I am bewildered by the accolades heaped on Richard Serra.
The man places giant rusting sheets of steel in fields and public places. They are ugly, disruptive, and lack any indication of human talent (with the exception, of course, of steel manufacturing). To me, he is a silly fraud.
I’ve seen his work in a few places, mostly recently in the big retrospective at MOMA (even more out of place in so confined a space). It’s comical to watch well-dressed, middle aged bohos considering the work with expressions of deep thought and appreciation. (The subtlety of the line. The play of light over its surface.)
The only value of these curved behemoths (and this didn’t last long) was as a place for children to play. Otherwise, they just blocked your path. But worse, I’ve seen him clutter up perfectly beautiful meadows and lush rolling fields with his post industrial refuse.
There is a name and a context and it can all be explained, I know. But I have seen it and the truth is right there in front of you. The choice is yours.
Here is a sly Steven Erlanger on Serra in Paris.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
This post on Richard Serra cracked me up. Of course I don’t know what he means in his art historical context but my viceral response is that I coudn’t agree more.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 10:24 am |
Wake up losers. First thing: don’t project preconceptions. There’s a lot going on in this work, and you have to open your mind to get it. Serra doesn’t start out to make things that are not-ugly, not-clutter, not-disruptive, and guess what? They aren’t.