Art as Living Statement: Flower Power, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The nature of all art is to reflect in some sense the external world around it, no matter the degree of realism or the intent of the artist’s perceptions.  As the artist is shaped by their life and experience, so too then is the art.  Vision of any kind derives from the innumerable ways the artist translates life, internally and externally, so a limitless number of statements may then be made, in an equally limitless number of styles and genres.  Some works more than others, however, express more directly qualities of life itself, and of distinct periods and ideologies, and sculptor Mark di Suvero’s Flower Power is an extraordinary example of art that is a definitive expression of a specific point of view.  The name may be seen as ironic commentary in itself, as the work is a massive construction of steel girders, but the sculpture transcends such narrow interpretation by virtue of its innate integrity.  It allows for meaning ranging from simple metaphor to the most abstract concepts, placing the onus – and privilege – of interpretation fully with the viewer.  Di Suvero’s Flower Power, an immense and geometric work in steel of the Abstract Expressionist school, profoundly underscores how art may reflect – and validate – a number of vitally important concepts within a living culture, as it permits interpretations of all kinds.

Analysis

To appreciate the value of Flower Power as an important work of art, it is helpful to understand the timing and circumstances of its creation.  The name is of course famous as a slogan of the “hippie movement” of the 1960s, when young people defied society by emphasizing the natural in a world they perceived as dangerously artificial, and Mark di Suvero may be seen as an archetype of this counterculture ethic.  He consistently expresses aesthetics rooted in the era’s commitment to global understanding and world peace.  Di Suvero’s dissatisfaction with Cold War politics infused his being; his social and political convictions were such, in fact, that he left the United States between 1971 and 1975, as a protest or reaction to the bombings of Cambodia (Blake  189). If the Impressionists of the late 19^th century created art rebelling against Classicism, it may be said that Di Suvero and many within the Abstract Expressionist movement of the mid-20^th century reveal an agenda also based on rebellion, and of a kind with social and political foundations. The art they created was very much influenced, if not inspired, by personal ideologies of political and social kinds.

Any influence, however, is only that, and Di Suvero’s work vastly expands on it to infuse potentials of meaning far beyond any pragmatic viewpoints.  Flower Power is important, first and foremost, because it represents one artist’s stylistic vision.  Di Suvero’s work is usually defined by two elements: scale and motion (Lewis, Lewis  440). Within the parameters of Abstract Expressionist movement, in which open form and non-representational images allow for subjective interpretation, Di Suvero focuses on how large size and fluidity represent natural states of being, or how these qualities in artificial creations inherently reflect natural life.  For example, Di Suvero’s The A Train has heavy wooden beams suspended from the ceiling over a more stable construction below, and this gives the piece a gestural, changing quality; gravity and air currents animate the sculpture, creating what Di Suvero calls, “painting in three dimensions” (Lewis, Lewis  440).  This element of movement seems to add another dimension to Di Suvero’s work, even as this same dimension is evident in his more static pieces, such as Flower Power: tension. The evident weight and size of the girders and materials used, even as fused in this work, create a field of energy in which there is uncertainty.

This quality of tension is a daring approach that enlarges the essential concept of Abstract Expressionism, and it literally changes the way the art is employed.  Di Suvero’s works are famous for inviting viewers to make them participatory experiences; spectators sometimes climb onto his girders or swing from his ropes, which emphasizes the democratic spirit the artist consistently affirms as guiding him (Morgan  124).  Flower Power does not move, but the suspense generated by its dynamic construction, along with the size and weight of the angled components, invites movement.  Immense and suspended steel girders entice participation, and there is in fact a playground aspect to the work.  Size and structure then expand the art into a component of life; it is not that the sculpture is meant to be “climbed,” but that it may be, and this greatly personalizes the experience of encountering the work.  It is in fact arguable that such sculpture is related to performance art, in that it draws the viewer into a potentially living collision with art, and this is an element ironic in itself by virtue of the piece’s monolithic presence.

