Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, Cleveland’s Free Stamp. Edward J. Olszewski

Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, Cleveland’s Free Stamp - Edward J. Olszewski страница 12

Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, Cleveland’s Free Stamp - Edward J. Olszewski

Скачать книгу

six months, Giorgianni contacted Morrison about the prospect of a site on downtown’s Playhouse Square. Models of this setting were also prepared, but the location was vetoed by Developers Diversified, which was planning to build a hotel in the area. Donald Frantz, vice president of special developments, objected that “the sculpture evokes a business-type image which is not in keeping with the entertainment orientation of the theater district.”5 He added that the scale was wrong for the area, and volunteered a location near Huron and Ontario at the planned Gateway Complex, with its baseball stadium and coliseum.

      It was as if Voinovich, Forbes, and Horton had voted as a bloc in approving each of seven other possible locations. In the old industrial Cuyahoga River Flats, the park at Settlers’ Landing was rejected; the small greensward would have been unable to accommodate the work in any case. Other ruled-out settings included the Warehouse District west of downtown and the campus of Cleveland State University. Public Square was also mentioned; Forbes suggested its northwest quadrant, which displayed a statue of former Cleveland mayor Tom Johnson. Neither Horton, nor the sculptors when approached, would consider this setting.

      Finally, Willard Park was agreeable to Voinovich, Horton, and the sculptors, but Forbes objected. He found the proximity of the sculpture to city hall unsuitable, as Horton had found it “inappropriate” for his atrium plaza.6 Consequently, no decision for the relocation of the sculpture occurred for several years, due primarily to the intransigence of the president of city council, although council had initially expressed no objection to the sculpture for the Public Square site, and the city administration had approved it through its city planning commission.

      Hunter Morrison understood the importance of Oldenburg and van Bruggen as world-renowned artists and was concerned that the city of Cleveland might lose their sculpture. He had invited them to view the new locations that had been recommended for the placement of Free Stamp. The sculptors considered the change of venue worth pursuing only if the situation of the sculpture could be redefined. It could not be the same work on another site. And from their point of view, these discussions no longer involved BP America. As noted, on September 3, 1986, the artists visited the city accompanied by their fabricator, Donald Lippincott, and met with Morrison, Giorgianni, Richard, and Turner.

      The sculptors found the expansive mall associated with the new Crile Building by Cesar Pelli at the Cleveland Clinic campus unsuitable for lack of context. They also ruled out a setting near the Cleveland Museum of Art in University Circle, and the long drive at Play House Square facing the Byzantine Revival buildings of native son Philip Johnson. Horton had favored the Mall C location on Lakeside Avenue just west of city hall, between it and the county courthouse and on a direct alignment with the BP America Building. Oldenburg and van Bruggen expressed initial interest in Mall C, but they soon realized that the space was too large for Free Stamp, whether in its vertical format or as placed diagonally. Voinovich had kept an open mind about this choice, which, as noted, was eventually determined to be impractical, and is now the site of a new convention center.

      During their visit the sculptors made clear that a new location would require a new design, and van Bruggen mentioned placement of the sculpture on its side.7 In his musings over the Willard Park site, Oldenburg made a sketch of the sculpture still in its vertical format, the park graded in the shape of a four-sided pyramid with the hand stamp at its apex. In his recollections after the meeting, combining sketches and written notes, he observed that the sculpture was too small for Willard Park if placed upright, even with the exaggerated pyramidal plinth, but noted that laying the work on its side offered several advantages. A horizontal orientation of a modified sculpture better suited the park. Placement of the sculpture on its side would free it from its pad, which would remove a constricting element in the rethinking of the sculpture. This would also obviate the need for redesign of the park, but if landscaping should be necessary, Willard Park would be suitable. Van Bruggen had added how the stamp sculpture would look as if it had been thrown. Oldenburg’s notes indicate that in this context the word “FREE” takes on the connotation of liberating the sculpture from its pad or base, from its confining architecture, and even from its reluctant patron. He also observed that placing the sculpture on its side was a way of emphasizing its history. It was now a sculpture rather than an architectural adjunct, and its new situation declared its independence. Although, in a sense, the work turned its back on the park, pedestrian and automobile traffic interacted more directly with it in its corner setting. Taking up van Bruggen’s idea of the sculpture as a “discarded object,” Oldenburg alluded to his drawings of 1965, the Proposed Colossal Monument for Central Park North, N.Y.C.: Teddy Bear, and Proposed Colossal Monument for New York Park: Teddy Bear (Thrown Version).

      This notion of things topsy-turvy is a popular theme in Oldenburg’s early writings. In his thoughts on the nature of art in the 1960s, he wrote, “It’s more interesting if things are upside-down,” and of the Proposed Colossal Monument for the Battery, N.Y.C., Vacuum Cleaner, View from the Upper Bay, “I tried to accept the fallen position—just the form of it, without an explanation of why it was fallen (or thrown) as if a skyscraper had been constructed on its side, like a fallen tree, or leaning.”8 Thus Oldenburg and van Bruggen have closed the circle by offering the notion of the discarded object against the objet trouvé or found object of Picasso and Duchamp, such as the latter’s bottle rack, urinal, and snow shovel.9 Their new configuration for the sculpture added poignancy to Oldenburg’s statement recorded in his notes of May 1961: “I am for the art of things lost or thrown away.”10

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

      Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

/9j/4SwnRXhpZgAATU0AKgAAAAgADAEAAAMAAAABCWAAAAEBAAMAAAABC7gAAAECAAMAAAADAAAA ngEGAAMAAAABAAIAAAESAAMAAAABAAEAAAEVAAMAAAABAAMAAAEaAAUAAAABAAAApAEbAAUAAAAB AAAArAEoAAMAAAABAAIAAAExAAIAAAAgAAAAtAEyAAIAAAAUAAAA1IdpAAQAAAABAAAA6AAAASAA CAAIAAgALcbAAAAnEAAtxsAAACcQQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wIENTNiAoTWFjaW50b3NoKQAyMDE3 OjA3OjA2IDExOjM2OjM3AAAEkAAABwAAAAQwMjIxoAEAAwA

Скачать книгу