I think it is a very good thing that this has finally been brought to light. Im not exactly sure how this ever happened, it seems to me there is no excuse no matter what the feelings were. It almost bring the subject of censorship by the government to mind...anyways, i am very glad that the problem has been fixed and we can now pay respects to all that have fallen.

This piece of art is really exquisite, but at the same time unconventional because the viewer becomes a part of the art, as was mentioned in the video, and even if one did not want to participate the others who did want to partake changed their experience. When he was first talking about his piece in the video I thought that the floor was already that marble-like, glow from within floor, and that he had somehow discovered that the names of the confederate alumni had been inscribed on the floor and had faded over the years. But when I realized that was not the case I felt that placing the names of the confederate members could be seen as almost just as demeaning as not having their names in the memorial all together. The viewers are walking on the names, almost disgracing them. I don't believe the artist meant to be disrespectful at all, especially since he put the fallen soldiers connection next to the date of their death, ie: Father, Husband...But it is interesting that to partake you must walk over their name, placing you in a position higher than the confederate soldiers.

Wow!! That is SO awesome! He is brilliant. It just goes to show that when you add something artistic, it helps the average person grasp the meaning behind a certain name, place, or event. Kind of like illustrations for a book.
It's interesting to see the power that art has on different types of people.
I admire the man who did this.

I'm with you, Andrew, on this one. I find Knep's work both profoundly moving and art. In a sense, this post harkens to the recent one on Ephemeral Architecture: the evaporation process lends a mythic quality to the interaction.

I, too, am interested in Mr. Torres' definition of Art. My own is similar to Dostoyevsky's in that it differentiates Art from the work of art: that is, a work may exist in two or three (or four) dimensions, at a moment in time or in perpetuity, on a page or in a database: the essence of Art is the experience produced by the interaction of the work and its audience, whether purely psychic or (as in the case of Mr. Knep's) both physical and psychological.

And, no, not all experiences are Art. Intentionality, talent, medium, technique, and the depth and quality of the outcome are all dimensions on which a work can be judged. There's something about altering perceptions at work in Art.

Some definitions of art require that the artifact (the work itself) be directly, physically made by humans; mine puts the human factor at the opposite end of the definition:

Works of art may in some cases be stored, but Art lives only with people.

While I understand the point of reference that might lead one to assert that "Deep Wounds" is not a work of art, what I see happening when people encounter it in Memorial Hall is unmistakably Art.

Thank you, Andrew, for sharing this experience.

In regard to Mr. Torres' observation, I am not sure I would look to Ayn Rand to provide a definition of what art is or not.

That said, I think there is some value in being aware of different ways to approach art, like that outlined in Mr. Torres' book.

I don't approach art with an intent to analyze it as proper or improper according to James Joyce's aesthetic. Being cognizant of how the interaction is affecting you and even how it was intended to affect you can add layers to the experience.

Interesting perspective Louis, leading me to ask the endless question: Why ISN'T this work at Harvard art? We could also substitute ''metalwork'' or ''stonework'' instead of sculpture, or ''public speech'' instead of theater, or ''coloration of canvas'' instead of painting. I'll wander off to find your book to discover your specific definition to which Mr. Knep's effort does not adhere. Hmmmm.

Substituting the term "computer technology" for "public art" in your remarks would make more sense:

"The 'Deep Wounds' project shows the truly transformative power of [computer technology] to change how people perceive, understand, and engage their surroundings."

The statement as I've re-written it in no way diminishes the importance of Brian Knep's installation. It is, as you say, "extraordinary." But it's not art, at least not by any objective definition of the term I know of. -- Louis Torres, Co-Editor, Aristos and Co-Author, What Art Is (2000)

Fascinating! I did not know the Confederate exclusion. Your piece does not mention another memorial, namely Memorial Chapel in Harvard Yard itself. This is a memorial to Harvard men (of course) who died in the First World War. Their names are inscribed on the wall of a side chapel. But in the main hall there is a plaque, in Latin, that additionally names the few Harvard men who died fighting for Germany in WW I. Since WW I the names of Harvard alumni who died in the Second World War are inscribed on another wall in the Chapel itself. I do not know if Harvard people who fought for Germany (or Japan) are included in some way.

Edwin Taylor