The mechanics and materials of Flower Power themselves are a part of Di Suvero’s artistic ambition.  He has affirmed that the irony of using steel, so associated with non-artistic concerns and industry, to convey emotion greatly attracts him.  It is another challenge of a kind, asking the viewer to consider meaning in ways removed from standard concepts, just as placement of the steel girders defies convention and, it even seems, gravity.  Di Suvero also enjoys using a crane “like a paintbrush” (Blake 189), and these two components of material and construction go to revealing a crucial quality of the work.  On one level, it is then possible to accuse the artist of being merely playful in a superficial sense, or relying only on contrast and the unexpected to achieve what he defines as artistic effect.  Such a view, however, ignores the more simple and more valid intent and process.  That is, Flower Power appears to reflect Di Suvero literally using a crane like a paintbrush, which translates to nothing more than an artist employing unusual mediums to experiment and create.  This is not a work of art depending upon knowledge of how it was created to generate appreciation.  It is not art because the artist merely found a way to create something new through unusual efforts.  It is art because the result of the effort presents a striking statement all its own.

The nature or meaning of that statement, moreover, is enhanced by the potentials within it.  The name, as noted, has meaning, and it is easy then to perceive the sculpture as solely a commentary on the concerns for nature it expresses.  This narrow view in place, an overt – or blatant – statement is possible, and one along the lines of a simplistic joke.  This is a massive and vertical steel structure, with angles above and below, so the piece may be said to humorously inflate “flower power” as a concept.  In plain terms, it may be seen as a huge steel flower, representing the true force of nature through translating it in terms of impact and material; it is then indeed a “flower” of great power. This is a view, moreover, unfortunately in keeping with much criticism of the movement: “Some of the sculpture associated with Abstract Expressionism indicates the danger of invoking metaphor too literally” (Leja  311).  To so directly invoke concepts, ironically or even sarcastically, may be effective social commentary, but it is distanced from art in the eyes of such critics. It offers a statement essentially devoid of dimension, and informs the viewer too emphatically of the meaning.  If this is valid in classic art, at least to an extent, literal metaphor then defies the very nature of Expressionism.

This may be argued, however, simply because many possibilities exist for the viewer.  To begin with, Flower Power virtually commands attention by the arrangement of its components, and in a ways removed from associations with its name.  The base is a concrete triangle, upon which another triangle of steel girders is erected, the point obliquely angled to the sky. Linked within this point is that of a larger and more dimensional, inverted triangle, the added dimension provided by a base of steel at the top (Morgan 124). If this is interpreted as any sort of “flower,” then, it is as abstract as may be conceived. What emanates from the form is in fact more power, or the tensions inherent when masses are juxtaposed in precarious ways. Here alone is one potential interpretation; that is, the piece may be said to express that great forces both rely on other forces, yet confront one another in the dependence.  Multiple levels of suspense exist, and the relationship between the two triangles indicate both need and defiance.  The indication, moreover, is by no means confined to political viewpoints; such conflict is easily seen as representing the “monumental” tension often within personal relations.  One viewer may then see Flower Power as a literal expression of Cold War dynamics, as another may perceive it as keenly illustrating the pain – or strangely balanced and right reality –  of an intensely personal relationship.  Equally importantly, another may actually see a flower or the unappreciated power of nature translated in steel and size, and be fully entitled to do so.  What ultimately matters is that the allowance is there, and it is there because the art is expansive enough in form as sculpture to admit to whatever interpretation suits its audience.  Flower Power is then art that is “interactive,” which is in keeping with the open nature of Abstract Expressionism itself.

Conclusion

In a sense, to know anything of the background of artist Mark di Suvero, as well as of the era in which Flower Power was created, is to know too much.  Certainly, artists are profoundly influenced by their eras and experiences, and both Di Suvero’s life and the 1960s were emphatically defined by counterculture ideologies.  Consequently, it is all too easy to assess the sculpture as a blatant statement reflecting the imperative to honor the power of nature, or even a wry commentary on the same.  This, however, ignores the reality of the work itself, which by its very presence and form defies any such simple classification.  It is very much whatever the viewer wishes it to be, a quality integral to Abstract Expressionism and enhanced by the massive tension generated by the piece.  Equally importantly, if not more so, this expanse of interpretation includes that of the most obvious; it is a very big and stylized flower if that is how the viewer perceives it.  Ultimately, Flower Power, Mark di Suvero’s enormous and geometric work in steel of the Abstract Expressionist school, greatly underscores how art may reflect – and validate – a number of vitally important concepts within a living culture by allowing for limitless interpretation.

Works Cited

Blake, C. N.  The Arts of Democracy: Art, Public Culture, and the State. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Print.

Leja, M.  Reframing Abstract Expressionism: Subjectivity and Painting in the 1940s. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.  Print.

Lewis, R., & Lewis, S.  The Power of Art.  Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

Morgan, A. L.  The Oxford Dictionary of American Art and Artists.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.