What is the role of sculpture in our high-tech age, where artists have recourse to a vast array of technologies with which to create all manner of artworks, stretching the boundaries of their art form as well as opening up new art forms?
What is the role of 'traditional' materials in sculpture - clay, stone, plaster - in contemporary art?
What is my role as a sculptor within this art environment?
Friday, 9 December 2011
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Question 2 - Continued
What is sculpture?
What is the role of sculpture in art today?
What is the place of sculpture - concrete sculpture, i.e. as materially manifest - in an age where digital technology has opened up endless possibilities in the creation 3-dimensional form?
What is the role of sculpture in art today?
What is the place of sculpture - concrete sculpture, i.e. as materially manifest - in an age where digital technology has opened up endless possibilities in the creation 3-dimensional form?
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Friday, 25 November 2011
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Monday, 18 April 2011
An Addendum to a Question of Interpretation
A thought subsequent to my comment in the previous post: 'Perhaps "Abstract 4" is still prescriptive'.
It is prescriptive if the term 'abstract' is only understood in the sense I described, i.e. that the concepts in its conception were totally abstract. However, the term 'abstract' is probably more widely undestood in the sense of deriving from, subtracting down to the essence, figurative/representational elements abstracted down to their essence. In this sense, those viewers who are drawn to the piece by the figurative elements are accommodated.
'Abstract 4' therefore does not direct the viewer's interpretation; it is not prescriptive.
It is prescriptive if the term 'abstract' is only understood in the sense I described, i.e. that the concepts in its conception were totally abstract. However, the term 'abstract' is probably more widely undestood in the sense of deriving from, subtracting down to the essence, figurative/representational elements abstracted down to their essence. In this sense, those viewers who are drawn to the piece by the figurative elements are accommodated.
'Abstract 4' therefore does not direct the viewer's interpretation; it is not prescriptive.
Friday, 15 April 2011
A Question of Interpretation
The process of giving a title to the latest double-sided relief - although it is no longer a relief, strictly speaking - has brought about a reconsideration of the question of interpretation, of 'Significance, Subject and Aesthetic' as posted on 29 and 30 October 2010.
The piece will be called 'Abstract 4', a label rather than a title, as DH pointed out. '4' because it is the fourth in the series of reliefs that has led to this particular piece. And 'abstract' because it is a fully abstract piece in the sense that it has come about through the process described in the previous post, i.e. the concepts in its conception were totally abstract.
I feel 'Abstract 4' marks a crossroads in my thought processes about significance, subject, and interpretation. Previously I have given my sculptures a 'directional' title, in other words the title directed the viewer towards a theme, subject, interpretation. Much of my work has revolved around themes, which obviously naturally lead to particular titles.
Previous titles have been almost prescriptive, something some viewers appreciate because it facilitates access to the object they're looking at. Others find this too controlling as it hinders their own 'interpretation', exploration, understanding, appreciation of the piece.
The issue of significance and interpreation has been much in my mind since my October posting on the subject and there has been a gradual but firm change in my thinking. And things gathered to a head with 'Abstract 4' when, as everyone who looked at the piece saw it in a different way, experienced and interpreted it differently, my husband said, taking a step back as he perused the piece 'well, ... it's open to interpretation' (perhaps that should be its title??).
Some people see it as a completely abstract piece, others are drawn in by the figurative elements. (Figurative in the sense of the forms being derived from objective sources (OED). I feel that most of my work is figurative in the different sense of it being able to be embodied: I believe that for an abstract sculpture - or any sculpture in fact - to work effectively the viewer needs to be able to embody it, to feel and want to 'put on' the gesture). This piece more than any other has provoked widely different commentaries and this diversity in the experiecing is something I have very much appreciated. The sight and the idea of viewers wallowing in that freedom of interpretation has been a stimulating experience for me as a sculptor.
I'm enjoying the idea that the piece is what it is; it stands for itself. It is an aesthetically pleasing object and can be enjoyed/appreciated as such. But if the viewer is one who demands something else from their art then that works too. It has 'significance' in that it stems from an on-going thought process but it has no 'subject' and it can be whatever the viewer wants it to be. To me it is one thing, to someone else it is another.
Perhaps 'Abstract 4' is still prescriptive?
How will the marble piece on the theme of Patience evolve with all this in mind? ...
This is the wax cast for the bronze:
The piece will be called 'Abstract 4', a label rather than a title, as DH pointed out. '4' because it is the fourth in the series of reliefs that has led to this particular piece. And 'abstract' because it is a fully abstract piece in the sense that it has come about through the process described in the previous post, i.e. the concepts in its conception were totally abstract.
