“Geese not included.”
Welcome back to your regular dose of vitriol and cynicism directed at everyday objects for no apparent reason! In this week’s edition of “Things Andy Dislikes,” we’ve got a really special piece for you. Instead of a vegetable or some random TV show, it’s a large sculpture in a public art garden! Not only that, it is “THE” large sculpture in “THE” public art garden for Minneapolis. And I’m taking it down this week because, surprise surprise, I think it’s kind of dumb.
That’s right, I am, in fact, referring to the Spoonbridge and Cherry sculpture at the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden, curated by the Walker Art Museum. For those of you who (like me) didn’t know what the hell this sculpture was or that it even existed until recently, allow me to illuminate. The Spoonbridge and Cherry sculpture, designed by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen in the 1980’s, is exactly what the name says. It is a giant spoon with a cherry on top, situated within a small reflecting pool and resting on a tiny dirt island in the middle. Somehow, somewhere, someway, it became the some sort of grand symbol of Minneapolis, according to Minneapolis journalists for about the last two decades or so. If you see a photo collage of Minneapolis, or a list of things to see in Minneapolis, or just a general “get to know Minneapolis!” kind of promotional thing, chances are pretty high that this sculpture features in there somehow. And you know what? I don’t get it and I think it’s kind of stupid.
Why does this sculpture represent Minnesota? What do a spoon and cherry have to do with a city that, as far as I know, isn’t particularly aligned with cherries in any way? Why did something so…. meh get to be such a cultural touchstone for the city? I just don’t get it! There doesn’t seem to be any sort of larger connection to it. People just thought it looked cool against the city skyline, I guess, and it spread through the cultural subconscious. But it’s just a spoon with a cherry! It doesn’t feel like a sculpture; it feels like it ought to be an ad, or something. Something that was cooked up by a marketing agency in the 60’s as a response to the pop art movement. It isn’t exciting, it isn’t interesting, it doesn’t feel particularly unique. I mean, every city in the US has got some sort of big oversized something. It feels like one of those giant chairs that people take pictures on for like sororities or some shit. It isn’t bad, it’s just kind of there. It’s pedestrian! And I think the city deserves better! And it has better! Somewhere! Even that bright blue chicken in the back would be a better mascot, if you ask me. Like Denver Airport’s demon horse!
In the defense of the sculpture, maybe it got so popular because of its banality, of the fact that it doesn’t seem like it has some sort of deeper message. It just exists as some sort of weirdo monument (although I think it is a monument without dreams). It’s non-threatening. It’s easy for people to connect to because there is nothing more to it. It just looks fun, I guess. I mean, I won’t lie and say that it isn’t “neat.” It’s a fun thing, I suppose. I’m sure kids get a kick out of it, and that’s probably part of it. I could see someone arguing that it’s just cool, and fun, and people vibe with it, and that’s reason enough. I would disagree with them, of course, but I get it. To me, that lack of anything more to it is what drags it down, I think. And I think that its design rejects any kind of deeper meaning, too. It is a sculpture that is antagonistic towards interpretation (not the National Park Word(tm) kind of interpretation, the regular kind). The sign by the sculpture claims that it is supposed to resemble the front of a viking ship, or a duck on the water, or some other bullshit. No! It doesn’t look like any of those things! It is exactly what it is and absolutely nothing more! And that’s boring!
The reason this is on my mind is that, over the weekend, I showed Minneapolis to a handful of friends from Illinois who came up to visit me. I had never been to the sculpture garden before, but it was on my list of things to do, and I figured, “well, it’s one of the things to do in Minneapolis, I might as well take them there,” and we did actually have a pretty great time. The garden is super nice and the other sculptures are much better. They all agreed it was actually one of the highlights of their visit, and I also agree with them. But while there, we also all agreed that the sculpture was stupid bullshit. And one of us was an art major, and the rest of us are all vaguely creatively-minded people! So it’s not just me who’s got beef with this sculpture.
As a fun side note, we also got to sneak around the outskirts of some sort of massively expensive fundraiser for the Walker Art Museum. Looking it up, we found out that tickets start at $125 and go to a maximum cost of $17500 dollars. Who the fuck is going to be able to pay that kind of money? Under normal circumstances, that level of sheer, stupid wealth and excess would trigger acid reflux and frothing rage in my stomach, but considering that it’s a fundraiser for a public art museum, I let it slide this time. Although I’m sure that at least some of the people in there have sacrificed members of the working class to the god of capitalism at one point or another.
