Design Thinking

Richard Serra?s Tilted Arc project was an unfortunate occurrence where a piece of art came to be ?in the way? of workers at the Federal Plaza in New York City. It was not fair to the designer that his piece, one that was to be a permanent structure, would be taken away and destroyed. However, it also was not fair to the workers of that area that their way was being blocked by the artwork either.
The public should have a say in the environment they interact with since they are the ones who will be constantly interacting with this space. The designer has the responsibility of providing an environment that will suit the needs of the public at large. However, that does not mean that creativity should be squelched and left in a corner to collect dust, but should be used to achieve a common means along with what the public desires. A compromise must be met between a designer?s creative wishes and what the people are ultimately looking for.
The duty of the designer is to adapt his or her own ideas to best fit with the environment assigned. Yet the designer is not the only one responsible: the government, or whoever is commissioning the work, must be affective at communicating what they want as their desired outcome and investigate the various designs, looking into the advantages and disadvantages, agreeing upon the best viable solution as well as committing to those decisions in the end. An example of not following these principles occurred just a few years ago here in downtown Raleigh at the Fayetteville Street Mall. Mayor Charles Meeks had commissioned Jaume Plensa to create a public art?s display there, which would include a water fountain and LED lights displays. After the plan had been approved, city officials realized that the displays would block the State Capitol and the Progress Energy center, so they canceled the deal. By not realizing this in the first place they wasted Plensa?s time as well as their own time, money and effort.
Another similar occurrence took place with the Pyramide du Louvre in Paris, France. Architect I.M. Pei?s vision for the entrance of the Louvre was a large glass pyramidal structure accompanied by two smaller ones. Critics claimed that it was far too modern a piece for the old French museum. The pyramids, however, still stand there today surpassing the critics and the public?s opinion. So, the public should have a say in the final word about a piece, but the ultimate decision as to what will be created is left up to the designer.
In Richard Serra?s case, Tilted Arc may have been a mistake that was not fully acknowledged. Yes, Serra had created the piece to fit with the plaza so that it would capture the people walking and the scenery itself, but it had failed to comply with the plaza?s public use. Perhaps things would have ended differently if, for instance, the sculpture could have complemented rather than clashed with the people?s view of effective utilization of the available space, such as with Martha Schwartz?s design. The board and the employees judged the piece as impractical and an obstacle, therefore its removal was inevitable. Yet artists had hailed it as a work of genius and were amazed at its overall simplicity. Serra then did not want to make any artistic compromises, which might have saved his project?s destruction, although it was in his right to refuse, since much work went into preparing and building this sculpture. Communication is key to an artwork?s survival; the more planning there is, the better the outcome will be. Designers, commissioners and the public alike have to cooperate so that obstacles can be overcome and most everyone will be satisfied with the final outcome.
Resources that were used include:
http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_99538_0_0_18/FeatDtl-PubAff-Jaume_Plensa_Unveils_Pla-20060330-142148.html
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakepol/index.php?title=anything_but_art&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/fayetteville_street/story/504463.html http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Pyramide_du_Louvre.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/im_pei.htm

Posted by Thais Lopes on February 03, 2008 at 07:23 PM EST #

1. How much influence should the public have over a space? (Think back to the Saul Bass film "Why Man Creates" and the scene with the crowd ridiculing and praising the creator.)

I think that the public should have a lot of influence over a space. Most of the time, the designer does not live, work, or play in the space they have been asked to design. The space has to accommodate the people who occupy it. It has to be accessible to the community?s disabilities as well as provide the desired function. The designer is to act as the leader. The community is to provide their opinions and concerns for the project, and the designer attempts to take it all and create an effective solution. The bottom line is that the space is to be designed for the community therefore it only makes since that the space should benefit the people that live in and around it.

2. What responsibility does the designer have to collaborate with the public in this and similar cases? (Use examples if you can to support your position)

The designer?s job is to complete the project to the best of their ability. They are to please their audience to the highest extend possible, meaning that they may not be able to please every person but they should be able to please the majority of the community. I found after reading about Richard Serra?s Tilted Arc that he made the mistake of focusing more on art and his own ideas than the wants and needs of the community. His statement, ?Art is not democratic. It is not for the people,? sums up why his sculpture failed to remain in the plaza. Serra did have support from the art community, who claimed that it was a great work of art, but he did not take in to account the feelings of the people who work in the plaza. Complaints were raised about the bright color and the danger of attracting negative attention (graffiti, rats, and terrorist). As a result, the sculpture was removed eight years later. The space could have cost a lot less and wasted a lot less time if the designer had simply asked the community for input.

