Class 3: Sculpture/Ornament/Decoration

Michael Baxandall, 'Material' (5)

• Limewood

  • From the limetree

  • Cultural significance

    • The limetree was an object of magico-religious interest

      • E.g. festal associations & association w/ folkloric practices

  • Physical qualities lend itself to carving

    (1) Soft, yielding, fine-grained = allows for carving of precise details

    (2) Uniform (thinness of cell walls)

    (3) Lightweight

  • Disadvantages

    (1) Wood generally shrinks over time due to loss of moisture

    • Continual process (‘slow-motion mobiles’)

    • Uneven shrinkage = cracking

    (2) Limewood splits rather than warps

    • Due to lightness & thin walls

• Materials actively shape artistic practices

  • Chiromancy ⭐

    • Reading the inner character of a person/thing from its external character (similar to reading the lines on a hand)

    • Skillful sculptors used this to circumvent disadvantages of limewood

  • Art-making as underpinned by social, economical, & cultural dictates ⭐

    • E.g. Limewood was relatively expensive & sought-after; a sculptor might have to mobilise a powerful patron to help him procure limewood

• Materials actively shape form (hollowing of wood, presence of ground & paint)

  (1) Shrinking/splitting of wood = removal of inner part of wood

  • Formed a hollow shell

  • Back face would be cut away too (could be used for other projects) = ‘C’ shape

  • Shaped how such objects were displayed (usually in retable niches/on walls)

  • Without knowing what the material is, you wouldn’t meaningfully know the reason behind the sculpture’s shape

  (2) Presence of ground & paint affects amount of detail that had to be carved

  • If painted: fine details added only AFTER painting (texture achieved through paint)

  • If unpainted: fine de

    tails added during carving itself, before glazing w/ brown tint (texture achieved through carving)

• Materials actively shape meaning

  • Material properties (e.g. texture, colour) contribute to overall aesthetic & emotional impact

• Were the objects seen today intended to be seen as such?

  • Paint on sculptures tends to rub off over time = few polychrome (wooden) sculptures survive today

    BUT we may be able to differentiate based on the amount of detail in the carving

    • E.g. whether details were designed to carry & penetrate ground & pigment OR be immediately present through a glaze

  • Similarly: in classical marble sculptures

Alex Potts, 'The Sculptural Imagination' (3)

1. Sculpture as plastic figure --> object --> arena of encounter

   • Late 18th-19th century: plastic figure

     • Autonomous, self-sufficient, free-standing entities

     • One-on-one communion w/ a work that still took place in a public arena

   • 20th century (ealy Modernism): objects

     • Object-like > figure-like = conferred a more convincing sense of autonomy to the sculpture, rather than masquerading as a human subjectivity

     • Minimalism: gave generous space to sculptures = could invite a more focused viewing vs. an everyday object, WITHOUT having to offer a striking/complex form

   • 21st century (contemporary): arena of encounter

     • Sculpture dealing in spaces, environments, & assemblages of objects RATHER THAN object-focused

     • The structuring of sculpture is partly defined through the viewer's physical encounter w/ it, and can no longer be located entirely in its form

2. Our viewing experiences of sculpture are inherently unstable

   • Stereoscopic vision

     • Our sense of the work as a whole is defined through our partial views of it

       • Can never be condensed in a single stable image

     • Vs. painting: we can shift attention from detail to detail without having to change position

   • Heightened sense of temporality

     • We linger & move around, becoming conscious of viewing as a process unfolding over time

3. Assumptions about painting vs. sculpture

   • Both are granted similar statuses as autonomous entities

     • BUT in practice, sculptures are often installed more decoratively/are partly integrated into the museum’s interior architecture

   • The categorisation is NOT always clear-cut

     • Donald Judd: the idea of an artwork that is ‘neither painting nor sculpture’

     • Assumptions about painting:

       • Attached to a wall

       • 2-dimensional/flat surface

     • Assumptions about sculpture:

       • Free-standing, away from the wall

       • 3-dimensional, can be viewed from all angles

       • Enduring, determinate, self-contained form

Andrew Morrall, 'Ornament as Evidence'

• The lines between ornament & sculpture are artificial & blurred

  • Basically the same thing

  • We simply place artificial distinctions (e.g. hierarchies) on them, and we should be self-aware of this

    • Results in art historical focus on the form of sculptures, NOT their function/place within society

• Habitus:

  • A set of patterns of thought, habits, values, behaviour and tastes

  • Acquired/internalised from one’s social environment

• Ornament as a physical habitus of one's identity

  • Could be used to project:

    • A social identity

    • A civil/domestic ideal

    • A religious/ethical aspect of oneself

  • People literally surrounded themselves w/ decorative objects that reflected who they were/wanted to be

Title & Artist

St Catherine (1520), workshop of probably Master of the Oertel Madonna

The Walking Man (modeled before 1900, cast before 1914), Auguste Rodin

Torso of a Young Man (1917-1922), Constantin Brancusi

Historical context

Interpretation (2)

The Gates of Hell (started in 1880), Auguste Rodin

Historical context

• Cast by the French state after Rodin died, in multiples

  • When Rodin died he left the French nation his entire estate

    • All the work in his possession

    • All the rights of its reproduction

Interpretation

• Questions of authorship

  • Who is the author? Is there a singular author?

  • Could link Rodin to earlier patterns of production & distribution

• Questions of originality

  • Is this work a fake?

(2)

River Form (1965), Barbara Hepworth (wood), (bronze)

• Different versions w/ diff. materials

• American walnut

  • Natural, organic material

  • Hand-carved from 1 big piece

    • Need to have a greater sensitivity to material qualities

  • More unique

    • You cannot make the exact same sculpture twice

    • Wood would crack differently, size of trunk would be diff. etc.

      • Cracks in wood left visible

  • Displayed in an indoor gallery (Ashmolean Museum)

    • A space specifically made for contemplation of art

    • Placed on a pedestal, w/ a barrier rope around it

    • Photography NOT allowed

      • Assertive, autonomous presence

      • Pushing for a phenomenological encounter: move around it

      • Idea of a sculpture as static, untouchable & unchanging

  • Bronze

    • Man-made material (bronze is an alloy, not naturally-occuring)

      • Recast & reproduced

    • Displayed outdoors in the Barbara Hepworth Museum & Sculpture Garden

      • Where natural conditions are going to change it

      • Reverses the assumption that the statue is exactly replicable

• Politics of spectatorship: depends on where & how we view objects

  • E.g. when placed outside vs. inside a museum

    • Different statuses; deserving of different amounts/kinds of attention

      • Walter Benjamin: ‘aura’ of the artwork

    • Becomes ornamental when placed in an outdoor/garden space

Material

Display

Untitled (1967-8), Robert Morris

• Material: industrial felt

  • Affected by gravity

  • Vs. solidity & weight of traditional sculpture (enduring, determinate form)

  • Anthropomorphic dimension: skin-like qualities

• Display: set/hooked against a wall

  • Grounded to floor yet ALSO the wall

  • NOT on a plinth

No title (1969-70), Eva Hesse

• 2 separate pieces of knotted rope dipped into liquid latex

  • Rope then hardened

    = organic & flexible yet solid & weighty; yet fragile & delicate

• Ropes attach to the ceiling and walls in 13 points

  • BUT these placements are flexible to allow for variable installations

• Irregular, organic forms

  • The way its installed always varies

  • Challenges assumptions of sculpture as enduring, determinate forms

  • Challenges rigid geometries of minimalist culture

• What’s to be gained by seeing it as an ornament vs sculpture?