Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lisa Temple-Cox
Tilted Arc: Arts policy as populist censorship
“Every artist who agrees to have a work commissioned… will thereby become a
On the 15th march 1989 the US Government, exercising its proprietary rights,
ordered the destruction of Richard Serra’s sculpture ‘Tilted Arc’, a public artwork that
their own agency, the General Services Administration, had commissioned ten years
earlier.
The site-specific sculpture had, since its installation, generated a huge amount of
hostility from the public, who instigated a lengthy period of protest and petitioning. Its
positioning, in New York’s federal plaza, placed it directly in the heart of a busy working
environment, and in the path of “people largely ignorant of and for the most part
alienated by modern art” (Storr). The piece, a minimalist structure 120 ft long and 12 ft
high, bisected the plaza diagonally, and the furore generated by this provocative
relationship between the site and the sculpture which prevented its removal or
relocation: however, the court of appeal decided that he had “relinquished his … rights
in the sculpture when he voluntarily sold it to the GSA.” (Hoffman) Serra's appeal to
prevent its removal failed, and on March 15, 1989, during the night, federal workers cut
Tilted Arc into three pieces, remove it from Federal Plaza, and cart it off to a scrap-
metal yard.
In 1986, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced a bill called the Visual Artists Rights
Act, which would protect the artist’s intellectual copyright, and prevent distortion,
This legislation might have prevented the executors of the estate of sculptor David
Smith from removing the paint from his later sculptures so that they resembled his
earlier (more marketable) ones. It might have prevented a bank from removing and
destroying a sculpture by Isamu Noguchi simply because the president of the bank
didn’t like it. And it would have prevented the United States Government from
That art has had an ideological or political stance is without question, and works of art
have been destroyed for ideological reasons many times. A good example would be the
fresco that Diego Rivera painted in the Rockerfeller building in New York.
While in Mexico he attracted the partronage of Abby Aldrich Rockefeller. In 1932, she
convinced her husband, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to commission a Rivera mural for the
successfully completed mural projects in San Francisco and Detroit, Rivera proposed a
Rockefeller family would allow him to get away with including an unapproved
representation of Soviet leader Lenin into the fresco: however, he found that the real
decision-making power lay with the Centre’s building managers. Finding themselves
offended by his anti-capitalist ideology, they ordered Rivera to remove the image of
Lenin. When Rivera refused, offering to balance the work with a portrait of Abraham
Lincoln on the opposing side, the managers paid his full fee, barred him from the site,
Despite negotiations to transfer the work to the Museum of Modern Art, near
midnight, on February 10th, 1934, Rockefeller Centre workmen demolished the mural.
The Arts Council was founded in 1946 as a 20th century alternative to the 18th century
idea of ‘patronage’. The notion was that the visual arts would instead benefit from what
would be effectively a public authority exercising and distributing the patronage of the
State. “The history of the visual arts in Britain is intimately bound up with the history of
the British State… the visual arts in Britain cannot be fully understood without a
‘The State’ is a political concept, and is part of the vocabulary of political life. In
Britain, particularly in the 20th century, the word has been used in an increasingly
negative sense… one only has to look at terms such as ‘nanny state’ to understand the
negative overtones of this phrase. It is no surprise then that political parties tend to
distance themselves and their actions in Government from the idea of the state. The
‘individuality’. The Government therefore tends use terms such as ‘public’, ‘national’,
‘community’ and ‘social’ to describe actions and initiatives involving State power and
organization.
In 1946, the Arts Council defined itself as an organization thus: “for the purpose of
developing a greater knowledge, understanding and practice of the fine arts exclusively,
and in particular to increase the accessibility of the fine arts to the public…. To advise
and co-operate with our government departments, local authorities and other bodies….”
In 1967 the phrase ‘the fine arts exclusively’ was changed to simply ‘the arts’, a move
designed to widen its remit as to what might be considered art, and to allow inclusivity in
John Maynard Keynes, first chairman of the arts council, said in 1948 that “The
artist…cannot be told his direction; he does not know it himself.” (from Pearson, the
State and the Visual Arts). However this recognition of the way in which the artist works
provide a service to the public, which sees itself as having a stake in these services:
sees itself as essentially a consumer of the arts, and, more often than not, as a
participant: a role which funding bodies find themselves beholden upon to facilitate.