Now, all this being said, I do squat firmly within the “Author is Dead” camp, and I do believe that anyone can ascribe whatever stupid bullshit interpretation to art that they can, and they can get it away with it, too, if you’ve got enough support for it and it weren’t for those meddling kids. So I’m legally and ethically obligated to accept the fact that someone’s meaning behind this sculpture has got to be legitimate. I’m also obligated to tell them they’re wrong. Modern art, especially abstract art, tends to walk such a fine line between genuine deeper meaning and masturbatory pretension. I have met a handful of art people in my day, and I have been to my fair share of contemporary art museums, and if I were keeping score, I’d probably guess that it’s a pretty fifty-fifty split between art that really feels like it means something and art that’s got its own head so far up its own ass it can peek out its mouth and spit corn kernels at you.
I don’t care what the Avant Guards and their smug-ass “But You Didn’t” T-shirts say; a canvas with a single block of color is stupid, and you can explain and add every layer of meaning and nuance to it that you want but it won’t change the fact that it’s fucking stupid, and since the Author is Dead I can tell you right to your smug-ass face that it’s fucking stupid, and we can both argue til the cows come home and neither of us will ever be more right than the other (well, not really, the interpretation with more evidence could generally be considered “more right,” but you get the idea. Comedic effect doesn’t often carry nuance.). Not that all contemporary art is this way, of course; for every motherfucker in a turtleneck painting stick figures with their toes to demonstrate the human experience, there are plenty of artists who have got their heads firmly outside of their asses.
Admittedly, I do not get a single whiff of pretension off of the spoonbridge and cherry. As far as modern art goes, I think it knows it is exactly what it wants to be and nothing more, and I respect that, at least. It feels very grounded. I mean, the sculpture’s opening day was attended to by a band of spoon-players, who played ceremonial music on their spoons. That’s funny. It isn’t putting on airs. I don’t think that saves it from being a mediocre are piece, but I do think it elevates it above a block of concrete with a used shoe or some such bullshit. But this all begs the question, what would be a better unofficial symbol of the city? Well, I can’t tell you specifics in Minneapolis, because I don’t particularly feel like I know the city well enough to pick one thing (although Stone Arch Bridge would be pretty high on my list), but I can tell you what I think Chicago does right in their own sculpture-as-a-symbol with The Bean. Sorry, “Cloud Gate.”
Look, the irony/hypocrisy/stupid bullshit of applauding a big metal bean and disparaging a big metal spoon is not lost on me. Objectively, The Bean is kind of stupid. It’s inelegant, has nothing to do with Chicago in subject or style, and exists in such popularly largely because, I believe, it’s great to take pictures with. And yet I love The Bean, because it’s got just enough mystery and intrigue to give it a little “oomph” and feel like art instead of just some dropped household items. It’s abstract, it seems to beg for deeper introspection, and it gives you a really great view of the city skyline. Perhaps this is my Chicago bias showing, but The Bean is a conversation piece for the city. People talk about it, they share their experiences, they take pictures with it, they wonder what it means, they interact with it in a way that they don’t with other sculptures. Sure, a lot of that is true with Spoonbridge, but The Bean is a different level of interaction. And I think that makes a big difference! It’s just weird enough to be memorable and unique. Every town has its oversized household object, but only one town has an oversized metal bean.
At the end of the day, though, it is all subjective. And although I make a big show of hating contemporary art (and I’ll admit I’ve got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about it), that subjectivity is part of the beauty of it. Why do I prefer a big stupid bean over a big stupid spoon? Because the bean speaks to me in a way that the spoon doesn’t. This is informed by my own experiences, thoughts, feelings, and interpretations, but someone else has just a unique and interesting set of experiences, thoughts, feelings, and interpretations as I do, and they get to like whatever sculpture they want just as much. They’re wrong, of course, but you get the idea.
I don’t get the big spoon and the big cherry. I don’t think it’s worthy of city symbolic status. But someone gets it. Enough people get it, in fact, that my opinion doesn’t really matter (not that it ever really did, of course). Somehow, people connect to this big stupid spoon and its big stupid cherry, and someone is willing to pay $17500 to attend a mediocre dinner in a stuffy tent next to the thing. And you know what? Good for them. Minneapolis can have its cherry spoon sculpture, and I can have my reservations about its existence, and we can all live in harmony together.
Except for the Avant Guards. They can fuck off.