3. Was the Richard Serra sculptures a case of a "mistake" in the context of Marvin's Lecture Multiple Perceptions?

Marvin?s lecture, Multiple Perceptions, stressed the idea of unity. Marvin stated, ? In the mind of the observer, parts are integrated to become a whole.? It seemed as though in the mind of Serra, the sole concern was more about art and less about function. He failed to take in to account all of the aspects of the space and most importantly his audience. Serra failed to follow the idea that, ?Freedom and order exist together.? His ideas needed to be adapted to the function. The function was for the space to exist as it did before the deconstruction and not as a target or a particular place of interest as well as provide a space for pedestrians to gather during the daytime.

Posted by Jacqueline Kiley Schiffman on February 06, 2008 at 10:28 PM EST #

1. How much influence should the public have over a space? (Think back to the Saul Bass film "Why Man Creates" and the scene with the crowd ridiculing and praising the creator.)

A public space can be defined as a place where anyone has a right to come without being excluded because of economic or social conditions. I take this to mean that when we, as individuals, enter a space that is public, we should all feel welcomed and free to be who we are, where we are. However, how often is that the case? My own personal opinion is that the public should definitely, to an extent, have influence over certain spaces. We must understand that not everyone in the general public share the same values, education, background, aesthetics, etc. Our world is so diverse that with many issues that arise, very few times will there be a unanimous ?verdict? on any one or multiple thing. There may be negotiations or sacrifices, acceptances or protests ? all of which may determine how much of a say each and every one of us have over something. No one person can make exactly the right decision for a group of people ? there will always be margins of error, disagreement, misunderstanding and even disdain. On the other hand there will be those who are in agreement, who do appreciate and understand and support something. It?s easy to say ?you can?t please everyone? but at the same time you can try your best to come as close to it as possible. As a designer we should be full of endless ideas and possibilities ? why settle for one thing that the public doesn?t like when you could think of something else that would satisfy even the majority of them? We must respect one another?s ideas and influence(s) and try to always come to an understanding that benefits our society at large.

2. What responsibility does the designer have to collaborate with the public in this and similar cases? (Use examples if you can to support your position)

It is very important for a designer to collaborate with everyone who is to be involved, whether intentionally or unintentionally, when it comes to creating something. If a designer is in the process of creating, he or she must ask themselves what are they to make, how will they do it and why are they doing it? Who will it benefit? What will its impact be on other people or even the environment in which it is viewed or used. And most importantly they must be receptive to the client or public at hand. If it is a public place it is then something that must go beyond the individual and evoke the masses.
Currently in my design fundamentals studio we are working on designing a Veteran?s War Memorial for the City of Garner. The very first thing we looked at was the input from the people of Garner ? their ideas, their words, their experiences ? what was of value to them and what they thought might be important to include. We were to respect that as this memorial was not only about us and them but about the countless individuals lost to past wars (and even those, who unfortunately enough, will be lost in the future). We then did research on other memorial works, on other designers and put together a presentation for the City Hall. We spoke to them, as a class, as individuals and then we went back to work, continually educating ourselves. We have gone through a lengthy series of ideations; each of us has presented our ideas and each time each individual has remembered to respect and incorporate from the Garner public their original ideas, thoughts, etc. in some way, shape or form. By working with these people we have learned so much and have actually found ourselves with more ideas than if we had worked in solitude. We know that what we are doing is important to them, we want to live up to their expectations and at the same time go beyond them by using our talents, craft and education. On Tuesday we will be presenting 3-D scaled models to them. I keep hearing in my head my fellow classmates saying out loud, even though they are tired, and it is two in the morning, how they want do a great job because they know how important this memorial is to those people. I feel the same way. I have never lost anyone to a war; Yes people in my family have served in the military, but it is still not the same thing. I can understand and appreciate it as individual to a certain level but in this particular instance, with this design, I am heavily relying on my ?clients? to guide me in creating the ?right? thing. And yet at the same time I must find a balance, as the designer, to incorporate my knowledge at its best into it as well. The ideal is to find a balance between the designer and the 'clientel.' It is such an incredible feeling to be a designer, to have the opportunity to be working for others in such a positive way.
We must work beyond what satisfies us as a single person/designer/artist, beyond the things we like and we must at times go beyond our own individual desires and goals and meet another?s or many others. We must take our talents and creativity as designers and use them in the best way possible to benefit the public, society, and the world at large.

