SPACES: MUSEUMS/GALLERIES

Over his 40 year carrier as an artist, Serra has created sculptures for most of the world’s renowned art

museums – Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Louvre in Paris, Centro de Arte Reina Sofia in

Madrid, Tate in London among others. Art museums are institutions with their own history, place and

function in modern society. They operate as places for aesthetic experience and their aim is to preserve

art of the past and their own time, as well as to display and make it available to the public. A person who

decides to go to the art museum has certain expectations and is prepared to encounter a work of art as

something different from daily experience. People do not expect to always understand and make sense

of what they see in the art museum, but most of the times they accept that museums accommodate a

variety of work that may, alternatively, please, shock, or offend. There are certain written and unwritten

behavioural codes for the museum that are accepted by the public, and artists often comment on, and

try to breach these conventions. Serra is no exception and he often wants to break with an idea of

looking or viewing a piece of art as an object; therefore, his sculptures are aimed at activating viewers

and making them a subject matter of the work. This is achieved by inviting viewers to move through the

sculpture and space it is in. This kind of engagement with sculpture makes viewers aware of the ways

that they inhabit and explore new spaces, and impressions that they get through continuous changes of

their surroundings. Serra's sculptures have grown in scale and complexity over years creating set of

changing impressions and becoming ever more nuanced in the relation to their site. Thus, in order to

investigate closed spaces as sites for Serra's sculptures, I shall analyze three different exhibitions that

appear as dissimilar to one another at the first sight but prove to share many similarities due to the

environment of the museum space. First, I shall discuss The Matter of Time in Guggenheim Bilbao that

consists of series of works from 1992 – 2005. Secondly, I shall turn to sculptures created for Serra's

retrospective Sculpture: 40 years in MoMA in 2007. Thirdly, I shall discuss the sculpture created for the

Monumenta series in the Grand Palais, Paris in 2008.

19

THE MATTER OF TIME, 1992 – 2005, GUGGENHEIM BILBAO, SPAIN

The Matter of Time, which is placed in the ArcelorMittal gallery of the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, is

the largest of Serra’s sculptural installations that form part of the permanent collection of the museum.

The Matter of Time consists of eight

separate sculptures – seven newly built

pieces for this site and the middle piece

Snake (1994 – 97) that had been in

museum’s collection before being

incorporated into the installation. Serra

explains that this work should be seen as

coherent whole that together forms the

viewer’s impression and experience of

the work (Guggenheim Bilbao, 2011). The

title of this piece is telling and can be

interpreted, firstly, as a reference to the

time that viewers spend exploring these

sculptures by walking through the installation from start to finish. Secondly, it refers to the broader,

historical experience of time referring to the physical and visual impressions of this work that are kept in

our minds and memories (Guggenheim Bilbao, 2011).

These sculptures interact with one another and the space they are in. Frank Gehry’s architecture of the

museum has often been marveled at, however, his interior design has been criticized as it is thought to

dominate the artworks and make the viewer focus more on the architecture of the building rather than

the artworks. In my view, Serra has clearly achieved the opposite effect. By taking patterns from the

design of the building, Serra not only integrates his pieces into the site and makes his sculptures define

the space, but he also manages to incorporate a critique of the architecture. Through the simple forms

and materials of his sculptures that, taken together create complex spaces and structures, the

complexity of the design of the interior space appears to be forced and staged, losing its natural flow;

making a witty comment along the lines of the phrase: “Complexity is easy. Simplicity is hard.”

The Matter of Time is created in such a way that the viewer cannot see them as a coherent whole from

any one viewpoint. Moreover, there are no side entrances or exists to access the sculpture, thus, the

viewer is forced to walk through entire length back and forth in order to see all of the installation. Thus,

Richard Serra, The Matter of Time, 2005. Weatherproof steel,

installation of eight sculptures, varying dimensions. Guggenheim

Museum Bilbao, Spain.

20

Serra forces the viewer to move through the space and make

sense of the work by physically experiencing it. There is no

right or wrong way to approach The Matter of Time and it is a

personal discovery through passages, openings, enclosed

areas that this work creates. Paths within the sculpture guide

the viewer, sometimes disorient him or her, and raise an

awareness of the viewer’s own position in relation to the

space. The viewer perceives, experiences and, later creates

meaning of the work through the accumulation of

impressions and sensations that the work evokes over time

(Kimmelman, 2007, para. 10), later allowing it to be revised

and revisited in one's memory.

Richard Serra, The Matter of Time, 2005.The

model of installation. Guggenheim Museum

Bilbao, Spain.

21

RICHARD SERRA SCULPTURE: 40 YEARS, 2007, SECOND FLOOR, MOMA, NEW YORK

In 2007 MoMA (New York)

held a retrospective of

Serra’s works entitled

Sculpture: 40 years. Serra

created three new sculptures

for this exhibition – Band

(2006), Sequence (2006) and

Torqued Torus Inversion

(2006). The works were

located in the newly

developed extra-high and

extra-weight bearing room on

the second floor of the

museum that after reconstruction of MoMA was developed to be able to exhibit large scale modern

works (Updike, 2007, para. 13). This floor consists of one room which, when seen empty, overwhelms

the viewer by its size and vastness. However after the installation of the sculptures space changes its

character dramatically and seems to lose its importance in relation to the scale and size of sculptures

that dominate the space. The works redefine the space that they are in, giving it new relevance by

dividing the space, giving it a centre, creating new interior spaces, enclosed areas and passageways. In

this case the closed space that the sculptures are in emphasizes the large scale and architectural

element of sculptures that in oppositions to architectural structures lack the functional character. The

plasticity and flow of these sculptures, especially when viewed from a distance makes it hard to believe

that they are made of steel. Curvatures and bends give the impression of a certain elegance and

lightness that is rarely attributed to this industrial material.

Sequence (2006) is made of two torqued ellipses that are connected by the S. The work creates complex

structures of enclosed areas, paths and openings, and it plays with how we understand space and

creates a loss of centre and directionality. It continues to unfold but does not necessarily lead us where

we might want it to go (Heathcote, 2008, para. 5). While Band (2006) is made of a continuous wall that

forms four loops and four almost enclosed areas, it has no exterior or interior. In both of the sculptures,

walls are leaning against and away from one another with their angles changing throughout the work. As

Richard Serra, Sequence, 2006. Weatherproof steel, overall: 3.9 x 12.4 x 19.9 m,

plate 5.1 cm thick. Collection the artist.

