Mok 1

Weslee Mok
Professor Harrison
Philosophy 25
21 April 2016
Aesthetic Value Analysis of Urban Lights at LACMA
Upon reading this title, one who is a native to Los Angeles may already be aware of this
art staple based in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or more commonly known as
LACMA for short. Based outside, under rain and shine, two hundred and two identical white,
towering, fully restored street lamps stand proudly in even, neat rows by the museum. And this
composition not only serves as an art piece created by Chris Burden, it functions properly with
working lights and stands as a beacon that attracts anyone near it like moths to a flame. Created
in 2008, it has quickly become one of the iconic pieces that is connected to Los Angeles, people
from near and far snapping pictures with it during both day and night. Every time I visit the
LACMA and pass by the piece, known as Urban Lights, there is a frenzy of people there that
feverently go to admire the structure and aesthetics of it. While I do appreciate all the
expressions of art because of the diversity of artists out in the world, looking at the extremely
popular piece made me stop and examine it carefully. Why was this, which was basically row
upon row of street lamps, considered such an aesthetically pleasing art piece? Applying my
knowledge of aesthetic reasoning and values from this chapter may provide an explanation to my
question.
This chapter on reasoning sticks out to me for a certain reason-- it mentions art and
aesthetic values as part of its reasoning capabilities, something that I rarely see while learning
about psychology or taking just general education classes. As an avid artist, I am completely

Mok 2
enamoured by art-- in multiple cultures and forms, but mainly anything I can feel or see as an
expression of the artists personality or passion on any type of canvas or usage of material proves
to be called art to me, and I appreciate and respect these kinds of artworks. Although I have a
certain taste I have towards illustrations (I can be a bit nit-picky especially in my own art) and
how I have to have it a certain way, I tend to be open about new art styles that Im not familiar
with, and its refreshing to see how people different from me interpret art. According to the
lesson from SoftChalk on Aesthetic Reasoning, art is basically a diverse range of human
activities and the products of those activities (Harrison). Its a bit of a broad description, which
fits art perfectly, since the subject itself is so broad it can fit into almost any individual category a
person does in their life, and what is produced in the end due to their passion or interests.
Now it may seem odd I say that about my judgment for art that I wouldnt consider the
Urban Lights as art as well in terms of my aesthetic values. But here is the one underlying factor
as to why I dont see art in this piece; I dont quite understand the intentions of the artist nor
see any type of personality or reasoning. This might seem a bit biased from the looks of it since I
dont personally know the artist myself, but with all due respect, I dont know a major portion of
the artists Im aware of in terms of personal familiarity with them (it would be a dream if I did
quite frankly). For some reason, while people are enamoured with the piece for their own
reasons, I dont feel the same passion or even a projection of the artist in this piece as I would
with say an illustration from a mangaka also known as Japanese comic artist I see somewhere.
Judging from the color, scenery, characters, expressions, objects, and multiple aspects in the
drawing I can pull apart meanings hidden within them; what the artist may like or be interested
in, or something theyre extremely passionate about that always shows up in their work multiple
times like a certain insignia or symbol. What I see in Urban Lights is quite literally what the

Mok 3
name states: I see lights in an urban setting, nothing more or less. People may pick apart the
meaning behind the composition of these street lamps-- and the artist himself, according to a
blog discussing the Urban Lights, quoted that Burden described the piece as architecture
without walls (Dalrymple). While it does say something about the artist having an idea of what
they wanted for the piece, it doesnt quite give me insight on how and why he decided to go with
this piece-- that doesnt mean I need to see a heart-wrenching story behind the artwork, but more
along the lines of what made him think street lamps would make it an aesthetically valuable art
piece overall.
Now that I have established my ideas of what art is, the next step is comparing them
with the descriptions given by the SoftChalk lessons and textbook on the aesthetic reasoning
behind judging artwork. The textbook definition of judging artwork indicated that what makes an
art piece aesthetically valuable is that it must have a meaning or teach something true (Moore,
Parker). Along with this is the meaning of aesthetics from SoftChalk, which is looking at two
primary questions; what is art, and what makes the difference between good or bad art
(Harrison). Because the original definition of art is so broad, philosophers have to narrow it
down some way, and with these questions and judging whether it fits into the theories of
aesthetics which are functionalism and formalism. These two are not compatible, since
functionalism is more of an expressive aesthetic that deals directly with the artists ideas or
emotions, and formalism is based off of the structure intended for the piece (Harrison).
Therefore, when evaluating an artwork should only one of these theories be applied and
not both. In this case for the Urban Lights I see it being applied to the formalism theory, because
of the repetitive structure and how it fits the need for formal qualities, which should have
constraints and limitations of a particular medium (Harrison). In this case the medium being

