Talk:Tilted Arc

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Heavily biased[edit]

The tone of this article is heavily biased in favor of the artist. It should be rewritten from an objective standpoint.129.79.70.191 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this talk entry is heavily biased in favor of the government. It should be rewritten from an objective standpoint.--74.85.73.171 (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? What words or sentences demonstrate pro-government bias? Reading it, I don't see the bias. In fact, since most of the editors who bothered to work on this article have an interest in the subject, most would be inclined to be sympathetic to the artist. The article seems straight forward and just presents the facts as they occurred. freshacconci talk to me 13:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:NPOV statement is one that either side will agree is true. Even those who hold strong opinions about a particular topic will usually grant the truth of a statement like, "Many people hold the opposite view," where they would not grant the truth of the opposite view itself. Quoting the NPOV policy: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." As it currently stands, this article offers assertions of the "pro Tilted Arc" camp phrased as objective statements of fact, rather than as views with identification of who holds those views. As such, there are many statements that, in their present form, I would not agree with if I were in the opposition camp. Here is an illustration of the point:

POV (pro): "Tilted Arc was a site-specific sculpture commissioned for the Foley Federal Plaza in 1981. By the well-known artist Richard Serra, a leading minimalist sculptor with a notable body of work, this work exemplifies his minimalist, conceptual style." (agreeable to proponents; this is the actual text of the article's current lede)

POV (con): "Tilted Arc was an unadorned rusting metal wall, billed by its proponents as a 'sculpture', that obstructed the Foley Federal Plaza from 1981 to 1989. While characterized by the artist as 'redefining the space in intimate relationship', others— ranging from prominent art critics to Federal judges to the plaza's daily occupants— variously characterized it as 'awful', 'misery', 'ugly', 'stupid', and 'insane'. A successful lawsuit finally removed the so-called 'artwork' in 1989." (agreeable to opponents)

NPOV: "Tilted Arc was a controversial public art installation by Richard Serra, displayed in Foley Federal Plaza from 1981 to 1989. The art work consisted of a 120-foot long, 12-foot high solid, unfinished plate of rust-covered COR-TEN steel. Advocates characterized it as an important work by a well-known artist that transformed the space and advanced the concept of sculpture, whereas critics focused on its ugliness and saw it as ruining the site. The sculpture was removed in 1989 as the result of a Federal lawsuit, and has never been publicly displayed since due to the artist's assertion that the piece was site-specific."

In particular, any statement in the voice of Wikipedia that the sculpture is site-specific (of which there are several) is POV and conflates the artist's views with fact. Obviously the piece is physically capable of being displayed in other locations, and there are many, including myself, who wish that it would be, feeling that the piece can still have meaning even if not the same as it would have been in its original location. Rnickel (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is unbiased and presents both sides of the case in fair light. There are quotes from the artist on his work and intention, and on why it is important to him that the piece stay in its exact location. There are also quotes from those that believed that the piece was a nuisance and distraction. All the citation links work and are relevant to the topic, however some of the sources are biased. With that said, the contributors to the article ensured that the information relayed was only to convey both sides of the argument and legal proceedings. They noted only the facts as to why the installation was considered controversial and kept the information straight and unbiased. The only thing that I believe would enhance the article are more images of the Tilted Arc showing alternate views of the sculpture and its relation to the plaza and building. Tlively16 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What became of it?[edit]

Article should state what became of it after it was dismantled. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or was it? WP's article on Los Angeles City Council member and art advocate Joel Wachs says:

In 1987 [Wachs] flew to New York City to be a part of a seven-member panel that tried to determine what to do with a 12-foot-high, 112-foot-long outdoor steel sculpture by Richard Serra titled "Tilted Arc," which had drawn complaints and was eventually demolished.

– AndyFielding (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How was it affixed to the ground?[edit]

I was interested to find out how Tilted Arc avoided falling over; how was it affixed to the ground? Could a knowledgeable editor add such information to the article? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "Design" Section is not about the design[edit]

More than half is spent detailing the artist's reactions and then the background for the trial. This is not an article about the trial, it's an article about the sculpture and associated events. I am going to reorganize, although I am not going to change content. --Rainspeaker (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiltedarc.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Tiltedarc.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Surprised that a link I added was removed. The link was to a ten-minute video program done at the time of the "Tilted Arc" controversy. It includes footage of "Tilted Arc" while it was still installed, along with an interview with Richard Serra defending the sculpture. It does link to the website 98bowery.com, but to dismiss it as "spam" would seem to indicate that the editor did not actually look at the video, which provides important primary information to the "Tilted Arc" entry. Fort Greene 2010 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the reason for designating this link as "spam". Is there some kind of known problem with the site? The content at the linked page itself seems very much on-point to me. Rnickel (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]