22

Serra explains, in elevation everything leans in opposing directions in these works, thus when sculptures

unfold nothing ever repeats itself and volumes are different (The Museum of Modern Art, 2007). Thus,

when walking through these sculptures the view of the space is continuously changing, having an impact

on viewer's experiences and feelings that might range from security, relaxation and fascination to

intrigue, curiosity, and sometimes even uneasiness or anxiety. If Sequence and Band are aimed at

circular movement, decentralization and making the viewer aware of the spatiality, then the third piece

Torqued Torus Inversion (2006) located at the centre between the two creates a clear centre in itself. It

has no straight lines, its walls are

curved inwards (The Museum of

Modern Art, 2007), and a narrow

opening allows viewers to enter

the inside. Even though the form

of the sculpture is not as difficult

to imagine, looking from outside

one would never know how the

inside looks like and vice versa.

Thus, an integral component of

the work is to require the viewer

to move around within its

interior.

Even though these three sculptures are individual works they interact with one another and the space

that they are in creating a coherent whole similarly to The Matter of Time. This installation also does not

have the right way of being looked at or walked through, each viewer develops his own way to approach

and explore the sculptures and spaces they create which leads to different experiences that one might

have of the work. Moreover, by having to view the sculpture through the physical movement of the

body, the viewer becomes aware of the space that he occupies and realizes that the perception of the

work is tied to space and time. Thus the subject matter of the work is created by the viewer's

impressions and the meaning is constructed individually by collecting and tying together the impressions

that the work evoked.

Richard Serra, Torqued Torus Inversion, 2006. Weatherproof steel, two torqued

toruses, each 3.9 x 11 x 8.1 m, plate 5.1 cm thick. Collection of the artist.

23

PROMENADE, 2008, GRAND PALAIS, PARIS

This sculpture is, perhaps, the most straightforward example of site-specificity in a closed environment

as the steel plates of sculpture are meaningless before their careful installation and positioning in the

exhibition space. Promenade (2008), commissioned by the French Ministry of Culture and

Communication, was created for the second annual Monumenta series that invites major international

artists to develop site-specific works for the 13,500sq m central space of the Grand Palais (Spencer,

2008, para. 2). The Grand Palais is an impressive Art Nouveau building, the largest uninterrupted iron

and glass space in the world that was initially built for the Paris Universal Exhibition in 1890 and now is

used for variety of cultural events (Searle, 2008, para. 5). Serra realized that it is not possible to control

and compress this volume, thus instead he focused on this site’s important aspects – length and height

(Foster, 2008, para. 3). He did not create a sculpture of complex or unpredictable shape but rather

worked with the verticality of the space. Promenade consists of five monumental steel sheets each 17m

in height, 4m in width and 13 cm in thickness, placed 30.5 m from each other along the central axis of

the building (Spencer, 2008, para. 2). These plates are not installed identically and each of them is tilted

leaning away and towards the centre, as well as taking different angles creating an asymmetrical

Richard Serra, Promenade, 2008. Weatherproof steel, five steel plates, each 17m x 4m x 13 cm. Monumenta series,

Grand Palais, Paris.

24

sequence in the work. The plates of the sculpture not only interact with one another but also the steel

structures of the building emphasizing the different usages of this material – functional and aesthetic

one, thus emphasizing the transforming image of steel as purely industrial material.

Promenade, "a place for strolling, where persons walk at leisure for exercise, display, or pleasure”

(promenade, 2011) is a title that highlights the aim of the work that Serra had in mind. The viewer once

entering the exhibition hall has to walk and look around to experience the sculpture. The perception of

the piece changes depending on the position that one takes – sometimes one plate can be visible at a

time, other times the sequence of them; sometimes they appear as static and monumental at other

times as dynamic and interactive. The viewer can be standing right next to sculpture, taking the distance

or looking from the second level at the sides – the experience of the sculpture seeing it either as a

coherent whole or separate

pieces changes when moving

around it. Moreover, in this

sculpture it is also the people

that occupy the space that

affect the perception of the

sculpture and, unique to this

exhibition space, the

weather and time of day

change the effect of the

work due to the glass

vaulted roof of the building.

Even without creating a

sculpture with enclosed areas, paths and openings that are inviting to be explored, Serra still forces the

viewer into active interaction with the work. Yet again, the different viewpoints and impressions

gathered when going on leisurely walk through the exhibition space needs to be collected together in

one’s imagination and only together form the meaningful experience of the work.

Richard Serra, Promenade, 2008. Weatherproof steel, five steel plates, each 17m x

4m x 13 cm. Monumenta series, Grand Palais, Paris.

25

These three examples of Serra’s sculptures that are designed for closed spaces allow us to draw several

conclusions relating to the initial three questions that were posed about site. Serra develops his

sculptures in relation to the space in which they will be located. He takes cues from the physical

characteristics of the site – room size, shape, architecture, the amount of light, access to the space,

weight load, and the flow of people. The goal is to reorganize space through creation of passageways

and enclosed areas. As we saw, sometimes his sculptures dominate the space, criticize it or emphasize a

certain element of the site that Serra finds important. He experiments in museum spaces, creating more

complex relationships and observing the influence of architecture on the viewer. It is only after the

sculpture has been installed in the space that his works become a piece of art and create a meaningful

experience. Once the work is installed, it integrates with the site and through interaction becomes part

of the work. Works can be installed temporary or permanently, can be stored in the museum space and

reinstalled. The length of the display of the work varies, however, the museum environment itself is

static and the experience of the work can potentially be recreated when returning to the exhibition. The

element of preservation is visible in museum environments, the work itself is not subject to external

factors that change, thus the work appears as rather constant over time. Nevertheless, when the viewer

enters the site as has been argued the time gains its relevance through the individual and historical

experience of time. The viewer can create the meaning of the work only through the movement; the

sculptures cannot be perceived only visually but has to be experienced physically by walking around and

through them. Thus, Serra's aim in his indoor pieces is to create an active viewer whose experience of

the work changes depending on the position and walking direction one takes that can sometimes

disorient the viewer, create a curiosity to further explore the compositions in space or even create

anxiety. Furthermore, the meaning of the work is created through personal sense impressions collected

in the process of viewing the sculpture, thus, is unique to each person. These sculptures raise awareness

of how we experience objects in space and time, how we make sense of our surroundings and things we

encounter, and how we inhabit space.

26

OPEN SPACES: SCULPTURES AS RURAL LANDSCAPE WORKS

Landscape in art is conventionally conceived as a framed representation of the natural world, selected

and reduced to present a memento of a stunning or pleasing experience of rural scenery (Andrews,

1999, p. 201). Thus, in this conception there is a division between art and nature. However over the

twentieth century this distinction has become less straightforward. One of the telling examples is the

Land Art Movement that emerged in 1960s in the United States that used landscape as a place for

creation and location of artworks. The reasons for the development of this movement ranged from the

rejection of capitalism to the aim of making art more accessible to larger parts of the public (Andrews,

1999, p. 202). Land artists work directly in the landscape changing it into earthwork or using other

materials to create an installation for a particular landscape (Tate, 2011). Often it can be hard to identify

the particular object that the artist has made in such 'landscape art'. Most important, however, is the

relationship between the object and the site that was otherwise untouched. The traces of the artist's

engagement exist only on the site and cannot be removed from it; there are different levels of the

modification of the materials in the site ranging from minimal to substantial (Andrews, 1999, p. 204).

