I’m afraid I can’t help you with your challenge of improving its readily available interpretation. To be honest, I think the interpretation that is currently provided on the stone tablets is quite accurate: “discarded tires and electrical insulation.” If you start adding in statements about it being a window into the geology of the region, you will be compounding the problem by adding factual inaccuracy to what is already an aesthetic disaster. If I were to write the signage, it would include most of the points I have already made in my comments, with the added thought that if this piece represents what happens by virtue of the formal process through which acquisitions take place, then something is clearly wrong with the formal process.

I do, however, agree that a piece as challenging as Solid State Change requires obvious, readily available interpretation. We do have some of that in the form of digital content, but there is room for improvement in what we offer in that regard. Thoughtful suggestions, of course, are welcome if you have them.

What I am, however, is annoyed.

I am annoyed that the artist has been so consistently dishonest in her discussions about the piece, both in terms of its creation and subsequent student reaction.

I am annoyed that the rest of the grounds surrounding the installation cannot be the site of any additional landscaping (such as a flower bed), a stipulation, I have been told, that was placed in the contract by the artist.

I am annoyed that the formal arts community at Middlebury College seems so desperate to justify the piece as being worthwhile that they either describe it in terms that show they actually know little about it (as you did, describing is as “an interactive window into the geology of the region”) or say that its value lies primarily in the fact that it challenges the observer’s views about art rather than any aesthetic appeal.

I am annoyed that no distinction ever seems to be made about the different roles played and effects made by art shown in a museum gallery and art permanently bolted to the side of a building. My views on the items on display in “Environment and Object” are irrelevant. My views on the values of displaying art of any kind depend very much on the nature of the display. In fact, I agree with you that there is value to art that “challenges us when we least expect it, when we least desire to be challenged. … if [it manages] nothing more than to reinforce your aesthetic, then it has served an educational purpose.” But I believe the primacy of this value is conditional. What is useful for an installation in a gallery – where someone chooses to visit on their own terms – is quite different for a permanent installation in a public place where people have their offices and where tour groups walk by.

I am annoyed by the apparent assumption that Solid State Change actually serves an educational purpose. Its installation offers no interpretation, leaving the viewer to take the interpretation “Oh, the college cares so little about its grounds that it left a pile of construction debris next to this building” as valid, unchallenged unless someone actually walks up to the apparent pile of debris and notices the stone label set flush to the lawn.

I am annoyed by the implication that I or anyone else should be satisfied with being confronted by ugliness on a daily basis simply because someone else feels that there is value to us being confronted by ugliness.

I teach a subject other than art, and as part of that, I try to teach students that if they don’t like what they see or experience in the world, then they have the tools, the skills, and the wisdom to make a change. If the arts community at Middlebury College really wants Solid State Change to serve an educational purpose, let us host an event that says “we’ve heard your views that this sculpture is not appreciated here, and therefore we are moving the installation.” That would allow Solid State Change to serve as the focal point for the truly important lesson: change is possible.

And if you wanted the sculpture installed outside of your office, I would support that completely.

Tim

You did not bother to comment on the various found-object pieces in our current exhibition mentioned in my post. Indeed, I doubt you read the first two-thirds of the post, else you would have understood what I meant by “reposition(ing) your frame of reference in a new galaxy sort of way.” Given your reaction to Solid State Change I can only guess that you will harbor as much disdain for the works in the exhibit as you do for Deborah Fisher’s artwork, yet I would still invite you to view the exhibit in person and share your thoughts with our audience. Those of us who work to present art of all sorts to the public are, I believe, predisposed to harboring some sort of affinity for the works on view, and we benefit when members of the public share their thoughts and feelings about the art whether or not they affirm our beliefs.

Ultimately, the fact that you find this work atrocious is truly a First World problem. There are those for whom discarded debris forms the vast majority of the landscape. They walk across it on their way to and from the destinations that fill their day. Their children play on it. Their children play IN it. The fact that you and I have the opportunity to confront and to find in this piece of recycled art whatever such messages we see—and that we have access to the digital infrastructure that allows us to share our dialogue with the world—is a blessing, an opportunity not to be missed. I’d like to think that the trustees would agree.

I understand that the appreciation of art is subjective, and that tastes will differ. Our opinions about Solid State Change are a case in point. You find it stimulating, and I find it atrocious and an embarrassment for the college. You find that it has primal presence, and I find that it is an eyesore that looks more like abandoned construction debris than art. You think it provides an opportunity to be wowed, and I find it an insult to sculptors who set higher standards for themselves than Ms. Fisher, who has said that the primary purpose of sculpture is simply to “take up space.” You find your frame of reference repositioned in a “new galaxy sort of way” (whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean), and I find myself wondering whether the trustees feel like they got conned by an artist who was looking to make a quick buck. You ask about the sculpture, “What’s not to like?” And I say, “Nearly everything.” If you want to convince me otherwise, you’re going to have to do a heck of a lot better than this.

ref: Viyé Diba