I feel 'Abstract 4' marks a crossroads in my thought processes about significance, subject, and interpretation. Previously I have given my sculptures a 'directional' title, in other words the title directed the viewer towards a theme, subject, interpretation. Much of my work has revolved around themes, which obviously naturally lead to particular titles.
Previous titles have been almost prescriptive, something some viewers appreciate because it facilitates access to the object they're looking at. Others find this too controlling as it hinders their own 'interpretation', exploration, understanding, appreciation of the piece.
The issue of significance and interpreation has been much in my mind since my October posting on the subject and there has been a gradual but firm change in my thinking. And things gathered to a head with 'Abstract 4' when, as everyone who looked at the piece saw it in a different way, experienced and interpreted it differently, my husband said, taking a step back as he perused the piece 'well, ... it's open to interpretation' (perhaps that should be its title??).
Some people see it as a completely abstract piece, others are drawn in by the figurative elements. (Figurative in the sense of the forms being derived from objective sources (OED). I feel that most of my work is figurative in the different sense of it being able to be embodied: I believe that for an abstract sculpture - or any sculpture in fact - to work effectively the viewer needs to be able to embody it, to feel and want to 'put on' the gesture). This piece more than any other has provoked widely different commentaries and this diversity in the experiecing is something I have very much appreciated. The sight and the idea of viewers wallowing in that freedom of interpretation has been a stimulating experience for me as a sculptor.
I'm enjoying the idea that the piece is what it is; it stands for itself. It is an aesthetically pleasing object and can be enjoyed/appreciated as such. But if the viewer is one who demands something else from their art then that works too. It has 'significance' in that it stems from an on-going thought process but it has no 'subject' and it can be whatever the viewer wants it to be. To me it is one thing, to someone else it is another.
Perhaps 'Abstract 4' is still prescriptive?
How will the marble piece on the theme of Patience evolve with all this in mind? ...
This is the wax cast for the bronze:
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Further Transmutations of the Relief
Yet again my explorative journey into the realm of the relief has taken on a new dimension (in more ways than one), from simply casting a clay relief in jesmonite and then working with the positive and the negative sides of the jesmonite cast, to something all together more complex.
This new path of exploration has come about through my realization - following some intense discussion with other sculptors - that, in order to achieve a sculpturally accomplished solution on the negative side, I had to move away from working in relief on a board. So I removed the clay relief from its wooden board, prepared a wooden base with two steel rods about 20 cm apart inserted upright into the base and then slid the clay form onto the rods, thus standing the relief up like a 3D sculpture.
The aim in taking it off the board was to enable me to work on the negative side of the clay form instead of leaving that process until the later stage of the jesmonite cast. The concept stems from the basic principle in sculpture that any convex or concave is formed, and only truly works if it is formed, by forces working from both sides, pushing and pulling so to speak.
Look at the way a bud opens up: the intial tightly closed convex form swells and slowly begins to open up, and the swelling and opening up occur primarily because of what is going on inside; the forces on the outside receive, give way to the movement that the life-force within is generating. It's primarily what's going on inside the bud that shapes what happens on the outside.
So, transposing this to the double-sided relief, by working the negative side the positive side is formed and vice versa. And in this particular piece, the 'pushing' force on the negative side persisted to the point where a breakthrough occured, the clay began to tear, to split.
This new path of exploration has come about through my realization - following some intense discussion with other sculptors - that, in order to achieve a sculpturally accomplished solution on the negative side, I had to move away from working in relief on a board. So I removed the clay relief from its wooden board, prepared a wooden base with two steel rods about 20 cm apart inserted upright into the base and then slid the clay form onto the rods, thus standing the relief up like a 3D sculpture.
The aim in taking it off the board was to enable me to work on the negative side of the clay form instead of leaving that process until the later stage of the jesmonite cast. The concept stems from the basic principle in sculpture that any convex or concave is formed, and only truly works if it is formed, by forces working from both sides, pushing and pulling so to speak.
Look at the way a bud opens up: the intial tightly closed convex form swells and slowly begins to open up, and the swelling and opening up occur primarily because of what is going on inside; the forces on the outside receive, give way to the movement that the life-force within is generating. It's primarily what's going on inside the bud that shapes what happens on the outside.
So, transposing this to the double-sided relief, by working the negative side the positive side is formed and vice versa. And in this particular piece, the 'pushing' force on the negative side persisted to the point where a breakthrough occured, the clay began to tear, to split.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Pietra Santa
From this
to this
to this
to this
'Pietra Santa' means sacred stone, thus entitled because to me it has become a sacred stone over time, from the moment I saw it on the river-bed and carried it back to the studio nearby, worked on it for 10 blissful days in an environment steeped in marble-carving history, flew it back to England - at great expense, because I thought I could carry it back home in my suitcase without easyJet charging me excess baggage (what was I thinking?!?); they charged me 180 euros, and I counted myself lucky because they nearly refused to let me on the plane at all - and back to the almost-as-inspiring surroundings of my own studio, where the stone gradually began really to take shape, with the formation of the hole, the decision to lay the stone horizontally on the base to accentuate the element of serenity, to the final resolution of finding the right base and plinth 'assemblage': evoking an altar, thus elevating it to a 'pietra santa'.
