|
|
Last June, The Sculpture Center installed an abstract columnar sculpture in the rotunda of City Hall as part of an exhibition of work by the late David Davis.
Within days, the Center began to field calls from City Hall staff members offended by the sculpture’s “phallic” content. According to TSC Development Director Lisa Winstel, during a cabinet meeting, male staffers were distracted by the piece — one man said it made him feel “inadequate.” Despite the complaints, the piece remained on view, but it didn’t make it out of City Hall unscathed. Near the end of its stay, someone splashed coffee all over it. While there was no permanent damage, the story demonstrates that putting art in a public space is a risky endeavor. Contemporary art can induce feelings of intimidation, anger, confusion, and, in this case, inadequacy.
However, what happens if art “experts” install a public work of art without looking at the content in relationship to the environment? What if people have reasons to be angry or confused by a public sculpture? Enter the new sculpture at the Carl B. Stokes Federal Courthouse — Cleveland Venus, a 37-foot-tall bronze figure by internationally renowned artist Jim Dine that was inspired by the Louvre masterpiece Venus de Milo. Dine’s sculpture is reportedly already causing a stir among female attorneys and a magistrate judge at the Courthouse. Like the more famous Venus, this figure is topless and armless. In Dine’s Venus series (the Cleveland sculpture is one of many in cities worldwide), he further truncates the Venus by removing her head.
The sculpture was commissioned by the Art in Architecture Program of the U.S. General Services Administration, which sets aside one and a half percent of construction costs of federal buildings for public art. GSA works with the community to form a selection committee that recommends artists for each project. The Cleveland committee included Cleveland Museum of Art curator Tom Hinson, former Cleveland State University Art Department chair John Hunter, Cleveland Public Art Executive Director Lillian Kuri, and Cleveland Institute of Art President David Deming. The group addressed the aesthetic concerns flawlessly. The piece is seamlessly integrated with the building, and the rough surface of Venus beautifully contrasts the slick exterior of the Courthouse. But in their drive to choose a piece that would complement the architecture, the committee overlooked the content of the work and its contextual implications.
The men at City Hall were upset because they saw a penis in Davis’ sculpture. The women at the Courthouse are angry because there is a 37-foot headless, armless, semi-nude female figure at the entrance of their building. Despite the abstract nature of the work, the figure’s breasts are clearly visible . But it’s not just that the figure is nude. Someone who’s studied art would recognize that Dine is deconstructing a popular icon. But what does the untrained eye see in this sculpture in the context of a Federal Courthouse?
Among the cases filed in federal court are capital punishment cases. That there is a Western history of beheading as a means of execution makes the placement of the headless Venus distasteful. The correlation is so obvious one wonders how the selection committee could have missed it. The new Venus is headless, armless, and ultimately voiceless and powerless. What does this say about our federal court system? Is the piece intended as an ironic jab? If so, it went over the heads of the selection committee. But a handful of women at the Courthouse got it, and they have law, not art, degrees.