3. Was the Richard Serra sculpture a case of a "mistake" in the context of Marvin's Lecture Multiple Perceptions?

I was very torn between my thoughts as I read over the articles concerning Richard Serra?s sculpture. On the one hand the designer/artist in me protested to its removal and yet on the other hand the plain, ?public? individual in me could rationally understand why this had occurred.
At first, in viewing the picture of the piece and having no background information of it I was slightly intrigued and even set-off by the barrenness of the sculpture and its space. I did not find myself though immediately repelled or even thinking about the possibility of removing it. I was curious ? it may not have been something I initially understood or immediately enjoyed but I held an open mind. It was stated that ?During the hearing, 122 people testify in favor of retaining the sculpture, and 58 testify in favor of removing it.? It boggles my mind how in a democracy the number of people and their decisions on the matter did not reflect the outcome.
Also, I was slightly taken aback by Serra?s impassioned statement that he would remove his name from the work if it were to be dismantled. For one, if he truly believed in what he had created and that it had been a suitable piece for such a public place why not stand by what he created and proudly so? How could he so easily abandon something that should have meant something more. Also too, as a professional, though it is hard to admit sometimes that we misunderstand what we were supposed to create, or that we didn?t effectively get the outcome we had hoped to or that perhaps we pushed too fast too soon ? sometimes we must accept, graciously and with understanding, our ?failures? or unsuccessful attempts of effectively creating something ?right.?
Serra was quoted as saying, ?I don?t think it is the function of art to be pleasing . . . art is not democratic. It is not for the people.? I disagree with Serra?s statement. For one, sometimes art?s function is to be pleasing and yes it can be democratic. If art is not for the people than who is it for? Is it just for Serra??? Then why must he create pieces that eventually end up displayed in public places? Why even bother to create for anyone beyond himself. And if he is creating for only himself then why bother to take his work beyond his home or private life.
Martha Schwartz?s ?replacement? piece is, simply stated, impressive and pleasing as a public space. It is drastically different from Serra?s but in my mind that does not necessarily mean that it is ?better? or more ?suited? for a public space. Each piece, in my opinion, had/has both positive and negative elements neither were perfect and neither were entirely flawed. Sometimes people will understand and appreciate certain things over others ? sometimes we can understand why and sometimes ? well, who knows! You have to accept what you can accept and if not you have to find a way to move on because there is a whole, wide open path ahead of each of us, whether as individuals or as professionals.
I believe that you have to want to create something that will not only seen as inspirational, valuable (and not necessarily in the monetary sense) and of worth for yourself but for others as well. There is a reason why we create, why we design, why we are given these talents ? they should not serve only the creator/designer nor should they isolate the creator/designer from the world at large by choice or lack thereof ? we should be a part of things, open to things, and embrace everything and everyone we can. The world should be our inspiration ? it is where all of those endless possibilities and ideas come from to fill our heads and work our hands to create! And in the process, it?s okay to make mistakes ? it?s how you respond to your ?mistakes? (if they?re even that) and where you go with them in the future that makes all the difference.