Pietrasanta is also the name of the town famous for its marble studios and bronze foundries, a magnet and sanctum for sculptors today and the place where Michelangelo worked and lived between 1516 and 1520, quarrying his own gigantic blocks of marble.
Monday, 14 February 2011
The Casting of 'Acceptance'
The dried clay form:
Casting in plaster:
I do enjoy working with plaster. I love that silky creamy feel of the mix as it starts to homogenize from water and powder into a creamy consistency – unlike with the jesmonite, where you use a large, heavy, noisy mixing blade and end up with a grainy slop (admittedly the graininess is the marble in it, which of course, is optional and my choice). None of this measuring out and weighing like you have to do with jesmonite, just a simple process of gently sprinkling the plaster powder into the water and then slowly mixing it to a smooth consistency. Once solidified, plaster also has a luminosity about it that seems to elevate the sculpture to a higher plane. (That's not to say that the marble jesmonite I use doesn't have its plus sides: the marble specks also give a similar luminosity - slightly harsher, but then it needs to be harder if the piece is to survive outside [plaster is no good outdoors] - and the etched and untreated version looks very serene, almost like natural stone; quite beautiful actually.)
Anyway, about the plaster 'Acceptance': I was tempted to post a picture of the plaster cast, but I've decided it's best to show the completed piece at this stage in the process of logging the work progression. I am now at the stage of near-completion. What I think will be the final coat of gesso is going on today. I'm then going to use a darker colour on the 'outside' of the form, leaving the inner space white. This will draw the focus on the inner space, which is what I am increasingly interested in - what happens inside the outer 'skin' of a form (my relief exploration is delving deeper into that; but more about that later).
The trick will be to get the colour right, not too dark and dense, otherwise it becomes excluding, rejecting, and oppressive, which is the opposite of what I want to express: as I said in my initial explanation - (see the June 2010 entry on my Work in Progress page on my website http://www.rosemariepowellsculpture.co.uk/workprogress.html ) 'an initial generous, open gesture which is picked up by the embracing 'arm' across the top.' It is an 'embracing arm across the top', so it needs to be gentle, warm, generous.
And too light a colour won't achieve the embrace I'm after either of course, because it won't enwrap sufficiently, and it will seem as if the white inner space is left to dissipate.
Casting in plaster:
I do enjoy working with plaster. I love that silky creamy feel of the mix as it starts to homogenize from water and powder into a creamy consistency – unlike with the jesmonite, where you use a large, heavy, noisy mixing blade and end up with a grainy slop (admittedly the graininess is the marble in it, which of course, is optional and my choice). None of this measuring out and weighing like you have to do with jesmonite, just a simple process of gently sprinkling the plaster powder into the water and then slowly mixing it to a smooth consistency. Once solidified, plaster also has a luminosity about it that seems to elevate the sculpture to a higher plane. (That's not to say that the marble jesmonite I use doesn't have its plus sides: the marble specks also give a similar luminosity - slightly harsher, but then it needs to be harder if the piece is to survive outside [plaster is no good outdoors] - and the etched and untreated version looks very serene, almost like natural stone; quite beautiful actually.)
Anyway, about the plaster 'Acceptance': I was tempted to post a picture of the plaster cast, but I've decided it's best to show the completed piece at this stage in the process of logging the work progression. I am now at the stage of near-completion. What I think will be the final coat of gesso is going on today. I'm then going to use a darker colour on the 'outside' of the form, leaving the inner space white. This will draw the focus on the inner space, which is what I am increasingly interested in - what happens inside the outer 'skin' of a form (my relief exploration is delving deeper into that; but more about that later).
The trick will be to get the colour right, not too dark and dense, otherwise it becomes excluding, rejecting, and oppressive, which is the opposite of what I want to express: as I said in my initial explanation - (see the June 2010 entry on my Work in Progress page on my website http://www.rosemariepowellsculpture.co.uk/workprogress.html ) 'an initial generous, open gesture which is picked up by the embracing 'arm' across the top.' It is an 'embracing arm across the top', so it needs to be gentle, warm, generous.
And too light a colour won't achieve the embrace I'm after either of course, because it won't enwrap sufficiently, and it will seem as if the white inner space is left to dissipate.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Frame of Reference
Talking to a fellow-sculptor yesterday about this blog and how it works for me, I heard myself say that it 'has become a frame of reference around my experiences'.