Mok 4
that it is the sculptures of the restored cast iron antique lamps, and how it abides to the laws of
gravity as mentioned in the lesson as well, and so as long as it does not have any intentions from
the artist or to bring a major impact on the audience viewing it or somehow enlightening them in
some way, because it is devoted to just the mere structure as the main concept. Despite people
seeing this as a major art staple in Los Angeles, it doesnt give much actual explanation as to
why people see this piece aesthetically pleasing besides the fact that its increasingly popular
with anyone that has seen it in person. In this case, we can see it as a piece of architecture rather
than something meant to hold an abundance of meaning, and the focus of it being the symmetry
and line of the street lamps.
Evidently, when basing an argument on aesthetic values, there are aesthetic principles
that cannot be completely justified because they dont have the same foundation as moral and
legal principles do, but it still gives us a fair insight on the artistic experience (Moore, Parker).
Because of these principles we are able to evaluate artwork with more of an open mind, not
applying art to one major definition, and learning the differences between the artist and the piece
itself. While the functionalism theory is focused on showing the meanings or expressions of the
artists ideals or emotions through their work, the basis of formalism is the exact opposite, not
working with meaning but more importantly on the structure and form of the art, and as Clive
Bell who criticized art pieces on his theory of significant form and that representation doesnt
mean anything to the aesthetic value (Harrison). Through this information I can see that Burden
may have seen the Urban Lights piece as something meant for the architectural component rather
than something meant for the masses to see and write riveting conspiracy stories on; which is fair
in his right as the artist, and is entitled to create artwork that doesnt necessarily tell anything
about himself or a history behind it. I may be used to seeing art pieces like that, but I wouldnt

Mok 5
put down his work in any way, I was more confused on why people thought this piece was such
an amazing, aesthetically pleasing work despite not holding much meaning behind it. With the
help of reading these aesthetic reasonings I started seeing his work in a different light, and while
it still may not seem to be the art piece I would pick to view whenever I go to the LACMA, it
holds the statement that the artist wanted to put out there; which wasnt anything but a means of
architecture.
For the majority of the time, I saw art as something that meant something deeply to
someone and that explained why they put it out in the first place; but formalism does explain a
lot of the contemporary art I see nowadays. I see a pattern of artworks being focused on
minimalist detail and more on symmetry and the linework, not something you would see back in
Michelangelos time where the smallest detail down to the subjects hair strands needed to be
evaluated and was subject to containing stories of God or mythical beings. Or there are pieces
like Burdens, where there isnt much of an explanation behind the reason why it was made
besides the need for showing the structure of it. Every artist has a different approach, which
makes the broad definition of art understandable; everyone sees artistic expression in ways that
might not be able to be noticed by others-- which is exactly what makes art so incredible to me
because of the possibilities artists give to the world in terms of their aesthetic values.
Works Cited
Dalrymple, Jim. "This Lamp Sculpture in L.A. Is One of Americas Greatest Public Artworks."
Tripping Over The World. 12 May 2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2016.
Harrison, Kelby. "Aesthetic Reasoning: Functionalism and Formalism." SoftChalk. Web. 22 Apr.
2016.
Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2012. Print.

Mok 6
"Urban Light." LACMA Collections. LACMA. Web. 21 Apr. 2016