To
begin,
I’d
like
to
briefly
note
some
thought’s
on
what
Spieker
calls


“tautological
art”
–
or,
the
art
of
repetition,
specifically
of
commodities
within
a


hyper‐commercialized
society.

Liber’s
Lego
project
is,
in
my
view,
categorically


different
from
Duchamp’s
ready‐mades
and
Warhol’s
“repeats”
(i.e.
Brillo
boxes,


etc.)

due
to
the
vast
epistemological
gap
between
the
products
themselves.
For


instance,
if
Liber’s
project

had
been
extended
and
actually
placed
within
toy
stores,


I
would
imagine
most
people
would
immediately
recognize
the
blatant
difference


between
his
Lego
System
Kits
and
the
“normal,
consumer‐friendly”
Kits
that
the


Lego
Corporation
had
made.
The
public
thinks
of
toys
and
toy‐kits
in
a
very
specific


way;
toys
are
for
play
and
play
is
innocent
and
unassuming.
Yet
Liber’s
project
cuts


deep
into
this
predisposition
and
provides
a
new,
witty,
and
biting
view
of


“tautological
art”
and
how
it
can
alter
the
concept
and
reception
of
“public
art”


throughout
the
world.
So
following,
Duchamp’s
“ready‐mades”
and
Warhol’s
Brillo


boxes
do
indeed
challenge
notions
of
“tautological
art”
and
the
critical
reflection
of


what
art
can
be
and
what
art
can
challenge,
but
they
do
so
from
an


aesthetic/consumerist
perspective,
where
the
installation
and
“contextual


placement”
of
the
objects
matters
more
than
their
public
reception
and


involvement.
Warhol’s
Brillo
boxes
were
effective
because
they
challenged
the


notion
of
the
gallery
space
and
what
it
should
present
(and
represent),
whereas


Liber’s
Lego
project
was
effective
because
it
challenged
what
reappropriation
and


re‐contextualization
should
present
(and
break‐down).
This
is
the
aforementioned


epistemological
gap,
and
it
concerns
the
work
of
many
artists
working
in
the
public


sphere
today.


 One
such
artist
(whom
I
believe
has
a
particularly
interesting
link
to


Wodiczko
and
his
concepts
of
the
“Urban
Palimpsest”)
is
the
sculptor
Richard
Serra.


One
piece
in
particular
entitled
“Tilted
Arc”
has
a
well‐known
history
of
public


discomfort/disruption,
(mis)appropriation,
and
the
resounding
clash
of
historical


frameworks.
Spieker
dicusses
Wodiczko’s
“instrumentalization
of
his
viewer’s


unconscious,
of
their
mechanical
reflexes,
habits,
and
fixation”
when
referring
to
the


artist’s
recontextualization
of
monuments
and
public
spaces.

Serra’s
“Titled
Arc,”


albeit
sculptural
and
grounded
(not
in
transit)
offered
a
similar
“reception
through


distraction”
that
Spieker
attributes
so
much
to
Wodiczko’s
projections/installations.


“Titled
Arc”
was
a
120
foot
long,
12
foot
high
sculpture
made
of
COT‐TEN
steel
that


was
installed
in
1981
(rather
asymmetrically
and
antagonistically)
in
the

space
in


front
of
the
Jacob
Javits
Federal
Building.
The
piece,
after
much
public
controversy,


was
taken
down
in
1989.
Now,
I
find
“Tilted
Arc”
to
be
relevant
to
Wodiczko’s
(and


Lieber
and
Haacke’s)
work
because
of
it’s
addition
of
a
“layer
of
significance,”
as


Spieker
puts
it,
to
a
“public
space”
and
collective
consciousness.
People
absolutely


hated
the
“Tilted
Arc,”
due
to
it’s
bulk
and
it’s
seemingly
threatening
quality
of


dividing
(splitting)
the
public
gathering
space
before
this
governmental
building.


For
many,
this
“place
of
public
business”
was
being
directly
confronted
by
a


“monumental”
piece
of
work
that
challenged
both
aesthetic
appeal
and
public


consciousness.
People
had
to
go
out
of
their
way
to
walk
around
“the
monstrosity”


and,
like
Spieker’s
relation
to
cinema
and
film
art
in
general,
where
constantly


“distracted
by
but
unaware
of
”
the
specific
qualities
and
challenges
that
“Tilted
Arc”


provided
for
the
public.

Yet
it
dramatically
changed
and
“reappropriated”
a
rather

dull
public
space
and
acted
as
a
“public
palimpsest”
of
sorts
in
terms
of
what
public


art
can
accomplish
and
challenge.
Even
though
“Tilted
Arc”
was
intended
to
be
a


permanent
sculpture,
if
you
look
at
it
(in
retrospect)
as
being
a
performance
piece…


or,
better
yet,
as
a
temporary
installation
(in
time,
I
suppose)
then
it
was
incredibly


effective
and
began
to
initialize
the
role
of
intervention
and
its
importance
within


public
art.
Additionally,
I
find
it
particularly
relevant
and
interesting
how
Serra
talks


about
his
own
work
and
its
capacity
to
break‐down
and
reform
the
habits
and


conscious
speculation
of
viewers;
where
space
becomes
a
place
for
critical
reflection


and
how
his
work
transforms
space
into
a
volume
of
sculpture
instead
of
a
volume


of
architecture.
I
believe
Wodiczko’s
work
accomplishes
something
very
similar
–


where
his
projections
form
new,
aesthetic
and
politically
charged,
“sculptures”
in


space
and
time,
time
being
the
essential
difference
between
the
two
artists.