These works are usually well documented in photographs, videos and texts as they change together with

their site, the location is remote and hard to access, and sometimes they can be fully visible only from

birds-eye view2.

One of the most famous Land Art works is Smithson's Spiral Jetty (1969 – 70) in Great Salt Lake, Utah.

Serra as a friend of Smithson participated in the installation process of this work and this proved to be

one of the events that triggered Serra's interest in working with open spaces. The other trigger being his

trip to Japan the same year where he visited the temple complexes of Myoshink-ji in Kyoto and became

acquainted with Zen gardens. Initially Serra was more interested in urban spaces rather than rural

landscapes due to the necessity of the close documentation required for works in the latter. Serra has

always been suspicious of the ways in which “reproductive media filter the experience of any work of art,

and sculpture in particular: a sculpture is traduced, he argues, when its scale is changed and its temporal

flow eliminated, as is inevitable with photography" (Cooke, 2008, p. 79 ). However, over time he became

fascinated by the rural landscapes and saw it as yet another site or context for his sculptures. He has

experimented with different natural sites, like fields, parks, gardens, historic preserves; as well as variety

of geographical locations – New Zealand, Germany, United States, and Iceland among others. In order to

analyze landscape as a site for Serra's work three examples of his landscape sculptures are selected for

27

the purposes of this section. Firstly, an example from one of Serra's early landscape works – Pulitzer

piece: Stepped Elevation (1970-71) in St. Louis, Missouri; secondly, sculpture that is made of steel blocks

rather than steel plates – Snake Eyes and Boxcars (1993) in California and, finally, one of Serra's latest,

and, arguably most impressive works – Te Tuhirangi Contour (2000-2003) in New Zealand.

28

PULITZER PIECE: STEPPED ELEVATION, 1970-71, ST.LOUIS, USA

The trip to Japan and visit to

Zen gardens Serra says "was a

big eye opener" as gardens

"are arranged so that you can

experience them only in

relation to movement. You

easily understand the

Japanese concept of perceiving

space and time, solid and void,

as one. The idea of moving

through space, of your body,

of something unfolding over

time, became the foundation

for my thinking about

landscape" (McShine, 2007, p.

29). After this trip Serra was commissioned by Joseph Pulitzer to built a piece on the grounds of his

summer house near St. Louis in a large L-shaped field of irregular yet gentle slope, enclosed by the

dense woods. In the landscape setting there are no architectural elements to relate to, it is open space

that is merely characterized by its topography and is affected by the weather conditions, seasonal

changes and time of day. To develop this piece Serra studied the topographic map of the site, visited

and walked around it repeatedly until he arrived at the sculpture that we can see now. This work

consists of three rectangular shaped weatherproof steel plates (more than 1 1/2 m in length) in the

ground, placed in the periphery of the field. Sculpture is based on the elevational fall on the ground over

the distance (Bear, 1994, p. 46). As Serra explains: "They either foreshorten or rise or expand or sit up

like triangles, thus, they define your relation to the space as cuts within the field" (McShine, 2007, p. 29).

The perception and shapes of them changes as the visitor walks through the field, at the same time, the

walking and observation makes the viewer sensitive towards the environment around him.

Stepped Elevation seems to, firstly, structure the environment it is in, giving it spatial boundaries, and,

secondly, emphasize the elevational terrain of the location. This organization of space resembles one of

the Serra's indoor sculptures Circuit II where four steel plates were placed in each corner of the room.

Richard Serra, Stepped Elevation, 1970-71. Weatherproof steel, three plates, 152.4

cm x 12. 3 m x 5.1 cm, 152.4 cm x 14 m x 5.1 cm, 152.4 cm x 15.4 m x 5.1 cm.

Collection Emily and Joseph Pulitzer, Jr., St. Louis.

29

Here he seems to create a triangular

space by placing steel plates in three

corners of the field. Thus, creating a

composition that appears to enclose

the natural fall of the terrain. After the

installation, the sculpture becomes

part of its environment, thus it is

subject to the natural environment

and changes that occur to the site.

Thus, the element of time is present

and visible in the rural landscape

setting as sculpture alter and weather

over time in opposition to the

museum space where the environment is static and the space is changed only once at the installation of

the sculpture.

Richard Serra, Stepped Elevation, 1970-71. Weatherproof steel, three

plates, 152.4 cm x 12. 3 m x 5.1 cm, 152.4 cm x 14 m x 5.1 cm, 152.4 cm x

15.4 m x 5.1 cm. Collection Emily and Joseph Pulitzer, Jr., St. Louis.

30

SNAKE EYES AND BOXCARS, 1993, CALIFORNIA, USA

After three years of work, in 1993, Snake Eyes and Boxcars was installed in its permanent position at

Oliver Ranch in California. This piece consists of six identical pairs of forged weatherproof steel blocks

that are located from the hilltop to the valley bottom. Serra explained that with this piece he "wanted to

establish visual system to make the volume of the valley more tangible physically, to make the space

more distinct” (Oliver Ranch Foundation, 2011a, para. 3). To achieve this goal Serra went through a long

conceptual phase visiting and studying the rancho territory in all four seasons, learning about the

topography of the location and finally selecting the valley as a site for his work. The resulting pieces

were not only a challenge in their conceptual phase but also in the production process – it took nearly a

year to make the forms in the steel mill in Seattle with the largest forging jaws in the United States.

Through the production process pieces were flamed right before the cooling which gave the material a

stone-like appearance (Oliver Ranch Foundation, 2011b). As a result the sculpture has what can be

described as an archaeological or historical character that makes it appear to have been part of this

Richard Serra, Snake Eyes and Boxcars, 1993. Forged weatherproof steel, twelve blocks, 2.1m x 104.1 cm x 104.1 cm.

Collection Nancy and Steven Oliver, Alexander Valley, California.

31

location for hundreds of years and seems that it will endure giving the sculpture impression of almost

infinite lifespan.