Posted by Adrienne L. McKenzie on February 08, 2008 at 01:14 AM EST #

Public space is space that is meant for people, for the community, who occupies it or somehow interconnects with it. Thus it should meet the community?s needs, present a good site, and be functional in some way. Serra?s ?Tilted Arc? has been a unique piece that was meant to decorate the Federal plaza and to adjust the architecture around it. As a piece of art, Serra wanted to create a ?steel gesture, with its sharp, sweeping movement, to be at the same time analytical and mythical, protective and subversive.? The idea itself is quite extraordinary, however not everyone could notice the effect that was meant to be given. Instead the majority objected to the view of the ?Titled Arc? and they believed it nothing but a wall that blocked people?s views. Therefore, the sculpture didn?t serve the function of presenting a nice view and as a result it was removed.
An architect, first of all, has to consider what people want to see on the given landscape. In the case of Serra ?Tilted Arc? was a product of his imagination that the public failed to recognize as a great work of art. An example of obstructive architecture I would call Beijing?s buildings in China. The multistory buildings with the rounded roofs were ironically called ?speed bumps?. Architects see Beijing as an unsuccessful result of recreating the masterworks of Western architecture. Beijing?s city buildings are a set of experiments that kill the traditional eastern architectural beauty. That?s why I think the design requires a close look to the social and local attributes.
I think that Serra?s ?Tilted Arc? might be a mistake in the context of Marvin?s Multiple Perceptions; like an eclipse, it was noticed by public as an immoral occurrence. I don?t want to say that Serra?s sculpture itself was a mistake; I believe it could be appreciated more if it was built in another location, maybe less crowded. But the Federal Plaza which is located at the very heart of New York City needed something that would communicate with the public. Martha Schwartz?s ?park? is a better solution to the plaza?s assembling than Serra?s. The curves of the light green benches provide a relaxing effect among the busyness of the city?s skyscrapers, while the ?Tilted Arc? was just another wall in the surroundings. Art can?t be a mistake, but its usage definitely can. That?s why designers and architects should think of their creations of being appropriate and applicable to the location and meet the needs of the community.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10643
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/arts/design/19BHAWT.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/001778.php

Posted by Marina Saladukha on February 08, 2008 at 08:33 AM EST #

The incident of Richard Serra?s architectural piece in New York?s Federal Plaza was a fortunate mishap. Though Serra took quite a blow from this unsuccessful piece, it brought the public out of the corners of indifference and got people involved in their community. Tilted Arc did something that all designers personally yearn for: it created opinions. Serra?s piece stirred emotions inside the employees and residents of the area, the most poignant affect a work of art can stimulate. The entire purpose of public art is to absorb and engage the individuals composing the community of the area. The public should have the majority of the influence over a public space, but at times, it takes designers and ineffective designs like Richard Serra and Tilted Arc to draw out the hermetic ?druthers? of society. In consequence, the designer of the public space has a great responsibility to pursue the desires of the surrounding population and take their opinions into account while ideating. For example, when Martha Schwartz redesigned the very same site, she considered the arrangement of the contorted benches to be compatible for smaller groups as well as individuals seeking solitude. Richard Serra?s design cannot be categorized as a ?mistake,? or all colleges of design are in jeopardy. Tilted Arc was simply an ineffective piece for the location, a futile attempt to please majority, which is not always what designing is about, however, public designs must be designed for the public else wherefore designed?

Posted by Rebecca Roddenberry on February 08, 2008 at 12:22 PM EST #

How much influence should the public have over a space?
The public should have as much control over a space as a space has over them. If the space is a backyard, private home, closet, or attic, the space does not affect the public on a scale that a city park, mall, or town square would. The space containing Tilted Arc affected the public greatly- pedestrians and workers in nearby buildings traversed the space every day. As a designer, Serra failed to take this into account. It is true that art should not always make people feel comfortable, because art is a catalyst in society, causing change and bringing attention to flaws that should be rectified. However, there is a time and a place for this. A designer commissioned to design a chair should not bring in a seat covered in tacks simply because he opposes the laziness and obesity of modern Americans- he was commissioned to design a product for a client and needs to take their wishes into consideration. Serra did not interact or talk to any of the people who would be using the space, and did not make an informed design. Serra was not the majority who would occupy the space, therefore he should not have designed the work for himself. Despite this inconsiderateness, I still beleive it was wrong to destroy the work- whether or not it was popular, successful, or pleasing, Serra's work should not have ended up in a scrapyard.

In one of his lectures, Marvin gave the example of an old woman who sits on her porch every day and sees the same traffic problems occurring on the streets of her town. She has watched for so long and observed so much that she understands the rhythm of traffic and what must be done to fix the problems, but when outside designers come in to rearrange the space, they do not talk to the public about it and their alternative only makes it worse. If they had asked the old woman, the change would have been successful. The Tilted Arc space is the same- Serra blocked off and halted flow of movement through the space. However, Schwartz's design incorporated needs of the public: benches, green space, lamplight, trash cans- even cool mist on hot days. Although a designer is not forced to accomodate every desire of the public, taking their needs into consideration will make the project much more successful.

In his lecture on Multiple Perceptions, Marvin states that "the goal of creativity is to return to the perfect unity". By this statement, the Tilted Arc was a mistake, because it generated controversy, not unity.

Posted by Veronica Tibbitts on February 08, 2008 at 01:15 PM EST #