Robert Indiana

LOVE, by American contemporary artist Robert Indiana, to this day, maintains its status as one of the most iconic American works of art. This essay intends to juxtapose the current representation of the LOVE sculpture to that of the original in the 1960s, while illustrating the social, political and cultural climate which most influenced the creation of the original, as well as the contributions of the piece to modern art and its historical placement within art. Additionally, this exposition intends to discuss why the meaning of LOVE today has changed, and whether or not the sculpture is relevant to modern society.
During the 1960s, radical ideas of personal liberty and revolution became the most recognizable motifs within American society,
Aesthetically, it maintains Indiana’s signature sharp edged style and has an architectural quality characteristic of his work, which, according to Lawrence, is usually aesthetically simple and often contains complex, layered messages (136). Furthermore, Indiana’s motifs almost always derived from either personal or political compulsions as a result of his life experiences (138).
For this reason, one can almost assuredly assume that the protrusion of issues specific to the LGBTQ community during the sixties also catalyzed his efforts to promote communal love through image-making, among those influenced from the broader cultural and political climate of the 1960s. Indiana, still alive today, is a homosexual, who drew inspiration from the writings of Walt Whitman - a great, nineteenth-century, homosexual poet, journalist and novelist. Indiana, according to Schwartz, in her article titled, Robert Indiana has even written poems
Within his periodical article: Vandals and Scandals he continues, stating that Bureaucracies such as city council groups usually curate the works, and even try to give them as little meaning and relevance to historical issues to avoid controversy o¬¬¬¬n any level (30). Williamson writes,” public art exists in the domain of the municipal and the corporate, where controversy is costly. Content is controversial.” (30). Within the article, Williamson gives some very strong, yet thought provoking opinions on the institution of public city art. Nevertheless, we can truthfully infer from his observations, therefore, that, the LOVE statue has lost its meaning as a symbol of a powerful movement and is no longer as extremely culturally significant today in terms of social reform as it once was. Currently, in the larger public sphere it no longer exists as a celebrated representation of the pure expression of a personal motif from an artistic