Roxy on the Roof

Roxy Paine, "Maelstrom", (detail) stainless steel, 2009, Courtesy of Max Weintraub

Roxy Paine, "Maelstrom" (2009) on the roof of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

I could imagine no better setting for Roxy Paine’s most recent sculpture, titled Maelstrom, than the rooftop of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and its backdrop of Central Park and the skyline of the city that envelops it. Maelstrom—a vast web of stainless steel tree trunks and limbs weighing over seven tons and measuring 130 feet long and almost 50 feet wide—is the latest in a series of site-specific sculptures by the New York-based artist that have appeared around the city over the past several years (one of Paine’s signature steel trees was installed in Central Park during the 2002 Whitney Biennial and, more recently, three trees occupied Madison Square Park in 2007).

Maelstrom is a beautiful and enchanting sculpture, one that effects a dynamic experience for the spectator as he or she navigates around and through the thicket of shimmering tree limbs. Situated atop the Met, Maelstrom also invites comparisons between itself and its surroundings, in this case with Central Park and the city that circumscribes it. In so doing, Maelstrom quickly sets in motion a dialectical discussion on the tension between nature and culture, a dialectic that foregrounds how our surroundings reflect the ways in which we contain nature and come to terms with our place in it. Indeed, Paine’s arboreal sculpture—a fusion of artificial materials and natural, arabesque forms—resonates with Central Park’s own internal tensions as an expanse carefully designed and calibrated to juxtapose untamed nature with more formal environs.

There is another, more subtle way in which Maelstrom functions as a meditation on the tensions between natural and civilizing forces, a central concern of Paine’s art. I’m referring to certain peculiar sections of Maelstrom’s thicket, where its tendrils appear to be in the process of infiltrating the integrity of the museum building itself, spots where its branches seemingly adhere to and envelop the openings of various standpipes and fixtures jutting out of the rooftop’s walls. Easily overlooked amid the sculpture’s soaring boughs, and serving as neither load-bearing supports nor as structural anchors, these curious grafts are not the result of engineering considerations. Their significance appears to lie elsewhere.

One possible meaning of these particular tendrils might be found in the work’s title, Maelstrom, which refers generally to anything that is tumultuous or disordered, and specifically to a powerful and cataclysmic whirlpool that sucks into its vortex everything around it. If one of Paine’s primary artistic concerns is with nature and our enduring desire to master it, then a maelstrom—an instance of nature in its most destructive and sublime form—is certainly an apt reminder of the inexorable and entropic forces of the natural world. It is in this sense that Paine’s incorporation of the museum itself into his sculptural meditation on the tensions between nature and culture by way of those invasive tendrils seems fitting. After all, much of the art that lines the halls of the museum beneath Maelstrom is a testament to the persistence of civilization’s efforts to harness and discipline the natural world, to bulwark ourselves against its undiscriminating forces.

From Nicolas Poussin’s reflections on the transitory nature of all things to Damien Hirst’s vitrines and so-called pharmaceutical paintings, our determination to overcome nature—and our inevitable vulnerability to it—is a lasting theme of art. Paine’s maelstrom on the roof, with its vortex of branches and probing tendrils that seem poised to infiltrate and eventually overwhelm the museum below, continues the tradition. In short, if Paine’s wild, beautiful sculpture atop the Met reminds us of the power of art to transform and transport, then the aptly titled Maelstrom also functions as a reminder of what it is that we ultimately desire transformation of and transport from, which is, at least in part, what art is all about, and why art endures.

Maelstrom is on view through November 29, 2009 (weather permitting).

Contributor
Max Weintraub is a Visiting Professor at Hunter College in New York City, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on modern and contemporary art and theory. He has published widely and worked in curatorial and educational departments at major museums, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Since 2006, he has contributed the Art2 column "On View Now."
  1. Tim Nowakowski says:

    I find Paine’s work interesting as I find David Smith’s Cubi series eye shattering when seen in the evening sunlight or Koon’s works on the rooftop last year. Eye candy sculptures like these make Duchamp’s polemic against the ‘retinal’ seem frivolous. I’m sure the MMA had enough to do w/ Fire Marshals concerned that Paine’s piece was a lightning rod, too, entropic nature indeed. If I were to position this work, Maelstrom, in relation to a concept of nature it would be within a general art historical concept of mimesis, the copy of nature. Not to fall into facile binaries, but a meaningful comparison might be Pollock’s “I am nature.”, where the vital energy of being grows a painting from natural sources, and the painting is the result of the event, as if the artist were the maelstrom, though in a non-mimetic way. The visibility of the welds in these trees, inevitably recall Smith’s sensational Cubi series and stand in contrast to the Serra’s and Andre’s lack of ‘glue’. So, then, given the absolute breathtaking legacy of the 20th Century pushing the boundaries of the ontology of the object, can we say that sculptors have resigned themselves to falling back on received notions of object making and studio procedures, saying that the ends justify the means?

    Reply

  2. Max Weintraub says:

    Hi Tim,
    Thanks again for your interesting thoughts. Paine’s integration of the museum’s fixtures and whatnot are indeed aesthetic, rather than for issues of safety codes. Also, I’m not sure I subscribe to the position that the primary concern of artists in the second half of the twentieth century–especially the likes of Serra, Andre, Paine, and others–are pushing, or only pushing the limits of the formal and technical qualities of the object/material. I think their primary concerns lie elsewhere.
    Were I to position this sculpture in the mimesis argument (which I don’t think is fully appropriate for Paine’s work) I would have to do so through Roland Barthes’ text “That Old Thing Art,” in which he suggests that the ontological nature of art is that it is artificial, and thus Pop Art is the truest and most honest expression of art and nature.
    I think that contemporary art is at its best when, like Paine’s work, it is pleasing and enjoyable to many (eye candy, I guess) as this work seems to be, and allows for meditation on deeper art historical concerns.

    Reply

  3. Pingback: What’s Cookin at the Art21 Blog: A Weekly Index | Art21 Blog

Leave a Comment

*