ICEBERG: Slice

It is terribly important not to discuss this work in terms of phenomenology, process versus product, building versus drawing, Gordon Matta Clark, installation art, Serra's verb list, traces, critique of mediated practice, site-specific sculpture, operation versus form.

Instead, we should note the following:
The 35 x 5 feet wall section, rotated 90 degrees, violated a rated fire separation; the remaining wall portion was not quite sufficient to serve as a guardrail protecting viewers from the 12 foot drop to the lower gallery; the entire work was done with illicit labor, without approved drawings, without code review. The exoskeleton trusses holding the wall fragment together, while engineered, were never subjected to code review; no building inspectors visited the site during construction. There was no budget agreement, no contract, no legal framework for the work. Under the guise of impermanence, myriad regulatory parameters were skirted.

In other words, it is time to recognize, how little was required to situate the work in the mainstream of practice, where it belongs.

< < I C E B E R G P R OJ E C T . O R G
Project Chronology \| About Iceberg Project \| Contact Information
	Slice (Still 1999) University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, 1999
	PAGE: 1 2 3 4
	A 5 x 35 foot portion of wall was cut, and rotated about a verticle axis to reconnect two spaces that were once continuous.
Slice It is terribly important not to discuss this work in terms of phenomenology, process versus product, building versus drawing, Gordon Matta Clark, installation art, Serra's verb list, traces, critique of mediated practice, site-specific sculpture, operation versus form. Instead, we should note the following: The 35 x 5 feet wall section, rotated 90 degrees, violated a rated fire separation; the remaining wall portion was not quite sufficient to serve as a guardrail protecting viewers from the 12 foot drop to the lower gallery; the entire work was done with illicit labor, without approved drawings, without code review. The exoskeleton trusses holding the wall fragment together, while engineered, were never subjected to code review; no building inspectors visited the site during construction. There was no budget agreement, no contract, no legal framework for the work. Under the guise of impermanence, myriad regulatory parameters were skirted. In other words, it is time to recognize, how little was required to situate the work in the mainstream of practice, where it belongs. Kent Kleinman	Process photos of wall rotation