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.
Monday, 18 April 2011
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)