I rather like that.
I rather like that.
Monday, 24 January 2011
Will Self on Montaigne
Had the pleasure of listening to Will Self talk about Montaigne last Thursday at the Institut Français. A fascinating man, very modest for all his eruditeness, with a 'bad-boy' glint in his eye.
I spent a really interesting and highly entertaining evening in the company of two remarkable writers and thinkers: Will Self I knew as a columnist - I haven't yet explored his fiction, but bought his 'Dorian' that evening (the very first paragraph sets the tone for the whole novel, I would think; the reason why I've not ventured into his fiction before - I prefer not to linger in the realm of human existence at its most sordid if I don't have to - but now that I've met him I want to see whether he can get me on side.) Montaigne I knew from my French Literature syllabus back at college, when, aged 19, I didn't really connect with him - probably because we read the essays in the almost original 16th century French (bar the punctuation and some of the spelling, which had been updated). I'm pleased to say that I now have the recently published 'modern' French version, which makes the whole experience far more pleasurable.
Two fascinating men, two sceptics; the latter both a companion and a guru, with great insights into human nature, the former rather more of an unknown quantity to me at this stage. You see, I firmly believe that as artists, be they writers, sculptors, actors, poets, painters, musicians or dancers, we must be conscious of and take responsibility for the effect our art has on our audience and choose the way in which we convey our thoughts accordingly.
This talk last Thursday has rekindled my interest in Montaigne and I shall share some of his nuggets of wisdom and highly amusing observations on the human condition here where appropriate.
I spent a really interesting and highly entertaining evening in the company of two remarkable writers and thinkers: Will Self I knew as a columnist - I haven't yet explored his fiction, but bought his 'Dorian' that evening (the very first paragraph sets the tone for the whole novel, I would think; the reason why I've not ventured into his fiction before - I prefer not to linger in the realm of human existence at its most sordid if I don't have to - but now that I've met him I want to see whether he can get me on side.) Montaigne I knew from my French Literature syllabus back at college, when, aged 19, I didn't really connect with him - probably because we read the essays in the almost original 16th century French (bar the punctuation and some of the spelling, which had been updated). I'm pleased to say that I now have the recently published 'modern' French version, which makes the whole experience far more pleasurable.
Two fascinating men, two sceptics; the latter both a companion and a guru, with great insights into human nature, the former rather more of an unknown quantity to me at this stage. You see, I firmly believe that as artists, be they writers, sculptors, actors, poets, painters, musicians or dancers, we must be conscious of and take responsibility for the effect our art has on our audience and choose the way in which we convey our thoughts accordingly.
This talk last Thursday has rekindled my interest in Montaigne and I shall share some of his nuggets of wisdom and highly amusing observations on the human condition here where appropriate.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Progress with the Relief Maquettes
Having removed all the clay from the two maquettes, I'm now able to ascertain which shapes work for this positive/negative exploration and which shapes don't. One of the maquettes, the rounder one of the two, hasn't really worked at all in the negative: the sides on the edge of the form are too steep, the principal concaves are too acute and severe, the hole doesn't have enough substance around it for it to make sense in this form - for a hole to work in this kind of sculpture, in my opinion, it has to be formed organically by the substance around it, not just 'pierced' through (that conveys a very different feel).
To make the negative of this first maquette work I would need to work on the negative by adding substance around the hole and I would also need to make the whole relief bigger, to give the concaves a bit more room to breathe. I won't do that though, because I want to spend time now on incorporating in the large relief what I've taken from this process - that's the whole point of making maquettes.
The second maquette has been more succesful:
So, it's now time to transpose these findings to the large relief. Will I be able to incorporate a hole in the large one?
I shall be doing some more maquettes as well, playing around with composition and holes.
To make the negative of this first maquette work I would need to work on the negative by adding substance around the hole and I would also need to make the whole relief bigger, to give the concaves a bit more room to breathe. I won't do that though, because I want to spend time now on incorporating in the large relief what I've taken from this process - that's the whole point of making maquettes.
The second maquette has been more succesful:
The transition from the edge of the relief into the concave is more gradual; the compisition is simpler than that of the first maquette, which works better in the negative, the shapes flowing more coherently, with the movement gradually climaxing in the 'centre' of the composition from the edge.
I also rather like the way the positive side is white and smooth (ish, since it's a maquette) and the negative side has the texture of the clay and has retained a slight staining from the clay.So, it's now time to transpose these findings to the large relief. Will I be able to incorporate a hole in the large one?
I shall be doing some more maquettes as well, playing around with composition and holes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)