Karly Chisholm
Reading Response: The Secret History of Columbus Circle
After reading Herbert Muschamp’s take on the history and controversy behind the infamous building at 2 Columbus circle, I have begun to understand the importance in preserving history and the importance of the audience behind a body of work or a trend in the art world. In the case of 2 Columbus circle, being a landmark that represents “ the collective memory of an audience – the seasoned gay audience, perhaps the most culturally receptive group any city has ever seen.”, the loss of this seasoned gay group of art appreciators, curators and artists due to AIDs, has led to the loss of a certain resonance, as Muschamp compares it to having a world series without veteran sports fans.
I was also very drawn to his idea that “A building does not have to be an important work of architecture to become a first-rate landmark”, I understand this idea deeply, in that it does not apply to all things, but on a broader spectrum could be recognized as the idea that something does not have to be beautiful or aesthetically appealing in order to hold meaning and vice versa. This idea stays very true to art and the entire concept of abstraction, being that the piece may not hold visual references, but that meaning and the artist’s purpose still exists beyond simple shapes and colors. Examples of this idea are all around us, such as the stuffed animal you’ve had since you were 6 and still love despite its holes and lack of proper stuffing, because it holds resonance, nostalgia and feeling for you. This is an important idea in design because although aesthetics are important, as creators we must take into account the need for our consumers to feel, and as artists the need to make our audience feel something when they look at our piece.
