Philadelphia has a lot of public
artwork throughout the city, including numerous bronze statues. Obviously, the
Philadelphia Museum of Art is the city’s artistic epicenter, but one can find
art beyond the museum pillars. Notably, the Rocky statue has had various
locations near the museum. A lesser known statue outside the West Entrance of
the art museum is Sir Jacob Epstein’s Social Consciousness. Social
Consciousness was created in Britain in 1954 out of bronze (statues) and
polished granite (base), was unveiled in 1955 in Philadelphia, and dedicated in
1957. A few instances of bad weather (very strong winds) slightly delayed installation
by a day or two. But the West Entrance of the art museum was not the statue’s
original destination. Funding for the statue began for Epstein in 1950 by the Fairmount
Park Art Association with the intent to be installed at the Samuel Memorial (an
art memorial/collective on 9th and Locust), but as the piece took
its peculiar shape, Epstein and the Art Association decided that the piece was better
fit at the museum. The piece is comprised of three statues on a granite base
that encompass Epstein’s vision. The leftwards statue is ‘The Great Consoler’
(representing compassion), the middle statue is ‘The Eternal Mother’
(representing destiny), and the right-most statue is Succor (representing
death). Social Consciousness
did not come without controversy, which apparently Epstein has plenty of
experience in. Opinions from the public and from the art community alike were
mixed. An article dating March 15th, 1955 from the Philadelphia
Evening Bulletin actually flat out called the work “junk”. The piece seemed to
build up a certain pallet of words to describe it including “obscene”, “dumb”,
and “vile”. The article’s author talked about his disdain for the physical abstraction
of the statues. It also featured an interview from a man simply credited as “man
on the street” who basically says that the piece is irrelevant, unimportant,
and ugly. Public opinion for the piece is clearly not good, and it is obvious that
the public did not take kindly to the abnormality of the statues’ physique. The
piece is clearly very expressionistic as it has harsh and exaggerated facial
features, exaggerated scale, etc. Another artist defends the piece against the public
in the Bulletin article, claiming that it is the public who does not appreciate
or understand modern art. A letter from Epstein himself reveals his intentions
for the piece. He says, “I don’t think the sculpture will be at all ‘puzzling’
as I didn’t set out to make a puzzle and I hope it will be understood and even
liked.” Clearly, Epstein’s anticipated reaction was slightly off.
I think the reaction that Social
Consciousness brings up is fascinating and important to study in terms of artistry,
the communication from an artist to the world, and theories of aesthetic
practice. As a young filmmaker I know that high image quality is stressed and labeled as immediately professional. From the
glass you shoot on, film stock you use (or digital picture profile now that we
are in the world of DSLRs), subjects and location, and many more factors the
actual quality of your image on screen can vary greatly. So what does Social
Consciousness have to do with DSLRs? It’s the idea of aesthetics. The statue elicited
a certain kind of reaction from the people that most would call undesirable
(i.e. being called vile). What happened with Social Consciousness is an interesting study on form and content, or
maybe form vs. content. Epstein uses his art to communicate his message. In
this case, the ideology comes from human suffering and the human experience.
But when people see Social Consciousness they are probably not thinking about the human
experience, or even social consciousness itself for that matter. Had Epstein
done something hyper-realistic or more renaissance-like (something more obvious
or realistic) the reaction probably would have been more positive from the
public. This poses important questions: should Epstein have compromised his vision
for the sake of the public? Should public works of art have public
consultation? Where is the line drawn between aesthetics and the message?
Plenty of artists in plenty of different mediums breach aesthetic limitations.
For example, the free-jazz movement of the mid 20th century proves
this in full. John Coltrane’s later, extremely experimental work sounds at face
value brash, chaotic, discerning, and at some points not really like music as
we know it. Omar Rodriguez-Lopez’s 2009 album Cryptomnesia layers samples, deformed vocals/instrumental tracks, and truly bizarre melodies to emote and to convey his
messages – he creates a world for his piece rather than creating his piece for this world. And that is something that is genuinely inspirational to me. The drummer
for Cryptomnesia,
Zach Hill, is known for his abrasive “not-pretty”drumming, yet has collaborated with many talented musicians and communicates and awesome level of feeling in his music. Filmmakers face
problems with aesthetics all the time, especially being such a visual medium. Some
of the most emotional, powerful, successful cinematography to me are not always
the best dolly shots, or focus racks, or great lens and grain structure. Even a
filmmaker like Gaspar Noe who makes movies with extraordinarily long takes
decides to have moments where the camera will be a static long take for nearly
15 minutes (as in the gut wrenching rape scene in his 2002 film Irreversible). A movie like Black Swan was shot mostly to film with very
specific choices for cinematography. But some parts, like the subway scene
(ignore the god-awful on screen text in the link) were shot on cheaper DSLRs
without a steadicam because the scene simply does not call for bells and
whistles. It is important to think about pieces like Social Consciousness,
Cryptomnesia, Irreversible, and late Coltrane because they prove that sometimes
having all the best gear and highest quality settings pales in comparison to
your message. And is that not what art is all about?
