0:00:00.000,0:00:02.260
[background music] We're in the Museum of Modern Art

0:00:02.367,0:00:06.536
and we're looking at Constantin Brancusi's "Bird in Space" from 1928.

0:00:06.536,0:00:08.618
Brancusi was a Romanian who worked

0:00:08.618,0:00:12.026
for almost his entire career in Paris.

0:00:12.026,0:00:14.951
He worked in lots of media and often pushed

0:00:14.951,0:00:19.455
the materials to really new expressions.

0:00:19.455,0:00:20.803
This is bronze.

0:00:20.803,0:00:23.791
It's bronze. It's been highly polished.

0:00:23.791,0:00:25.786
So it looks like gold...

0:00:25.786,0:00:28.260
But it's not just bronze, because for Brancusi

0:00:28.260,0:00:29.746
the pedestal was part of the sculpture.

0:00:29.746,0:00:31.744
And it's got a stone pedestal.

0:00:31.744,0:00:34.611
It's got limestone below that and very often you'd see

0:00:34.611,0:00:37.212
a wooden pedestal even below that creating a hierarchy

0:00:37.212,0:00:42.175
of materials what he considered the most primitive to the most industrial.

0:00:42.175,0:00:45.101
It's kind of a Neoplatonic idea of ascending

0:00:45.101,0:00:47.866
from the material up to the immaterial.

0:00:47.866,0:00:49.676
I think that's exactly right.

0:00:49.676,0:00:53.483
The reflectivity of the bronze drives that point home.

0:00:53.483,0:00:58.015
It is really about light and movement, right?

0:00:58.015,0:01:01.136
This is not a sculpture that is in any way

0:01:01.136,0:01:02.679
a literal depiction of a bird,

0:01:02.679,0:01:06.663
it's a depiction of this gentle organic arching

0:01:06.663,0:01:07.944
of this soaring figure.

0:01:07.944,0:01:10.254
It's not a bird in so much as a representation

0:01:10.254,0:01:12.560
of the thing that birds to that we love.

0:01:12.560,0:01:15.814
As one moves around it and looks at it,

0:01:15.814,0:01:19.900
the light that reflects on it shifts and changes and flickers,

0:01:19.900,0:01:23.480
so it does have a sense of something almost kinetic.

0:01:23.480,0:01:26.192
As if it were moving and soaring,

0:01:26.192,0:01:28.701
but it's not a propulsion that seems mechanical,

0:01:28.701,0:01:32.900
even though it's metal and we see it as an industrial material.

0:01:32.900,0:01:35.183
There's a great story about this sculpture.

0:01:35.183,0:01:40.451
This was included in a famous 1936 exhibition at MoMA

0:01:40.451,0:01:41.887
called "Cubism and Abstract Art"

0:01:41.887,0:01:43.813
and when this came over from France,

0:01:43.813,0:01:47.317
the customs agents kept it and wouldn't let it out.

0:01:47.317,0:01:47.901
Why?

0:01:47.901,0:01:50.221
Because MoMA was claiming it is a work of art

0:01:50.221,0:01:51.662
and they didn't believe it.

0:01:51.662,0:01:54.971
This is 1936 and they thought it had some industrial use

0:01:54.971,0:01:56.251
and therefore could be taxed

0:01:56.251,0:01:57.883
and MoMA said "No, it's a work of art,

0:01:57.883,0:01:59.531
it should not be taxed"

0:01:59.531,0:02:00.999
and it was actually held in.

0:02:00.999,0:02:02.261
There was a court case about it.

0:02:02.261,0:02:04.909
But what purpose could this possibly serve?

0:02:04.909,0:02:07.614
If I remember correctly the papers suggested

0:02:07.614,0:02:11.500
it may be a propeller or a piece of a propeller.

0:02:11.500,0:02:15.105
It does really speak to the radicality

0:02:15.105,0:02:18.333
- which I think we forget - of just how abstract this is.

0:02:18.333,0:02:21.985
It doesn't really in some ways look so abstract.

0:02:21.985,0:02:25.077
It does suggest flight and upward movement

0:02:25.077,0:02:29.880
and we're used to things suggesting things like that.

0:02:29.880,0:02:31.554
[background music]