Approaching the sculpture

from the hilltop the first thing

that becomes visible to the

viewer is first two blocks that

create a gate to the vast

landscape emphasizing its

continuity over miles and

miles away. This opening gate invites the

viewer to the work, at the same time it

shows that there has been an intervention

in the site that had been given a new relevance. Once entering the gate the valley opens up and the rest

of the pieces become visible to the visitor. The sculpture claim the space in the vast landscape and turn

its location in the art-specific place – it is what Serra has described as anti-environment, sculpture

declaring the area and making its own space, place and situation (Cooke, 2008, p. 90-91). At first sight it

becomes clear that these blocks are arranged in a certain order. However, their internal logic cannot be

worked out immediately. It requests walking around and familiarizing oneself to the landscape in order

to understand the logic of the work and its relation to the site. Nevertheless, the aim is not to create

new spaces and change the site as it was in the museum environment but rather orient the viewer and

emphasize a certain part of the vast landscape that Serra found interesting and worth close

examination. This sculpture similarly to Pulitzer Piece accentuates the relief of the area and marks the

boundaries or encircles a certain field. The similarities can be also seen in the choice of the location –

open levelling field that is surrounded by the woods. However, most importantly it engages the visitor to

the site of the sculpture, he or she slows down and sets to explore block by block in order to understand

their relation to one another and the location they are in. While slowly moving through the space

visitors become aware of the changes that occur to the ground related to their movements. Moreover,

the work makes the visitors completely involved with the details of the landscape that might have gone

unnoticed before the sculpture was part of this site.

Richard Serra, Snake Eyes and Boxcars, 1993. Forged

weatherproof steel, twelve blocks, 2.1m x 104.1 cm x 104.1

cm. Collection Nancy and Steven Oliver, Alexander Valley,

California.

32

TE TUHIRANGI CONTOUR, 2000-2002, KAIPARA, NEW ZEALAND

The size is the first striking characteristic of Te Tuhirangi Contour. It is 250 meters long and 6 m high

steel plate that seem to endlessly bend through the landscape following the relief of the earth. It was

commissioned by the art collector Alan Gibbs for his contemporary art park The Farm, in Kaipara, New

Zealand. This piece similarly to other Serra's landscape works was created after careful studying of the

topography of the site through maps and visits to the site. Serra, as with his previous pieces, wanted to

reveal the topography of the site. However, as he explained, the innovative element of this sculpture is

its quality of moving from 'structuring' the site as in his past landscape works to 'mediating' the site

(Cooke, 2008, p. 87). In Pulitzer Piece and Snake Eyes and Boxcars Serra was structuring the space – he

used multiple plates or series of blocks that enclosed a certain area that Serra wanted to emphasize, he

created borders, defined a certain territory and helped the viewer to orient through it. Thus, with these

sculptures he created a feeling that the field of the sculpture is open and enclosed at the same time.

However, Te Tuhirangi Contour simply runs through the seemingly endless landscape of open grass

pasture emphasizing the rolling elevations of it, appearing as almost organic part of it. It only mediates

Richard Serra, Te Tuhirangi Contour, 2000-2002. Weatherproof steel, overall: 6m x 257m x 5.1 cm. The Farm, Kaipara,

North Island, New Zealand.

33

the site not giving it clear boundaries but rather being part of panoramic vista, completely integral of its

surroundings. It is further emphasized by making it run along a single curvilinear contour of the land,

built perpendicularly to the falls of it (Cooke, 2008, p. 98). However, it is not only the relief that the

sculpture is integrated with but also the surrounding landscape elements, for example, the sculpture is

located between two lines of eucalyptus trees that were planted to serve as windbreakers that might

have inspired Serra to create the continuation between them.

The perception of this sculpture changes depending on the position that the visitor takes, from the far

distance it appears as running through the landscape while coming closer it encloses the viewer.

Similarly to the museum piece Band it has no interior or exterior space. As with other landscape works it

makes the viewer aware of the surrounding landscape, and the changes that occur to it when walking

around and by the sculpture exploring

the unfolding curvatures and bends of it

and their relation to the site. Thus, the

landscape that might have been

overlooked in the past gains an

importance through the sculpture that

acts as a mediator between the viewer

and the landscape. This sculpture also

becomes integral part of its site and

changes together with it. Time becomes

important element in this sculpture and

it refers to the both minor changes that

occur to the sculpture over day or several

days, like weather or the amount of light, as well as changes over time, like seasons or changes in the

landscape that all affect the perception and experience of this work.

Richard Serra, Te Tuhirangi Contour, 2000-2002. Weatherproof steel,

overall: 6m x 257m x 5.1 cm. The Farm, Kaipara, North Island, New

Zealand.

34

In this section Serra's sculptures in the landscape environments have been analyzed and there are

several conclusions that we can draw from this discussion. The sculptures are created in relation to the

physical characteristics of the landscape. Serra is interested in typography of the sites – he studies maps,

spends time walking, and revisits sites in different seasons to understand the environment in which he

locates his work. He prefers natural environments that have been untouched, not transformed

according to any given aesthetic convention (Cooke, 2008, p. 100). Sculptures in the landscape setting

respond to the relief of the terrain, the physical characteristics of the site and, they function as we saw

either as structuring or mediating the site. Nevertheless, they claim the area that they are located in and

give it new relevance by making it an art-specific site where the sculpture together with the

environment creates aesthetic experience. Once the work is installed it becomes integral part of the

environment and is subject to all the conditions of natural environment – light, time of day, weather,

changes over time to the landscape, thus the distinction between the nature and art are eroded. The

work evolves with its site and changes over time, thus, time becomes important and visible element in

this site as in opposition to the closed spaces that are static environments. It is through the bodily

movement that the sculpture is perceived and the sculpture orients the viewer through the landscape

and the part of the landscape that it has claimed its own. In this environment the primarily goal is not to

activate the viewer's movement through the space as in the museum sites, as people are used to

walking in the landscape environments. These sculptures rather work on prolonging the time that is

spent in one particular site, as it takes hours to walk through or by these pieces that the visitor would

probably not do if there was nothing particular to explore. With his landscape sculptures Serra raises the

awareness of the viewer to the surroundings; he asks to pay attention to the details that would be

dismissed in the simple walk through the vast field, he orients the viewer. He points to the elevations of

the ground and the composition of the site. The meaning similarly to the museum environment is

created through gathering sense impressions and reflections of the work, however, in this site landscape

works as a context of the work which is a crucial difference.

35

OPEN SPACES: SCULPTURES IN URBAN PUBLIC SPACES

The third site of Serra's sculptures is that of the public spaces in urban environments. Serra has

described public sculpture as a challenge that comes with a certain resistance and questioning from the

public. Nevertheless, his persistence in continuing to create works for urban locations lies in their

potential as an alternative place for the arts display that can enhance the position of art in the society

(McShine, 2008, p. 36). The use of public space for the display of art has been topic that is subject to

ongoing discussions, debates and researches in academic, political circles and the public sphere in

general. As Senie & Webster have explained it is important for public art to be viewed in the complex

matrix in which this work has been conceived, commissioned, built and received to make a meaningful

understanding of it (1992, p. xi). These artworks redefine the space that they are in by changing the

usage and meaning of the site. As the location are the city streets and open places that work as a stage

where public acts and interacts it is often controversial and heated debates that surround these works

(Senie, 1992, p. 4). The ‘public’ consists of a highly diverse groups of citizens each having different

tastes, social and educational backgrounds, and political views. Thus, one of the questions regarding

public art is how to communicate and establish the dialogue between these different groups in society.

