(Image of William Penn in the middle of the ‘Clothespin’)
Claes Oldenburg is known for making public art that draws a lot of controversial conversations. That is why choosing to blow up the ‘Clothespin’ was a simple choice for me. The ‘Clothespin’ was installed at Center Square at 15th and Market street in Philadelphia, Pa on June 25th, 1976. When erected in 1976, the forty-foot, ten ton stainless steel structure brought a shocking image to the area. An image that most people back in the day would have consider modernity because of its sheer size and uniqueness. Due to its massive size, the sculpture has never been removed or relocated.
(view of William Penn on top of ‘Clothespin’)
When asked about the meaning of the ‘Clothespin’, Claes Oldenburg claimed that his sculpture was not about the literal image of the ‘Clothespin’, rather he wanted to create a new image that showed off the use of form and structure of art. Oldenburg thought that the ‘Clothespin’ was a perfect fit for a Philadelphia location because of three coincidences that the piece has. The first coincidence he pointed out was the steel clips that binds the two halves forms into the number “76”, which was perfect since the installation date coincided with the celebration of the bicentennial year. Secondly, Oldenburg claimed that the sculpture reminded him of the famous Brancusi’s piece ‘The Kiss’, which is located at the Philadelphia art museum. His third and final coincidence, was that he believes the ‘Clothespin’ is identical to the Liberty Bell. He says, “look at the sides, they are identical. They both have a crack down the center” (Forman). Other artist and critics have mixed reviews on the ‘Clothespin’. One art critic, Victoria Donohoe, that wrote for Philadelphia Inquirer in 1976, had some negative things to say about the structure. She describes his work as being “humorously inappropriate”. She also claims that the only ingredient lacking in the ‘Clothespin” is its social importance. Donohoe had some harsh opinions, but she does recognize that Oldenburg was changing the way public art was being made. A positive comment she wrote was that she enjoyed that he was still able to comment on a traditional symbol of “housewifery” in a unique way (Donohoe). The Community was much more divided in their opinions. There were some that absolutely hated the structure and some who thought that Oldenburg’s work was brilliant. For example, in “Art-by any other name”, an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer written in 1976, it quotes some spectators with opposite views. The article quotes Albert Seltzer, a medical doctor in Philadelphia, saying that the ‘Clothespin is “excellent in its simplicity” and that Oldenburg should be “congratulated for bringing the excellent addition to Philadelphia” (Seltzer). The article also has quotes from another spectator, James Martin, he believes that the art work is a “waste of tax payers money” and is “junky art” (Martin). The best example of difference of opinions comes from Julie Liedman’s article “Stares, Glares, Disgust” (1976). In this article she interviews Robert Goldstein, a repair man from SEPTA, and Joan Haas, a local college art student. Goldstein had negative opinions:
(clipping from “Stares, Glares, Disgust” J. Liedman, Philadelphia Inquirer)
Goldstein had negative criticism because he only views the sculpture as a rusty statue that tax payers paid for. He believed that money could have been better used to feed or entertain the unfortunate (Liedman). Haas had a more artistic view and was able to see past its mere image and says:
(clipping from “Stares, Glares, Disgust” J. Liedman, Philadelphia Inquirer)
Haas is able to find enjoyment in that it is an object that everyone can identify with. She also mentions in the article that she enjoyed Oldenburg’s ability to demonstrate form and structure with simple every day objects. Compared to other public art works used in film, the ‘Clothespin is not as inspiration as the ‘Rocky’ Statue or as historic as the ‘Trevi Fountain’. Public art like the ‘Rocky’ and the ‘Trevi Fountain’ are used to provoke emotion. The ‘Rocky’ statue is used to create an emotion of inspiration and pride. The ‘Trevi Fountain’ is used to create a romantic type emotion. The ‘Clothespin’, however, fails to trigger any emotion. It is used to be a symbol of the new type of art form that was created by Oldenburg. In my opinion the ‘Clothespin’ holds very little value for the everyday person. For the average person it merely serves as a mask for what would have been empty space. I believe that its sole purpose for being commissioned was to drive the illusion that Philadelphia is still a center of art. Although I understand the Oldenburg’s symbolic and artistic meaning behind the sculpture, I still would like to blow it up because public funds paid for a sculpture that does not produce any human happiness or emotion. In 2013, I believe that the shock factor has worn out. It has become almost boring and unnoticeable to every day pedestrians. Personally, I like art that I can connect to immediately and a piece of art that can produce a certain emotion. For example, the ‘Rocky’ Statue is immediately recognizable and its symbolic value provokes an emotion of pride for the city I live in.
(Image of the ‘Clothespin’ with people for scale)
(The ‘Clothespin’ today)
harrynguyenblog 