Film as Art? - Controversy over Rocky statue calls into question parameters for art in art museums

By Frank Visco
Collegian Editor
September 13, 2006

Much controversy has been made in local and national news over the fact that the Rocky Statue was returned to the Philadelphia Art Museum on Friday, Sept. 9. It had originally been there for a short while 25 years ago, but then art aficionados began deriding it as a movie prop unfit for the reputed institution.

The statue, which Stallone commissioned for a scene in Rocky III, has spent the bulk of its existence at the sports stadium complex in South Philadelphia. However, it was removed and being stored in a warehouse when the city Art Commission voted 6-2 in favor of putting it near the bottom of the museum steps.

This move has resulted in yet another uprising of art snobs in the city. An example of this can be seen in the response Penny Balkin Bach, Director of the Fairmont Park Art Association, gave to The Baltimore Sun.

“It’s not an artistic high point of sculptural practice,” she said. “It’s a movie prop. That’s what it was made for. It’s not an insult and it’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.”

Now, while I’m not going to disagree that the statue was, in fact, a movie prop, I do believe the sentiment that the statue shouldn’t be at the Art Museum is wrong for several reasons.

For starters, a major reason many tourist initially seek out the Art Museum when in Philadelphia to begin with is to run up the steps, just like Rocky. As a result, I think it would only enhance the Philadelphia experience to have the statue located near the museum. Tourist could take a picture with the statue and then truck up the steps. Put together, it would be the most interactive exhibit the museum has to offer.

Second, the statue is a symbol of everything Philadelphia. With the exception of the Liberty Bell, nothing embodies Philly more than Rocky. The average citizen would definitely want it there, and so if tourists and citizens want it, what’s the problem?

The “answer” of course is that the statue is not real art. However, when did it become mandated that items outside the art museum had to be art? It’s not even on the steps, it’s at the bottom of them and off to the side. Meanwhile there are fountains on the steps. Are they art? Or do they just add to the aesthetic experience of the museum, as the Rocky statue will do?

Furthermore, even if one were to mandate that all items on the Philadelphia Art Museum property had to be “art,” why is a sculpture of Rocky too primitive to make the cut? While I enjoy modernism, it’s hard to get past the fact that this statue is causing such a ruckus when there are broken chairs and toilet seats being displayed inside the museum as art.

This being the case, why can’t a former movie prop be placed outside of the museum? After all, a toilet seat is an excretion device. That’s what it was made for. It’s not an insult and it’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

In addition, the Rocky statue is a representation of an Oscar-winning film, and film, like photography and paintings, is an art form that should be honored. In fact, this whole topic has inspired me to question exactly why film is not more revered by the Philadelphia Art Institute.

Are not cinematography, acting and directing forms of art work? If you take a picture, it can wind up in a museum, so why aren’t, for example, the cinematic achievements of the great Conrad L. Hall, one of the finest cinematographers of the last half-century, on display in an art museum?

How about the work of auteurs like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Altman, Allen and Coppola? Are these men not artist? They definitely do more than point and shoot. They take into account long shots, wide angles, lighting, color and many other techniques to make the look of their film match the themes of the story. Still don’t think film is art? Ask Professor Bill Wine or Brother Gerry Molyneaux; they both teach a class on the topic.

Some may say that it would be impossible to display films in an art museum, but I say au contraire. Film screens could be mounted on the wall and specific impressive clips, highlighting the great work of a cinematographer, director or actor could be displayed on the screen. If sound was needed, art museums could have head sets to go along with the pieces of art.

Try to imagine a screen playing the final two minutes of Casablanca, what with its pitch-perfect acting and cinematography. For more recent examples, think of the visceral musical scene from Magnolia, or the rain-drenched shoot-‘em-up clip from Road to Perdition. These scenes are pieces of art that are, in some ways far more impressive than paintings or photographs, because of the degree of technical perfection that goes into them.

So, it can’t be said that film in art museums can’t be done, because it most certainly could be done. If they accommodate for neon signs, they can accommodate for film. However, they haven’t yet. So is merely placing a sculpture, which symbolizes not only an entire city but also film as an art form, outside of an art musuem too much to ask?

I think not.

viscof1@lasalle.edu