The distinction between art for arts’ sake, and art as sanctioned by the policy makers,
distinction: pure reason transcends the material body, whereas aesthetics is “of or from
the body”. (Eagleton) We are no longer living in an age where art can exist purely for its
own sake, nor has it the same purpose it had before the invention of printing or the
camera: free from the shackles of craft or career, this freedom is now curtailed by the
needs of society in quite a different manner than the way in which artistic patronage
Support for the visual arts in Britain now seems dependant on several things: the Arts
Council, in its Visual Arts Policy statement, that “All our arts policies…identify particular
areas of contemporary practice that we want to help develop. They confirm our support
However it follows this with the information that “Collectively the policies will help us
deliver the six areas of our agenda for the arts: taking part in the arts, children and
celebrating diversity. …We believe they will help us develop a confident, diverse and
innovative visual arts sector that is valued by and in tune with the communities it
serves.” (Arts Council England). The key word in their agenda appears to be
examining the effects that arts policy has on the arts themselves, “ the Arts Council and
DCMS (Department for culture, media and sport) tell us that the arts are now not only
good in themselves, but are valued for their contribution to the economy, urban
In the past, arts policy has been based on the assumption that “the State provides a
policy is now trying to take an approach that stimulates a relationship between an artist
and an active and involved public. In the Arts Debate report commissioned by the Arts
Council in 2007 it finds that “ Great value is put on community based projects that will
deliver benefits for individuals and wider society”, whereas other areas of funding lead
to negative opinions about the delivery of public value. The most contentious areas
include funding for individuals, and for public art (which, they claim, often happens to be
conceptual).
It emerges that mainstream thinking is that “public art funded by the public does not
deliver value either because people find it hard to understand”. Also, the context in
which it resides affects perceptions of its value. It seems that semi-figurative works,
such as Gormley’s ‘Angel of the North’, have a greater chance of being assigned value
by the public, “even if they take time to grow on you” (the Arts Debate) than other, more
The implication is that the Arts Council, in its role as a state-subsidised patron of the
arts, should clarify its funding streams: separate funding for community projects,
national companies, and individual artists; and that work that is perceived to have wider
populist appeal should benefit from Art Council funding. Arts organisations countrywide
“…are being asked to think about how their work can support Government targets for
For the practicing artist as an individual, the process is grant led, and it is a lengthy
one: in order to apply for a grant, the guidelines alone constitute a document of some
fifty-eight pages, leading to an application form of forty-one pages. Having worked one’s
way through this form the unwary artist should be aware that grants like these however
are rarely given to individuals to develop their own work. There are exceptions, such as
in the case of artist Gordon Cheung; however he was already well established when he
applied for a grant in 2005. Given that he already had gallery representation world wide,
one wonders if he was the kind of individual artist that was really in need of that sort of
financial support. Nonetheless, he won a ‘Grants for the Arts’ award to develop his new
work.
community engagement. The onus is on the artist to create work that has intellectual
and physical accessibility and reaches new audiences. Art is no longer for arts sake: it
is for the sake of the wider community, the public, the Arts Council, and ultimately, the
State. Arts funding bodies are using the very terms that Government uses to make
State initiatives more palatable to its populace: ‘public’, ‘national’, ‘community’, and
‘social’.
In a recent grant application for an exhibition at Cuckoo Farm Studios, artists Tim
Skinner and Linda Theophilus wrote an application that had little, if any, reference to the
conceptual qualities of the work they were proposing to show. In his curatorial stance for
this exhibition, Skinner says “For Outside09 I wanted to allow the work to echo the
strong interactive element existing in contemporary new media art. When new media art
becomes interactive it has this unique ability to break down the stigma attached to
contemporary art. If we are to engage with the mass Essex audience the work needs to
be exciting”.
