Site-Specificity in Richard Serra's Steel Sculptures

Home , Tilted Arc

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

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.

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

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 4

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.

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

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

certain extent all of them are addressed in each of Serra's sculptures, nevertheless, some take a central, and others a peripheral role 1.

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 Richard Serra, To Lift, 1967. Vulcanized rubber, 91.4 x exterior spaces throughout a sculpture (Rosie, 2007). 203.2 x 152.4 cm. Collection of the artist. 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

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

Richard Serra, One Ton Prop (House of Cards), become central to Serra's work. Strike was a steel plate 1969. Lead, four plates, each 140 x 140 x 1.9 cm. Collection of the artist. 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.

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 Richard Serra , Intersection II , 1992 -93. Weatherproof steel, four seeing it as beautiful or elegant, which Serra 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. 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,

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 11

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

Richard Serra, Strike: To Roberta and Rudy , by dividing the room into four parts and allowing the 1969–71. Hot-rolled steel, 246.4 x 731.5 x 3.8 viewer to grasp the whole only from the centre. These cm. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York. 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. Richard Serra, Circuit II , 1972 -86. Hot -rolled steel, four plates, Thus it can be said that space in itself became each 2.5 cm x 3.1 m x 7.9 m. Collection of the artist. 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

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 Richard Serra, Elevations, Repetitions , 2006. Weatherproof steel, 16 integrated whole but an open structure that plates, each 152.4 x 929.6 x 15.2 cm. Gagosian Gallery, New York. 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

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 14

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.

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

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.

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.

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 Richard Serra , The Matter of Time , 2005. Weatherproof steel, interpreted, firstly, as a reference to the installation of eight sculptures, varying dimensions. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Spain. 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, 19

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.

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

Richard Serra, Sequence , 2006. Weatherproof steel, overall: 3.9 x 12.4 x 19.9 m , extra-weight bearing room on plate 5.1 cm thick. Collection the artist. 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 21

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 Richard Serra, Torqued Torus Inversion, 2006. Weatherproof steel, two torqued to move around within its toruses, each 3.9 x 11 x 8.1 m, plate 5.1 cm thick. Collection of the artist. 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.

PROMENADE , 2008, GRAND PALAIS, PARIS

Richard Serra , Promenade , 2008. Weatherproof steel, five steel plates, each 17m x 4m x 13 cm. Monumenta series, 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 23

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

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.

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 view 2.

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

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.

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 Richard Serra, Stepped Elevation, 1970 -71 . Weatherproof steel, three plates, 152.4 for my thinking about 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. 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

1 consists of three rectangular shaped weatherproof steel plates (more than 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. 28

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

Richard Serra, Stepped Elevation, 1970 -71 . Weatherproof steel, three setting as sculpture alter and weather 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 . 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.

SNAKE EYES AND BOXCARS , 1993, CALIFORNIA, USA

Richard Serra, Snake Eyes and Boxcars, 1993 . Forged weatherproof steel, twelve blocks, 2.1 m x 104.1 cm x 104.1 cm . Collection Nancy and Steven Oliver, Alexander Valley, California. 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

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 Richard Serra, Snake Eyes and Boxcars, 1993 . Forged viewer to the work, at the same time it weatherproof steel, twelve blocks, 2.1m x 104.1 cm x 104.1 cm. Collection Nancy and Steven Oliver, Alexander Valley, shows that there has been an intervention California. 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.

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

Richard Serra, Te Tuhirangi Contour, 2000 -2002 . Weatherproof steel, overall: 6m x 257m x 5.1 cm . The Farm, Kaipara, North Island, 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 32

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 Richard Serra, Te Tuhirangi Contour, 2000 -2002 . Weatherproof steel, it refers to the both minor changes that overall: 6m x 257m x 5.1 cm. The Farm, Kaipara, North Island, New Zealand. 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.

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.

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

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.

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

Richard Serra, Tilted Arc , 1981 -1989 . Weat herproof steel, 36.6m x 3.66m x 6.35 cm. Federal Plaza, New York City (destroyed).

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

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

Richard Serra, Tilted Arc , 1981 -1989 . the space it was in (Levine, 2002, p. 61). This sculpture, Weatherproof steel, 36.6m x 3.66m x 6.35 cm. similar to most of Serra's large scale steel works, defined its Federal Plaza, New York City (destroyed). 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.

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, Richard Serra, Tilted Arc , 1981 -1989 . Weat herproof steel, the role of the government in controversial public 36.6m x 3.66m x 6.35 cm. Federal Plaza, New York City 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.

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 Richard Serra, Fulcrum , 1987 . Weat herproof 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 simple 'balancing' between the plates m x 2.34m x 8cm, 16.76 m x 3.94m x 8cm. Liverpool street station, London. 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

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 Richard Serra, Fulcrum , 1987 . Weat herproof steel, five steel plates, part of the cityscape and that local workers 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 have integrated it into their image of the city street station, London. 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.

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).

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

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.

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,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.