It is debated whether public artworks should be aimed at reaching an agreement between different

voices that are raised in the public sphere regarding the creation and perception of the artwork, or

rather the mere aim of the public art is to show that we live in the fragmented society that through the

political system of democracy allows various voices being co-existent in the public sphere (Sharp, Pollock

& Paddison, 2005, p. 1004). Furthermore, it has to be noted that public artworks are often funded by

the government which means that it is citizens’ tax money has gone into subsidising the creation of the

artwork.

One of the main reasons for resistance from the public towards public artworks arises from the role that

art takes in the public space. This often clashes with the community's ordinary and utilitarian ways of

using, inhabiting and moving through urban space (Levine, 2002, p. 52). This definitely holds true in

Serra's case, as he actually aims at reorganizing the way that public perceive and use a certain site. Thus,

his public sculptures are often under fierce public discussion. Examples can be found in the early Serra's

works up to nowadays – his sculpture Terminal (1977) in German city of Bochum was met with

opposition from one of the cities ruling parties and debate was raised for its removal; while in 2002 the

commission for the sculpture on the campus of California Institute for Technology was cancelled due to

36

the student protest against it. Thus, to analyze Serra's sculptures in public spaces an example is taken

from both his highly resisted and successful public sculptures. Tilted Arc (1981) that has been removed

from its site in 1989 is his most widely discussed and studied work, and makes a case for the sculpture

that failed as a public artwork. It has been important not only in the context of Serra's work but also

contributed to opening of the discussion on the role of the public art. Serra's sculpture Fulcrum (1987)

that still can be seen in London city centre is used as a counter-example to Tilted Arc, discussing the

work that did became integral part of its environment.

37

TILTED ARC, 1981 (REMOVED 1989), FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK CITY

Tilted Arc is probably the most controversial of Serra’s sculptures, it gained wide public attention and

bad publicity after it was suggested for removal to an alternative site, however, eventually was

dismantled on March 16, 1989 and stored in a warehouse. Serra developed this sculpture after being

commissioned by the General Services Administration (GSA) to create a sculpture for the Federal Plaza

square in lower Manhattan, New York and it was installed in 1981. The reaction of the public was mixed.

However, after some time, the debates around it calmed down until 1984, when William Diamond, who

disliked the sculpture from its very beginnings, was appointed as a GSA Regional Administrator (Senie,

1989, p. 298). He initiated public hearings on the sculpture offering its removal to an alternative site.

Serra explained that “Tilted Arc was specially created for this site, and its removal from this location

resulted in the work’s destruction. Site specific works are determined by the topography of the site,

whether it is urban, landscape or an architectural enclosure. My works become part of and are built into

the structure of the site, and often restructure, both conceptually and perceptually, the organization of

the site” (Serra, 1991, p. 574). Therefore, the removal of the work to different location was not possible

in Serra's conception of the sculpture, as to remove the work is to destroy it (Serra, 1991, p. 574). In

order to protect his work Serra initiated his own public hearings and sewed US government for violating

Richard Serra, Tilted Arc, 1981-1989. Weatherproof steel, 36.6m x 3.66m x 6.35 cm. Federal Plaza, New York City

(destroyed).

38

the rights of the first amendment. However, eventually he did not succeed in his endeavours and Tilted

Arc was destroyed. This raised the debate about the role of the public art in the United States, and Serra

distanced himself from the commission of public sculptures in the Unites States for several years.

Tilted Arc was a slightly curved horizontal steel plate that led

through the plaza that is enclosed by the governmental

office buildings of the United States Court of International

Trade. Tilted Arc created a feeling of exteriority and

interiority of a space that nonetheless remained open. The

plate closed the view on one side and created new spaces in

the square, and even though it interacted with the regular

architecture of the buildings it created a “conflicted space

that lay bare of its internal divisions to its inhabitants”

(Sharp et al., 2005, p. 1017). The only function of the plaza

was a shuttle of human traffic in and out of the buildings,

however, Tilted Arc created new experiences and engaged

the passerby not only to explore the sculpture but its

relationship to the site that it was in. Thus, it turned

attention to its surroundings and the architecture that

enclosed the site, reshaping and critically commenting on

the space it was in (Levine, 2002, p. 61). This sculpture,

similar to most of Serra's large scale steel works, defined its

own surroundings and declared the space around it as part

of the artwork, thus making the display of art a function of the plaza. The lack of any functional use of

the sculpture was one of the main reasons for the protests against Tilted Arc and it was often described

as an ‘arrogant’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘egoistic’ work (Crimp, 1986, p. 54). Furthermore, there was also a

problem of understanding the aesthetic qualities of Tilted Arc. Senie has argued that in the public spaces

people are not prepared to encounter an artwork, so often they just reflect on what they see by trying

to compare it to “what does it look like" (1989, p. 299). This became clearly visible in the case of the

Tilted Arc when in the public hearings it was compared to a wind breaker or the Berlin Wall; moreover,

practical problems, like creating sewage problems, making a shelter for terrorists or attracting increasing

amount of rats to plaza were often suggested as reasons for the work’s demolition by protestors.

Richard Serra, Tilted Arc, 1981-1989.

Weatherproof steel, 36.6m x 3.66m x 6.35 cm.

Federal Plaza, New York City (destroyed).

39

The opposing public was just part of the problem with Tilted Arc, it also deviated from the planners and

administrations who wanted this square to create a place for public usage – passive enjoyment, sitting,

eating or watching. Even though the plaza did not fulfil this function in the past – there was less than 20

public events held there in 17 years of its existence, the fountain could not be operated as it created

flood on the plaza, people had a vision of this plaza as a place for passive enjoyment which Tilted Arc

simply did not provide. This is well illustrated in the speech given after the removal of Tilted Arc in which

the administrator of the federal government's Art-in-Architecture Program declared: "This is a day for

the city to rejoice because now the plaza returns rightfully to the people" (Deutsche, 1998, para. 3). The

removal of the Tilted Arc was much surrounded by the populist politics that emphasized the public's

ownership of public spaces

and, consequently, it is their

decision to decide what can

be done to the public

spaces. In this case the

public was lead to think that

the artwork takes away or

even robs the public from

the place that could have

functional use for them. Of

course, this example also

points to one of the often disputed points, namely,

the role of the government in controversial public

sculpture cases. In my view, this should be the role

of a mediator between different interested parties rather than a prosecutor (which was not the case

with Tilted Arc). Furthermore, the local government itself made a mistake regarding the installation of

Tilted Arc: the work was the subject of an exclusive commission by the government and a small circle of

people. It did not involve the public in any way in the discussion about the creation of the sculpture.