applications, told me that the word they used repeatedly in their - successful -
What constitutes, then, public art? “Today there is no consensus about what public
art should look like, or certainty about what a monument is. The public domain itself is
more complex and less functionally stable than ever before. Public art has served
involved making a cast of an entire house, one of a terrace in the East End of London
that had been scheduled for demolition. Funded by public works organization Artangel
following discussions that began in 1991, House was completed in October 1993, and it
immediately began to create controversy. It was, like ‘Tilted Arc’ despised by the public
– not so much for its position, or indeed appearance: it appeared to be the concept itself
that offended. The publicity overshadowed the work that had been officially nominated
for the Turner prize. There was a particular edge to the prize in 1993: The K
Foundation, formed by the former pop band KLF, decided to award a prize of £40,000
(double the Turner prize money) for the worst artist of the year. On the afternoon of the
Turner announcement, she was called by Bill Drummond of the K Foundation and told
thought that the sculpture was an outrage, and those who were determined to secure its
reprieve from destruction at the hands of the local council and see it become a
permanent fixture. "People were even lobbying in parliament," she says. "There was
nothing in the art world that had had that level of publicity before.” (Higgins, interview)
On November 23rd two decisions were made simultaneously in different parts of London.
A group of jurors at the Tate Gallery decided that Whiteread had won the 1993 Turner
Prize, and a gathering of Bow Neighbourhood Councillors voted that House should be
Unlike ‘Tilted Arc’, House was never intended to be permanent: nonetheless, despite
the huge numbers of visitors, a stay of demolition was denied, and House was
Not that this wanton destruction of unpopular art is endemic in our culture: the
example of Kurt Schwitters’ final Merzbau stands in contrast to the experiences of the
Schwitters spent the last 8 years of his life in Britain after the war, and, as was his
wont, he began to construct the artwork that would come to be his final, unfinished,
Merzbau. Built into the wall of a barn in Ambleside in the Lake District, and left
unfinished after the artist died in early January 1948, the almost forgotten Merz Barn
was neglected for many years until artist Richard Hamilton arranged for the surviving
Merz Barn wall art work to be removed for safe keeping to the University of Newcastle
It was not simply a matter, however, of removing the artwork: it was embedded into
the wall of the barn. Its removal necessitated the digging up of the foundations of the
wall itself, so the stone wall in its entirety could be relocated: no mean feat, and
certainly a more complicated process than it would have been to destroy it. Note that
this process was initiated by an individual artist, rather than the local council or any
Kurt Schwitters, ‘Merz Barn’ (unfinished), full size photograph in situ in barn, Ambleside
The Merz Barn building itself still survives and contains evidence of Schwitters’
original working methods and materials, and the site now hosts residencies by groups of
experiences of Whiteread and Serra, Schwitters’ work was neither commissioned nor
funded in any way: he made it purely for his own creative needs, and in fact it is a
characteristic of his work and personality that he simply could not stop doing it.
Interestingly, in the years since Hamilton stepped in to save the Merz work, a group
was set up to oversee the remains of the barn and the residency process – the Littoral
All manner of government bodies use art to make themselves more accessible to the
community; use art as a tool to give cultural credence to its public image. A recent such
Essex, and the outreach involved was in working with adults with mental health issues.
The project would end with a touring exhibition in several Essex libraries. Parliament,
mental health, female emancipation, family history: all brought together under the aegis
of the artist. How much do the needs of the artist to create a work of integrity matter
here, for a project that has to meet the needs of so many government bodies? Not to
mention the public involved, both in the making and the viewing.
In 2007 I was shortlisted for a project to include artists in the decoration of the
refurbishment of a number of public toilets in key tourist locations in the area. The
project brief, entitled ‘Creative Conveniences’ and circulated via the Arts Councils’
‘artsjobs’ network, was that three artists would work together on three toilets, creating
designs informed by both public opinion and the themes decided by the arts
development team.
Realistically, the public workshops designed to gain public input were, by and large,
ill-attended: however, the assistant arts officer at the time was more than happy just to
be able to count any minimal input as some sort of public interaction. A phrase I heard
then, and many times during this project, was ‘ticking the right boxes’. As Mirza says in
‘Culture Vultures’, “It makes sense to ask whether the freedom of the artist is
It was interesting to note how, as the project went on, the allotted budget, or ‘percent
for art’, was reduced: also, over the course of a lengthy design process, our original
plans were slowly and surely cut back and simplified. For the work that I was to
eventually make, the compromises were such that I had to write a detailed account of
how my artwork would respond to the brief, the site, and the designs of my two fellow
artists, and in the end I had to insist that the final decision regarding the appearance of
the work rested with me, the artist, rather than with the Creative Conveniences
committee.
