QUESTION/TOPIC
The Artist and the Skyscraper: a discussion about negotiating the spaces
between public art, the monument and the memorial
REPORT
We had an hour. Julian and Paul sat midpoint in an arc of black chairs as a crowd gathered, maybe ten or twelve people, almost all of them women. Some were drawn by the question, others by the artists, and most by their project itself; the well-publicized monument to the Sept 11th attacks. The project had been taken up by the TK, resulting in a press freeze. This was the first, and possibly last time the artists themselves would be publicly commenting.
Julian opened his briefcase and produced stacks of paper. One stack framed the question, an obtuse query regarding public art and private artistic vision and the role of the individual artist- any individual artist- when that artistâs work becomes a memorial.
Especially a memorial touching fresh death. When it attempts to salve public wounds in a public place. When it is paid for by a people, a city or nation, for that purpose. When it is antidote to public terror. When that nation has different aesthetic sensibilities than the artists. Julian and Paul had phrased the issue academically, to initiate a philosophical discussion, and now they read it aloud.
Then Julian pulled out more paper. These were magazines, the NY Times Sunday Magazine and Art in America. Both covers depicted full-page artistâs renderings of the project Paul and Julian were championing, and Julian placed them on the carpet in the center of the circle. The renderings showed the Manhattan skyline by night, Jersey view. Where the twin towers once stood, we now see twin shafts of white light, radiating up from the island to the clouds. This is their project.
This is a sculpture, an event, this is energy as architecture. They are art, a monument, a memorial. What are they? Right now they are an idea. Whose art is this?
The discussion begins. Megawatts and xenon bulbs and candle power. Website opinions and pie charts. Pearl harbor and Mya Lynn. The danger of artistic celebrity on the back of national tragedy. The national need after a psychic national wound. Firefighters wanting the shafts of light in red, white and blue. The logistics of lighting trucks and public money, issues of bird migration and light pollution, of corporate vs. individual sponsorship and the irony of commemorating an attack indirectly resulting from American presence in the Middle East with a memorial dependent upon fossil fuel. Should the project be sponsored, should it travel, should it be temporary, occasional? With as many questions afoot, should the project be realized at all? Is the image enough?
The circle is small. All are artists, some in New York for the first time since September 11th and now, not two blocks from a TV scene theyâve seen replayed dozens of times, are these images. These shafts of light trace the old buildings like a memory. Itâs not a new skyline rather a photonegative of the old, as if the violence had scarred our collective retina. It is, at once new and familiar, both altered and restored. People speak then return to the images, chins in hands. The pictures are a black hole sucking in words and philosophy and abstract ideas. We are talking about action. Whose? Ours. If the initial question was answered, it was answered in this way.
Then the conference photographer entered the room, snapped a few pictures, then stood in the corner, staring down at the pictures on the carpet.
Reported by Charles Graeber
The artists, Julian LaVerdiere and Paul Myoda, are both former residents in the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council's World Views artist residency program, which was housed on the 91st floor of World Trade Center Tower One. For two years, they have been designing Bioluminescent Beacon, a project commissioned by Creative Time for its DNAid series, intended to be affixed to the top of one of the Twin Towers in the fall of 2002. Since the devastation, the artists evolved the project at the request of The New York Times Magazine, which features a preliminary rendering on the September 23, 2001 cover.
Bioluminescent Beacon was to be a public light sculpture celebrating the awe-inspiring developments of genetic engineering. It was also to be a living monument to a form of life (the dinoflagellate single-cell plankton and the light source of Bioluminescent Beacon) which has served as a rich tool for scientists in the investigation of life itself. The light broadcast by Bioluminescent Beacon would have been visible to pedestrians and others in Lower Manhattan and has now become the seed for the artists' proposal of a different sort of light: "light for light's sake," in the artists' words, that will rise for all to see, in recognition of the September 11th tragedy.