Opinions differ on the rightfulness of the removal of this work. Nevertheless, this is case that greatly

illustrates the difficulties associated with the installation of public sculpture and the conflicting interests

of various parties that are involved in the process of the acceptance of the sculpture in public space.

Richard Serra, Tilted Arc, 1981-1989. Weatherproof steel,

36.6m x 3.66m x 6.35 cm. Federal Plaza, New York City

40

FULCRUM, 1987, LIVERPOOL STREET STATION, LONDON

Close to 17 metres tall, Fulcrum stands

outside Liverpool Street Station and

was built in 1987 as a part of the

commission for the Broadgate

development, which was the largest

office development in London until

1990s. This sculpture is designed for

the area enclosed by office buildings

and it creates a synthesis with the

surrounding buildings through its

verticality. Fulcrum consists of five

irregular quadrilateral, inward tilted

steel plates supporting each other and

forming a tower like structure that is

open to the sky at the top. This

configuration of plates that explore

weight, balance and gravity can be

seen as a continuation of Serra's Prop

Series that he started at the end of the

1960s. Through this structure of

simple 'balancing' between the plates

the sculpture appears as both

monumental and fragile, thus making a contrast and consequently commenting on to the surrounding

office buildings and their architectural construction. This piece was developed in the close cooperation

with the architects and project managers of the Broadgate who explained their vision of the sculpture to

Serra and he develop the sculpture that would be of certain height, width and would fulfil a function of

place where "people could walk into or locate, meet or gather" (Ward-Jakson, 2003, p. 48). Moreover,

the sculpture was to be site-specific, but only in the sense that it would work visually and psychologically

with the space rather than provide architectural adornment, anecdotal or ideological comment on the

history or the activities of the quarter (Ibid, 2003, p. 48). Before the installation Serra presented a model

Richard Serra, Fulcrum, 1987. Weatherproof steel, five steel plates, 16.76

m x 3.80m x 8cm, 16.76 m x 2.747m x 8cm, 16.76 m x 3.94m x 8cm, 16.76

m x 2.34m x 8cm, 16.76 m x 3.94m x 8cm. Liverpool street station, London.

41

of the sculpture to the developers and after adjusting the openings at the sides of the sculpture it was

approved and later installed. This process of developing a sculpture that would so closely meet

developers interests and wishes seem rather strange when thinking about Serra's past and current

projects, but it has to be taken into account that parallel to this development the controversies of Tilted

Arc which Serra was fully invested in and felt strongly about was ongoing.

This sculpture compared to the Tilted Arc integrates into its environment. It allows the passersby to see

and experience sculpture differently depending from the side that they approach it from, moreover, it

also allows for further exploration when walking closer to it by entering the enclosed area. When

walking in the sculpture and looking up it

reminds me of the miniaturised version of

the feeling that one has when walking in the

city that is populated with houses and

skyscrapers – looking from within the

sculpture the view on the surroundings both

on the sides and on the top opening is

fragmented. The sculpture has been often

criticized by the public because of the rusty

and raw quality of the material. However, it

has also been acknowledged that it fulfils its

function as a focal point or a meeting place

(Ibid, 2003, p. 48). It is clear from public

debates that Fulcrum has been accepted as a

part of the cityscape and that local workers

have integrated it into their image of the city

and their memories of it. This might not be the most breathtaking of Serra's works but it well illustrates

the development of a successful public sculpture. While Serra has achieved the main objectives of the

sculpture, namely, creating the work that corresponds to physical qualities of the site, and has the

potential of slowing down the passerby and making him or her reflect about the familiar surroundings.

However, it is clear that in the case of the public sculpture it is not only the physical characteristics of

the site that have to be taken into account but also the vision and ideas of different parties involved in

the creation and perception of these works.

Richard Serra, Fulcrum, 1987. Weatherproof steel, five steel plates,

16.76 m x 3.80m x 8cm, 16.76 m x 2.747m x 8cm, 16.76 m x 3.94m x

8cm, 16.76 m x 2.34m x 8cm, 16.76 m x 3.94m x 8cm. Liverpool

street station, London.

42

These two examples of Serra's public sculptures show that it is more than just physical characteristics of

the site that Serra has to take into account when creating works for these locations. It is also the

surrounding architecture, the flow of people, surfaces, and usage that Serra studies when developing

sculptures for these sites. However, it is also the vision and the ideas of commissioners, acceptance of

the local government and the public that has to be taken into account when developing these works.

Once the work is installed, it becomes an integral part of the site, and to move the work from the site is

to destroy it. However, it is not until the public has accepted the sculpture as part of their surroundings

and placed it in their memories as a part of the cityscape that the sculpture fully integrates with its site.

The positive acceptance of the work can be stimulated by the information and explanation of the

sculpture that in the initial phases is circulated in the mass media and later is reduced to the materials in

the area that the sculpture is in. Similarly, to the landscape environment once the work is integral, it

changes together with its surroundings and is affected by the outdoor conditions. The perception of the

sculpture alters according to the time, day, amount of light, weather conditions or changes in the

surrounding architecture. Therefore, again the sculpture in this environment can be associated with

changes that occur over time. Public artworks are highly visible and hardly escapable, which means that

the public is confronted with the work, often on a daily basis. The movement around the work is natural

since "walking is to the urban system what the speech act is to language" (de Certeau, 1984, p. 97).

Thus, Serra with his sculpture has to slow a person down and engage him or her by generating a new

impression of the surroundings, reorganizing space and making the viewer rethink what was once

familiar. Once the viewer is engaged with the sculpture, he or she experiences the space by slowly

walking and looking at the sculptures and their relation to the site. As Serra has explained: "I don't think

public sculpture is going to change the world, but I do think it might be a catalyst for thought. To see is to

think and to think is to see. If you can change someone's way of seeing, you might change their way of

thinking. That will be impossible if works don't exist in public spaces" (McShine, 2008, p. 36).