The project overran by some time, and in the event I was not informed when the
artwork was being installed, a process that I was supposed to oversee, with the result
that some of the work is incorrectly mounted. Nonetheless, the first toilets to be
To date the names of the artists involved is conspicuously absent from the site, nor
has the award plaque been mounted. It seems ironic that, having invested so much in
using the arts as a tool for the gentrification of its mundane refurbishment projects, the
council no longer feels any concern over its responsibility to the artists involved. In fact,
Colchester Borough Council had, by the end of this project, dispensed with its Arts
When the second toilet was finally opened, invitations to the artists were given at such
short notice that none could attend. The feeling was very much that we, as artists, were
regarded as little more than decorators, and having done our job and received our fee,
we were no longer considered to have any investment or interest in the finished work.
The third toilet was, for financial and political reasons, never completed.
So who owns the moral and intellectual copyright for this work? In my original
contract, it stated that the work should remain in situ for 10 years: in a later contract, this
had been changed to 20 years: but nowhere does it state what will happen to the
Experiences abroad:
The Chateau (more of a large country house than a castle) was inherited by Hermine
Demoraine in 1994. Married to English poet Hugo Williams, Hermine set about
transforming the site into both an organic smallholding and a place for artist’s
residencies. Both these causes allowed her to apply for grants from the French
government which in turn allowed for an amount of renovation work on the site. The
main body of the grant was spent on renovating the attic of the main barn, and this has
become, quite often, the main studio space and gallery for visiting artists.
Seeking to consolidate her ties with her husband’s homeland, she created the non-
profit organisation Ateliers d’Artistes de Sacy, and began the process of hosting artists’
residencies with a number of contacts that she already had: an early resident was
Grayson Perry. Hermine has one of his pots in her ramshackle office at Sacy: it has a
smart side and a saucy side, and she turns it around depending on her visitors.
She came to an arrangement with Essex County Council, and an exchange scheme
was set up, whereby an Essex artist was give a small grant to spend a month in Sacy,
and a French artist came to make work at Writtle College. Hermine realised that with the
usage of the property both as an arts venue and an organic farm, she could get funding
from a number of different departments – and countries. During my time there, the
project was supported by the financial assistance of Direction Régionale des Affaires
Lisa Temple-Cox, ‘Everything and More’, Maze view (in progress), Picardie, France 2005
This experience was, for me, a complete eye-opener: for the previous 15 years of my
artist, and every project that I had been involved in was required to have some sort of
public or community involvement. In Sacy however, it took some little while for me to
realise that, instead of asking what I should do or where I should work, I was expected
to tell them what I wanted to do, and where I wanted to work. I was referred to as ‘the
artist’, and given complete autonomous control over my own creative process. In fact, I
was not only allowed to, but expected to do exactly what I wanted, whether or not it
complied with my original proposal. Once I had decided to work in the renovated attic, I
was given the keys, and no-one else was allowed in.
This artistic freedom is something that I have come across often in France, where it is
either justify it by emphasising the community engagement aspect, or feeling that you
are in some way elitist or above yourself. Also, there was no question but that any work
I made was mine entirely, to do with as I wished: to leave, take away, sell or destroy at
my whim.
I had a similar experience during another residency with fellow artist Natasha
Carsberg in 2007: a tiny village up in the mountains in the Auvergne annually hosts a
event called Chantier d’Arts de Cunlhat. Selected from a number of proposals based on
an annual theme, the artists are accommodated by the villagers, and provided with
Although the artists are expected to work with the assistance of some members of
the community, often schoolchildren, the nature and extent of this is dictated by the
artist. At the end of the project, there are two awards: one, the judge’s choice, by the
mayor and other committee members; the other, the people’s choice, voted for by the
villagers. Both awards are non-monetary, and of equal importance, and the public is
quite at ease making their choices known: there is no sense that they should, by right,
have had some direct input into the design, nor is there any sense that, without art
training, their opinion is not valid or informed. These two things struck me as the very
nub of the different attitudes towards the arts in France and in Britain today.
