Tilted arc was made of steel that reflected the movement of people as they passed through the federal plaza. The art was embraced at the inception through the architecture art programs initiated by the federal government. It made people aware of their movements while in the premises. The public complained that it blocked them from viewing the plaza insinuating that the arc could be used by dangerous people as hideout. I think that the public was wrong in the way they viewed the arc. Their perspective would amount to the demotion of creative arts (Serra 575). On the other hand, the court placed a censorship for the art to be removed. Jurge Edwards re thought that the public needed to feel more secure as they go through the plaza. This was the reason as to why he issued an order for the removal of the art.
However, it was a costly intervention that were not backed with credible evidence. The issue about insecurity was not backed with credible reasons as to why the art should be removed. In an open hearing, a bigger percentage of the public was opposed to the removal exercise of the art. However, judges differed with the public opinion an action that led to public uproar (Paxton 50). It resulted in the destruction of the scenery by the same federal agency that had commissioned the establishment an action that is controversial in nature. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the authenticity and the strategy used to determine the establishment and installment of the sculpture.
In addition, this artistic work was sponsored by the government due to the artist’s experience in this field. Inspections were carried out before its commissioning, thus it was incoherent to remove the piece despite support from the public.
Paxton, Mark. Censorship. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2010. Print.
Serra, Richard. “Art and Censorship.” Critical Inquiry 17.3 (1991): 574-581. Print.