43

INFLUENCE OF SITE

In this chapter three different sites of Serra's sculptures have been analyzed and we have seen that each

of the sites affects the creation of the work, its position in it, and the way that the viewer perceives the

work differently. Serra explains that the scale, size and location of the site-specific works are determined

by the topography of the site (1991, p. 574). The aim of these sculptures is to become part of the site

and to restructure its physical composition and its organization in the mind of the viewer. To achieve

this aim there are different elements that are important when creating and conceptualizing the work in

each of the sites. In the museum and landscape environment it is mainly the physical characteristics of

the site that are studied when thinking about new sculpture, whereas in the public spaces it is also the

political and social factors that have to be taken into account when creating the sculpture. Even though

the museum and landscape environments both take cues mostly from their physical surroundings the

result is different. In the museum environment the sculptures reorganize interiors and develop new

spatial interrelations. Depending on the location that they are in, such sculptures can dominate the

space, interact with the surrounding architecture or draw attention to important element of the site. By

contrast the landscape works have to develop their own site, they claim a certain territory of the vast

landscape that in Serra's view is particularly interesting for exploration, and then sculpture function as

an orientation in the site. Moreover, entering the landscape is not the same as entering the room of the

museum where site is seen simply as a background; here the site is an environment that is meaningful,

aesthetic and 'functional' prior the installation of a sculpture.

Once a sculpture is installed it becomes integral part of its environment, however, as we saw in the

public spaces, this does not occur unless the public has accepted it into daily life. In this category the

museum space can be contrasted to the landscape and urban environments. Firstly, in the museum

spaces the installation of the sculptures can be temporal; they can be reinstalled over some period of

time, and, sometimes, if the very similar closed space is found these works can even be relocated.

However, in the urban and landscape environments, works take permanent position and cannot be

relocated without damage to the works’ function and meaning. Thus, to remove the work from the

latter is to destroy it. Secondly, the closed, museum space brings a timelesness element to the

sculpture, the environment is static, the viewer can revisit the exhibition and reconstruct his or her

experience. Time, in the sense that the sculpture develops and changes together with time, is not

applicable to the museum environment because the very aim of museums is to ‘preserve’ works in their

44

pristine condition. However, in open spaces time gains new actuality and meaning. The sculpture is

continuously changing with its natural environment. It is both micro changes, like weather, time of day,

season; as well as macro changes that occur to the place over time, new buildings, architectural

structures, usages of the site that together influence the perception of the work.

Serra not only creates sculptures, but also active viewers. He wants to break with the classical

understanding of sculpture as an object to be looked at and admired. Instead, he invites the viewer to

create a dynamic experience by moving, collecting impressions, and reflecting on the effects of space

and time on artworks, environments, and people. However, this goal is achieved differently in each of

the sites discussed above. In the museum spaces Serra activates the viewer by developing sculptures

that cannot be seen from any one viewpoint and can only be explored through movement. Meaning is

created by gathering the impressions and later reflecting and putting them together in a coherent

whole. In natural landscapes, Serra does not need to make the viewer active as usually visitors already

walk through the landscape. However, here Serra wants the visitor to pay attention to the details that

would usually be missed in a casual walk. He makes the viewer to slow down and engage carefully in the

study of the sculpture and its relation to the surrounding landscape and changes in it. Sculptures in

public spaces create new and novel experiences of the familiar spaces for the citizens. In this case Serra

creates sculptures that would catch the passerby's attention by reorienting his or her habitual way of

traversing or using urban squares and thoroughfares. In this way, Serra makes the citizen to rethink the

everyday and see details that might have been missed on the usual passing through the space.

45

4. CONCLUSION

"How the work addresses a given site is the issue... there is no neutral site.

Every context has its frame ... It’s a matter of degree."

Richard Serra

Serra uses steel to reorganize a site. His sculptures are conceived and developed in relation to the

physical characteristics of a certain site, and once installed in their location they become part of it and

engage in a dialogue with the surroundings. Thus, they give new relevance and understanding of the

space that they come to occupy. Consequently, it affects the viewer who has to "set on a journey" to

explore the ways that the space has been rearranged and to reflect on the effect it has on the ways that

he or she inhabits it. To sum up, the defining characteristics of Serra's sculptures are the usage of steel

as a material, sculpture that is organizing space it is in, and the active viewer who has to experience the

sculpture and site it occupies through the movement in space and time. However, the distinguishing

element of sculptures is the different sites in which they are located. As has been shown, the creation

process of a sculpture, the changes that occur to a sculpture once it becomes part of its environment,

and the perception that the viewer has of a sculpture are influenced and change according to the

environment that the sculpture is in.

Placing Serra's work in a larger art historical context, it has moved away from and also served as a break

with the traditional understanding of sculpture. Since the Renaissance and well into the 20th century

the sculpture was thought of as a beautiful and aesthetic object that is casted or carved, typically in

marble or bronze, by the hands of an artist who has the unique talent and craft for it. Moreover,

sculpture has been geared to the human figure and has to fulfil a certain function, be it commemorative,

didactic, decorative, or votive (Causey, 1998, p. 7, 85). Serra challenges these ideas: from early years he

was thinking about sculpture in reflection to the space it occupies and the impact it has on the viewer.

His sculptures are manufactured in a steel mill and the material he uses is perceived as unaesthetic and

purely functional in its use. Thus, he changes the conception of the role of the sculptor and his craft, and

also questions the meaning of aesthetic in art. Furthermore, his sculptures are not art objects in

themselves - they become one once they are installed and interact with the site. This means that the

sculpture is not a finished and static object, but changes in relation to its environment and time. In turn,

46

it challenges the understanding of a sculpture for the viewer, who can no longer passively view the

object, marveling and admiring the craft of a sculptor and the beauty of the object, but is demanded to

participate and be highly involved with the work. The viewer has to move in the space and critically

contemplate on the surroundings and the experiences that one gains through the physical interaction

with sculpture in space and time. The meaning is created individually by recollecting, creating a map of

sense impressions, and tying it together in critical reflection on the work. In this sense, Serra is among

modern sculptors who challenge the aesthetic convention on the form and the material of a sculpture

and force to reflect on art historical tradition.

Site, as the distinguishing characteristic of Serra's work, has been a helpful concept to study and

understand the complexity and variety of Serra's work in the new sculptural tradition. Moreover, it has

also helped us to further understand functioning of the phenomenological or existential paradigm of

site-specificity. Nevertheless, to further study the site in Serra's work, it would be interesting to study his

sculptures that could be called "border" cases. For example, Serra develops sculptures for rural

landscapes that belong to the museum territories – relevant question is whether it is museum

environment or the characteristics of a rural landscape, or, perhaps, a mix of both that pertain in these

locations. Secondly, it would be valuable to compare the concept of site in Serra's work to other artists

who develop site-specific sculptures in the phenomenological paradigm for a variety of environments –

British artist Anish Kapoor might serve as an interesting example in this case). In doing so, a more

general understanding of workings and influence of site in the phenomenological paradigm can be

developed

47

5. NOTES

1. Biographical data on Serra and his work are mainly derived from the following sources: Cooke (2007),

Heathcote (2008), McShine(2008), Ratcliff (2007), Rosie (2007), The Art Story.org (2011), Tusa (n.d.).

