In case you were wondering about the comments regarding the Demon Horse of Denver … here’s what we’re talking about.
DIA corrals mane attraction : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News
Horse sculpture soars outside DIA – The Denver Post
First, the complements:
“As I was leaving last night, I couldn’t stop the tears, it was so beautiful,” said Rudi Cerri, public art administrator for the city of Denver. … “The lights were shining on it and it conveyed such a sense of power,” Cerri said.
[…] Said Matt Chasanski, also a public art administrator: “It just speaks to power and movement and energy, like so much of the artist’s work. A lot of Luis’ work was about movement through time and space.”
Chasanski said the development of the West hinged on the horse. “This shows its impact, powerful and dominant.”
Cerri added, “It’s a bold piece for a bold landscape.”
Which just goes to show you that, come the revolution, the “public art administrators” will be up against the wall alongside the lawyers and politicians.
(I speak sarcastically here. I actually tend to like, or at least appreciate, a lot of public art. Can’t make everyone happy, etc., but I realize that many pieces that were once disdained are now accepted as landmarks. Having said that …)
Outside of public art administrators (who probably summer in London so they can hang out at the Tate Modern), a quick search on the web found pretty much everyone hates the thing and calls it something like the Demon Horse of Denver [International Airport]. The 32-foot tall critter is situated in the middle of an interchange leading up to (or from) the main terminal building, and it’s impossible not to see.
- It’s vivid blue.
- It’s 32 feet tall.
- Its eyes glow red (visible in daylight, even more disturbing under spotlights at night).
- It’s hideous.
On the latter, it’s not hideous because of of the color, size, eyes, or motif. It’s hideous because it’s … well … a really awful representation of a horse. Not awful as in metaphorically abstract — horrible as in very poorly proportioned. The head is startlingly small, the forelegs look overlong, the body’s form seems twisted and tormented, veins popping out all over its bony sides …
I can only assume the city was willing to still put it up this year because (a) they’d been waiting since 1992, (b) they’d already sunk $650K in it, and (c) the artist, Luis Jimenez, was killed in 2006 when a piece of the Demon Horse fell on him, and it only seemed the polite thing to do in tribute.
The contrast between this public sculpture and the Big Blue Bear at the Convention Center is striking.
- The Bear is abstracted but recognizable. The Horse is misshapen.
- The Bear engages you in what it’s doing. The Horse makes you want to turn around and take the train to see family.
- The Bear is viewable from any angle. The Horse is primarily viewable for those driving into the airport (those driving out get the Horse’s back, which is actually less disturbing).
- The Bear is friendly-looking. The Horse desires to eat your soul.
Not that I’m suggesting the Bear, or even its style, should be replicated everywhere. But my reaction to the two of them is so dramatically different, there must be something in-between.
One writer suggests that the artist is actually a talented individual, and has done other artwork that is quite attractive, and seems talented at picking up on urban vibes. That may, in fact, be the problem. In a built-up or urban setting, this piece probably wouldn’t cause a blink. But where it stands — in the middle of roadways in a great, flat, near-vacant expanse — it draws the eye to itself alone, not how it fits into the surroundings. Because it doesn’t.
The DIA folks had wanted to actually install it somewhere inside the airport, and my first reaction was to think that it was a good thing they hadn’t because then we’d have to see it for prolonged periods, not just as long as it takes us to flee, scuttling under its burning gaze, as we try to escape its horror. But in retrospect, inside the airport (where?) might have been better. This is a piece that requires context, not solitude. Maybe that context is a huge draped tarp, or maybe it’s just other buildings and lights and activity, but it’s done a disservice standing where it is.
Which is where the artist wanted it, by the bye, and, in fact, sued successfully to have it placed. And, his usefulness at an end, the creature slew him! Bwah-ha-ha!
I predict that, in about ten years (long enough for the current administrators to leave, and someone to raise another block of cash) it will be removed from that location and something else more conventional put in its place. Which, I further predict, will then create an outcry by people who have come to accept it as idiosyncratic but truly Denver.
Heck, maybe I’ll be one of them.
Well, I guess I should get prepared to be pummeled, but I LIKE it! The Bear is whimsical, but art, even public art, isn’t all about Teh Whimsy. It’s not a beautiful piece, but it IS powerful. It does an excellent job of capturing the uncivilized force of nature. There can be no better symbol of that wildness than a wild horse. Mix in the elements of nature that are most likely to affect the folks who live in the region, and it’s storms. Rather than the Demon Horse I’d look at this as the Storm Horse, with lightning in his eyes.
So, gotta say I think it’s powerful.
On a mini-rant: Art is not about beauty or agreement. Art is a way for the artist to express an idea/concept in such a way that the audience has a reaction to it.
While I personally hate performance art, I can’t deny it as an art form .. .
That so many people react so strongly to this work shows that the artist hit on SOMETHING. All the photos I can find don’t show it as a gross misrepresentation of the subject, but it IS disturbing . . . and that’s good. =)
I agree that art in general, or even public art specifically, shouldn’t all be about whimsy, or about conventional and mass acceptance. Some challenge is necessary to make a bold statement. And, of course, with familiarity will come fondness (as the last paragraph indicates).
I’m certainly not saying it’s not “art.” Art is seriously in the eye of the beholder, or for that matter, in the eye of the artist.
On the other hand …
The question at hand is whether the statement is appropriate to the context and the audience (let alone whether the audience “gets” the statement). Yes, the artist gets a “reaction” with this piece — but he’d get a reaction with a piece showing a horse taking a crap, too. That doesn’t make it an appropriate piece of art to the place it’s being given.
I think a “statement” of wild power of nature — animal and meteorological alike – embodied conceptually in a 32-foot tall mustang with glowing eyes is arguably a fine one. But it’s not just a matter of the statement, but of how it’s conveyed. I’d ask (a) is that what most people are reading as the statement (it seems not), and (b) do the aesthetics of the portrayal distract or subtract from that statement (it seems so).
I (or my daughter) could put together a piece that we said made that same statement. While granting that art is not solely about ‘beauty,’ beauty is in most public art a good way to convey a statement. If my lumpy, poorly represented horse (I don’t argue that I could sculpt something any more representational than Jimenez) turns people off from looking at it, it’s a not successful art, even if it’s the most profound message in the world. I think that’s the case here.
Listening to Right Wing Radio so you don’t have to!
First off I am amuses that the Local afternoon-drive-home righties have been cribbing off of Dave’s blog for topics that past couple of days, even more so because they are complete buffoons. Monday’s buffoonery dealt with the Demon Horse of…