Julian Jean-Baptiste LaVerdiere, was born in the Adirondack Mountains,
and moved to New York City in 1980, where he now lives and works as a
artist. LaVerdiere is currently represented by: Lehmann Maupin Gallery NYC,
Deitch Projects NYC, No Limits Gallery Milan, Italy, and Greene Gallery in
Geneva, Switzerland.
LaVerdiere received his BFA in 1993 from The Cooper Union and MFA in
1995 from Yale University's Graduate School of Art, sculpture program.
Paul Myoda was born in Wilmington, Delaware. His father is from
Hiroshima, Japan, his mother is from Wolbach, Nebraska. He attended Rhode
Island School of Design (BFA), California Institute for the Art, and Yale
University (MFA). He has exhibited sculptures, paintings, photographs and
short films nationally and internationally, and has written for various art
and cultural publications, including Art in America, Flash Art, Frieze, and
Feedmag.com. In 2001, he participated in Lower Manhattan Cultural CouncilÕs
World View Studios on the 91st floor of World Trade Center One. He is
represented by Friedrich Petzel Gallery, NY. He is based in Brooklyn, NY.
http://www.creativetime.org/towers/
Saturday afternoon, Nov. 3, 4:00-5:00
4
David Madacsi
Professor of Physics and Director of Arts & Cultural Programs, Univ.Conn.at Avery Point
QUESTION
Are the cultural border-crossings of Art/Science collaborations made with a temporary visa?
Does two-culture credibility end when the collaboration ends or can borders
remain open for individuals to make unescorted crossings?
REPORT
The level of the dialogue in this breakout was on a very sophisticated
level, with input from a physicist, an industrial designer, several
conceptual artists, a product design teacher, an art and technology
teacher, and a performance artist. There was much discussion of the
differences and similarities between art and science.
Science seems to be represented by a collaborative enterprise that
validates itself with real effects. It is justified by the marketplace.
Science has authority because an argument either verifies or disqualifies a
theory. Art is involved with interpretation, and there is usually more than
one. Historically, artists like Leonardo da Vinci were closer to the
scientific method, because appearance was closer to science, but today an
artist's observations could no longer be considered science. But even
Leonardo, with his scientifically inquisitive mind, went about the process
in a subjective way. The question of subjectivity and relativity are
integral to art.
Madacsi suggested that art and science were identical in that they both
modeled reality, although art was dependent on the individual artist. One
artist preferred "a system of thought" to the formulation "modeling."
Discussants countered that in science one is constantly disproving theories
and there's room for movement. The limits of applicability are crucial to
science. Although art has provided a lot of empirical flat out truth, such
as the meaning of color, in art it is more important to know who is saying
something than what they are saying.
Although the language of art does help people feel comfortable with the
world, some artists' work is so cerebral that it requires the same
concentration that you would devote to science to comprehend it. Calling
art conceptual doesn't distract from it by drawing attention to the media
but rather focuses the attention on critical thinking.
While we are trained to think of art as a means to express something, many
artists are not interested in that purpose. Some are not particularly
interested in expressing their feelings. Furthermore, art is not an
illustration of some science work, and it is important to distinguish
between collaborating and simply having assistants. Another distinction
between art and science is that science is controlled by huge corporations.
Art tends to be interested in metaphor, although some artists are
interested in the literal. One thing both art and science have in common
is that, often, neither the artist nor the scientist really know where the
process they have undertaken will lead.
Reported by Jessica Goodyear
David Madacsi is Professor of Physics and Director of Arts & Cultural Programs at the University of Connecticut at Avery Point. His research interests include magnetic and optical properties of crystalline materials and photoelectrochemical conversion of solar energy. He was a Visiting Scientist at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest in 1985 and 1989-90, and served as Interim Director of UConn Avery Point from 1997-99. Dr. Madacsi is the Founding Board Chairman of the Alexey von Schlippe Gallery of Art and founder/producer of the festival, Jazz by the Sea. His current research project is a study natural lighting in geographic locales that historically have attracted visual artists.
david.madacsi@uconn.edu
<< PREVIOUS  
NEXT >>