2. For more in-depth information on the Land Art Movement consult Andrews (1999), chapter 9.

48

6. REFERENCE LIST

Andrews, M. (1999). Landscape and Western Art. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Bear, L. (1994). Interview. In Serra R. (Ed.), Richard Serra: Writings, Interviews (p. 45 – 49). Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Beardsley, J. (2000). A word for landscape architecture. Harvard Design Magazine, 12, 1 – 6.

Boetzkes, A. (2009). Phenomenology and interpretation beyond the flesh. Art History, 32(4), 690 – 711.

Causey, A. (1998). Sculpture since 1945. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Cooke, L. (2007). Richard Serra: A case study. Tate Papers, 8. Retrieved from

http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/07autumn/cooke.htm.

Cooke, L. (2008). Thinking on your feet: Richard Serra's sculptures in Landscapes. In McShine, K., Cooke,

L., Rajchman, J., & Serra, R., Richard Serra, Sculpture: Forty Years (p. 77 – 104). New York: The Museum

of Modern Art.

Cooke, L. and Govan, M. (1997). Interview with Richard Serra. In Taylor, M.C., Cooke, L. and Govan, M.

(Eds.), Richard Serra: Torqued Ellipses (p. 12 – 32). New York: Dia Art Foundation.

Crimp, D. (1986). Serra's public sculpture: Redefining site-specificity. In Krauss, R. E. (Ed.), Richard Serra:

Sculpture (p. 40 – 55). New York: Museum of Modern Art.

de Certeau M. (1984). The Practice of everyday life. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of

California Press.

Deutsche, R. (1998). The question of "Public Space" [Lecture]. Retrieved from

http://www.thephotographyinstitute.org/journals/1998/rosalyn_deutsche.html.

Foster, H. (2008, May 22). At the Grand Palais. London Review of Books. Retrieved from

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n10/hal-foster/at-the-grand-palais.

Gaiger, J. (2009). Dismantling the frame: Site-specific art and aesthetic autonomy. British Journal of

Aesthetics, 49(1), 43 – 58.

Guggenheim Bilbao (2011). The Matter of Time. In Didaktika. Retrieved from http://www.guggenheim-

bilbao.es/secciones/programacion_artistica/didaktika/didaktika_64/interactivo/index.html.

Heathcote, E. (2008, October 25). Sculptor with a heart of steel; Edwin Heathcote talks to Richard Serra

among his mighty new sculptures. Financial Times. London (UK).

Kaye, N. (2000). Site-specific art: performance, place and documentation. New York: Routledge.

Kimmelman, M. (2005, June 7). Abstract art's new world, forged for all. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/arts/design/07serr.html.

Krauss, R. E. (1986). Richard Serra: Sculpture. In Krauss, R. E. (Ed.), Richard Serra: Sculpture (p. 15 – 39).

New York: Museum of Modern Art.

Kwon, M. (1997). One place after another: Notes on site-specificity. October, 80, 85 – 110.

Kwon, M. (2004). One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

49

Levine, C. (2002). The paradox of public art: democratic space, the avant-garde, and Richard Serra’s

“Tilted Arc”. Philosophy&Geography, 5(1), 51 – 68.

McShine, K. (2008). A conversation about work with Richard Serra. In McShine, K., Cooke, L., Rajchman,

J., & Serra, R., Richard Serra, Sculpture: Forty Years (p. 15 – 40). New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

Molesworth, C. (2008). Richard Serra at MoMA: Placing the surfaces. Salmagundi, 157, 33 – 44.

Musée du Louvre (2011). Thematic exhibitions from 04-14-2008 to 11-03-2008. Richard Serra: Clara

Clara, 1983. In Past Exhibitions. Retrieved from

http://www.louvre.fr/llv/exposition/detail_exposition.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=1013419867411024

7&CURRENT_LLV_EXPO%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198674110247&bmLocale=en.

Oliver Ranch Foundation (2011a). Richard Serra. In Artists. Retrieved from

http://oliverranchfoundation.org/artists/Richard-Serra/.

Oliver Ranch Foundation (2011b). Richard Serra's Snake Eyes and Boxcars at Oliver Ranch [Video file]. In

Artists: Richard Serra. Retrieved from http://oliverranchfoundation.org/artists/Richard-Serra/richard-

serra-video.php.

Ratcliff, R. (2007). The fictive spaces of Richard Serra. Art in America, 11, 117 – 122; 173.

Rosenstock, L. (1986). Introduction. In Krauss, R. E. (Ed.), Richard Serra: Sculpture (p. 8 – 14). New York:

Museum of Modern Art.

Rosie, C. (2007, June 6). A conversation with artist Richard Serra [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8536

Searle, A. (2008, May 13). Larger than life. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/may/13/art.culture.

Senie, H. F. (1989). Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc”: Art and non-art issues. Art Journal, 48(4), 298 – 302.

Senie, H. F. (1992). Contemporary public sculpture: tradition, transformation, and controversy.

Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Senie, H.F. & Webster, S. (1992). Critical issues in public art: Content, context, and controversy. New

York: Harper Collins.

Serra, R. (1991). Art and Censorship. Critical Inquiry, 17(3), 574 – 581.

Serra, R. (1994). Richard Serra: Writings, Interviews. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Sharp, J., Pollock, V.,& Paddison, R. (2005). Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban

regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 1001 – 1023.

Spencer, R. (2008). Richard Serra at the Grand Palais. Icon Magazine Online. Retrieved from

http://iconeye.com/articles/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-

news&layout=news&id=3263%3ARichard+Serra+at+the+Grand+Palais&option=com_content.

Tate (2011). Site-specific. In Tate Collection Glossary. Retrieved from

http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=276.

Taylor, M. C. (1997). Learning curves. In Taylor, M.C., Cooke, L. and Govan, M. (Eds.), Richard Serra:

Torqued Ellipses (p. 35 – 53). New York: Dia Art Foundation.

The Art Story.org (2011). Richard Serra. In The Art Story: Your Guide to Modern Art, Artists. Retrieved

from http://www.theartstory.org/artist-serra-richard.htm.

50

The Museum of Modern Art (2007). Richard Serra, Sculpture: Forty Years. In Past Exhibitions:

Multimedia. Retrieved from http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2007/serra/.

Tusa, J. (Producer) (n.d.). John Tusa Interview with Richard Serra [Transcript]. The John Tusa Interviews.

London: BBC Radio 3. Retrieved

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/johntusainterview/serra_transcript.shtml.

Updike, J. (2007, July 19). Serra’s Triumph. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jul/19/serras-triumph.

Ward-Jakson, P. (2003). Public sculpture of the city of London. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.