In fact in France, if you are an artist by profession and you suffer a period of lack of
work, you are entitled to claim government assistance based on your previous income
as an artist. Ironically, however, there are not the same opportunities in France for the
kinds of community and school-based workshops that many artists depend upon for a
Arts policy in this country now might best be summed up by looking at the notion of
public arts projects for the cultural Olympiad, the very title of which has hugely
ideological overtones. Proposals are required to “…fully engage the local community
within its development” (Brentwood Council). Despite making much of the fact that
these submissions are invited from artists, whether the project might be considered art
or not seems largely irrelevant. The Arts Council’s Visual Arts policy states that
“Contemporary art adds value to Britain’s competitive edge in innovation and the
community-led.
“Whenever a local authority commissions a piece of public art with the aim of generating
‘community spirit’, it risks distracting the artist from the tricky job of producing inspiring
art”. (Mirza)
John Tusa states that “Art involves communication, expression, sharing and
doubts that the artist would really be interested in making work if it were not for the
I would contrast this attitude by re-iterating the statement made by John Maynard
Keynes, who said that “everyone…recognises that that the work of the artist in all its
aspects is, of its nature, individual and free, undisciplined, unregimented, uncontrolled.
My feeling is that if one has to compromise one’s practice in order to get funding or
approval from either funding bodies or local government, then one is subjecting oneself
Current arts policy, with its emphasis on accessibility, community engagement, and
expression. According to the findings of the Arts Debate, engaging people with the arts
reassure people that “(the arts) is for ‘people like them’, they will feel at ease, and they
so-called ‘street artist’ Banksy mounted in his native Bristol. The queues for this
exhibition stretched around the block, and none of the visitors – many of whom had not
been to Bristol City Museum, or indeed any gallery, previously - considered this
exhibition to be elitist or not ‘for people like them’. And who funded this popular and
the gallery, and retaining complete autonomous control over the content and display of
his own work. The show attracted an astonishing 300,000 visitors, and boosted the local
Since then Bristol authorities plan to become the first to allow a regular public vote on
whether popular works of street graffiti should stay or be removed. "The policy we had
inherited was basically scrub everything off unless (the artists) have got prior
permission," said Councillor Gary Hopkins, cabinet member for Environment and
Community Safety. Under the new policy, unsightly graffiti will still be removed swiftly,
but the council will consult on murals or artwork "deemed to make a positive contribution
Nevertheless, he is of the opinion that the system of grant applications does contain an
element of needing to please the public, and is more for the benefit of the grant givers
than the recipients. Speaking to him after an artist’s Pecha Kucha evening held at
Cuckoo Farm, he told me that an artist creates because he or she needs to create, and
“The key is just to keep making the work… the reasons behind what you are doing will
emerge out of that process. You will never make good work if you continually have to
bear in mind the needs of others. This is not about pleasing other people, or caring
Conclusion:
is funding for artists to develop their own work, but that from the Arts Council seems to
positively on the Arts Council policies by not taking any risks with public opinion.
How does this relate to my practice, and the work that I am engaged in on this
course? I have, for much of my career, been involved in community or public arts, and
have compromised my own practice so much that for many years there has been a
visible distinction between my personal work, and the work that is in the public eye.
The public work, publicly funded, has a function outside of my practice, and I have
been adept at fulfilling the need of the commissioning bodies, the community
work that has a social context without compromising my artistic integrity. Perhaps, like
Banksy, the way to retain control is to self-fund: remove myself from under the aegis of
arts funding policy altogether. This might in turn mean that, ironically, my work would
develop to the point where I could eventually gain that funding without compromise.
I would like to finish, as I started, with a quote from Richard Serra: this seems to me
“Trying to attract a bigger audience has nothing to do with the making of art. It has to do
with making yourself into a product, only to be consumed by people. Working this way
allows society to determine the terms and the concept of art; the artist must then fulfil
References:
• Arts Council England; the arts debate: stage one findings and next steps, 2007
• Arts council of Great Britain; More bread and Circuses: who does what for the
arts in Europe, 1994
• Brentwood Council, Members’ Newsletter, 2007
• Bullock, Alan, and Trombley, Stephen (ed); the new Fontana Dictionary of
Modern Thought, 1999
• Hess, Barbara; Jasper Johns, 2007
• MFA Boston, Rachel Whiteread, press release 2008
• Michael Landy, Breakdown, Artangel.com 2001
• Rachel Whiteread, House, Artangel.com1993
• Smith, the Rt. Hon Chris MP; Creative Britain, 1998
• The Littoral Trust; the Merz Barn Project, 2009
Web pages: