Too mach balanced too mach control

[Araich]

From: http://www.sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?p=6813#post6813
Hi ARAICH ,
I don't want to be a rude, but I will – this forum need a provocative item from time to time –
I like your work - I PAID ATTENTION TO EVERY ONE OF THEM – THEY ARE special and unique. They are beautiful and beautiful balanced, too mach balanced in my test, and they are in good fitness – look like they are going every day to a gymnasium - to be ready, to be ready to the next client.
YOU are to much organized , thinking to mach, polishing and shining, and burnishing, pay attention to every detail , to the final touch up, keeping every thing in your control – It's look like you are afraid – afraid of loosing control.
I don't know – you are so mach talented – that you don't need to think about something different something more - that you don't need anything more.
Forgive my English, and forgive me – I did not mean to heart anyone- just to understand more.
Too mach balanced too mach control.

...I also like Araich's work, Asymmetrical yet well balanced and with feeling. I find the finish on his pieces astounding. I think he raises the bar a notch or two when it comes to well made, extremely well finished sculpture. The only problem with painted sculpture (I sometimes spray paint mine, but I hate the process) is that every time you move them, they get scratched or chipped. My solution, work in stainless steel!
There is a certain pressure being applied today (by galleries, clients, etc.) to do highly finished work and I think that Araich (I don't mean to speak for you) is just responding to that as well as his own inner drive as a truly Professional sculptor. Perhaps, Shlomo, you are right about TOO MUCH control and balance in the work. I know you didn't mean any of that as an insult to him but just as FOOD FOR THOUGHT. I do think you have brought up a valid point though as Araich seems to dot every "i" and cross every "t", but that's him and that's the way he expresses himself. That's what separates all of us. "personal expression" IS what it's all about! Look at the difference between his work and Ted T Stanke's work, WOW! Both teriffic sculptors but at opposite ends of the spectrum!
It'll be interesting to see where this thread goes.
Have a great day,
Jeff

...I like your work, (Araich), and that was the reason I responded to them emotionally.
I'm sure you are strong and tough enough to get this kind of criticism.
It is not important, and it is no significant, especially in this kind of forum, to react only positively.


shlomo you make a fair point and I take no offense at your comment. Indeed your critique is not an uncommon one.

Interestingly, in the making I spend little time focused on control, and with balance I mostly seek to defy it. Balance only becomes a critical component as I often ride a fine line that can cause the work to fall over. Compositional balance is something I merely flirt with, as I sincerely hope that I pull back just enough to keep it interesting. The degree to which, of course, is a subjective thing.

The 'high' finish is at it's most basic the result of my removing all the accidental and incidental marks. The drive behind this is to remove the destraction I find that pitting or other imperfections make to an otherwise uniform surface, distractions that steal from the form. At a certain point in a uniform finish you have to go all the way, or pull back to an irregular, character rich surface. This at least has been my experience.

Being somewhat aware of the limits this approach has, I have begun a series of more fluid and textured works, and it has helped me to loosen up. So far I have not taken this to work of greater mass, but can see room to broaden my palette and not retard the evolution in my work.

I could be wrong, but I don't feel that I am failing as an artist.

[ironman]

Hey Araich, Who said you were failing as an artist? Certainly not me, I have the upmost admiration & respect for your work. I don't like all of it but I like MOST (95%) of it. As far as that "finish" business, I hate spray painting but some pieces demand it SO I spray using automotive primers, enamels and a clear coat. Only to have a client of mine say "I like the rusted pieces better". Well, I paint some, leave some rusty, sometimes I wire brush the loose rust off and then clear coat them. I've always worked this way and feel that the piece tells me how to finish it and what color to use. Don't ask me to explain that, as I can't! I've also started working in stainless and that means when it's done, it's done, and there's NO WORRY about scratched or chipped paint!
I think you're a fine professional artist and everything I've seen from you leads me to the conclusion that we could ALL learn from your example.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[shlomo]

Thank you Arich for answering I have been sure that you are bigger than this kind of little criticism , but yours good friend , ( I don't blame them) (I don't blame anyone) made me feel guilty and defensive.
- I'm looking at Karo's and Gonzales's metal sculptures and even Smith's – they are not beautiful like your pieces, they are not beautiful at all – they are not trying to be – their sculptures (admit - I'm comparing you to the best) are trying to cache something else- something spiritually - they are struggling with themselves, with their metal mind,
I'm sure you do too,
But it seemed to me that yore main struggle is with the metal itself, to find the nice lines, The most nice carve, and to get it from the hard metal.
You want your sculptures to be pretty and beautiful - this is my main criticize to your work - you succeed – it is enough for you – their are no monster in, behind, or after your beautiful work.
YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO GIVE ME MORE – TO KNOW YOU BETTER - KNOWING ME BETTER.
Like Robert Redford in his movies – he don't really act, HE DO NOT GIVING ME HIS SOUL, the most important for him in every single film, is to be beautiful – to remain Robert Redford - and he succeed too.

Excuse my beautiful English but
What is the drive after ? of? your new work? now after you find your ability, your certain wonderful talent ?

[Araich]

Ah, the word beauty. Somehow seen as weak and easy. I say, look harder.

I confess to having made many simple joyful studies, pure notes and soft unified compositions. But it is not all that I do. They are just some of the words I use in my work, words that are capable of making complex and meaningful statements. However you want to read it; sweetly sung or screaming, it is the phrase that counts.

I don't want my sculpture to be pretty or beautiful, but I am smart enough not to destroy it (beauty) because on the surface it may appear light. Have you heard of the wolf in sheeps clothing?

Steel sculpture comes with a great deal of baggage. That simply means we have lots of cloths to choose from.

[JAZ]

It seems to me that the difference between Araich's goals and Schlomo's is like the different between water and earth. One is smooth and reflective, the other is coarse and tactile. Both have power and depth in their own ways.

[shlomo]

. Have you heard of the wolf in sheeps clothing?



that is the reason I'm watching you - trying to shoot you . :D

[anne (bxl)]

Araich, you don't have to defend or justify yourself!
They are in the world as many type of artists as type of characters!
Some like it extravert, full of impulsive ideas to throw out.
Some like it introvert, a few selected ideas deeply built.
Even if the second attitude is my personal favorite, sometimes the spontaneous process of the first one could be a usefull exercise to open the mind but not a final process of creation.

[rderr.com]

almost missed this most important discussion. Art is provocation all else decoration

Robert Derr

[Araich]

Anne, you make an interesting point. That of process. It may not be apparant but I work in a very fluid and loose way, with it not uncommon for me to turn a work upside, or cut it in half during the making. Whether this is written into the work or not does not overly interest me. I do almost no planning, and rarely have an early idea of the outcome.

Thank you ironman, it was very kind of you to say that.

[ExNihiloStudio]

I think there are two interesting issues under all of this: beauty and craft. Sooner or later a sculptor has find answer to those and Araich’s work exemplifies a possibility.

Quoth Araich: “The drive behind this is to remove the distraction I find that pitting or other imperfections make to an otherwise uniform surface, distractions that steal from the form.” In other words, the craft is working towards the ultimate goal of the piece, an expression of a particular kind of form. It’s not a process for the sake of a process which I think is a major stumbling block to contemporary artists. So if a stray grinder mark or random pit interferes with what the piece is trying to do or is about, take it out. The craft supports the higher purpose of the piece and as far as I’m concerned it’s this sort of logical rigor that is the high road to greatness. It’s also based on experience which is also extremely important. “Too much control” doesn’t seem germane because it doesn’t take Araich’s work on its own terms.

Is beauty a sign of weakness? Perhaps if you’re an ascetic who sleeps on a bed of nails it is. I personally think that making it look ‘right’ matters and it’s worth finding what looks ‘right’ in art and architecture. If you’re not interested in beauty you’re probably not interested in the material world.

There seems to be a strange fascination with the grotesque nowadays, and I one argument I’ve heard about it that the grotesque is incomplete. The classical distills many possibilities into a solution that seems so perfect that nothing could be changed without ruining it and is therefore complete. In this sense the quest for perfect form is classical. I personally would like to learn more about the grotesque versus the classical as a possible way to understand parts of the contemporary art scene.

[ironman]

Hi Mark, I think what you're talking about, making it "look right" and the quest for perfect form are one and the same. I think one has to be careful here as many times when things look right, it's because it looks like stuff we've seen before, things that are accepted into the canon of Truth/Beauty. I don't know if I can put this into words but this groping for the grotesque is to me a search for a new way out of the T/B conundrum. We are all influenced by the accepted "masterpieces" and other works that we've seen and it is very hard to go beyond that. Our work may look different but is essentially based on the same compositional elements, constructivist qualities, etc. So maybe we should strive to do work that looks "WRONG"? That is what I see the essense of this grotesque business to be about. We're still under the cubist, constructivist umbrella in a lot of ways and I personally see an awful lot of redundancy in the work being done today. The work may look different but to a trained and educated eye, it's just a regurgitation of those old cubist/constructivist principles that are almost 100 yrs. old. So, to move sculpture forward (or backward, if you prefer) those cubist/constructivist principles have to be thrown out in order to achieve a NEW idea of truth/beauty which is more relevant to the times in which we live. Ergo, the grotesqueries! I think that if the work has "truth" (whatever that is), it will have beauty. Also, things that are accepted and seen often enough seem to slide into that T/B realm.
I don't know if I've made any sense to you or to myself for that matter.
have a nice day,
Jeff

[ExNihiloStudio]

That does make sense and it raises more interesting issues, e.g. tradition, novelty, and truth in art.

I agree with your reasons for why the grotesque is currently being explored by many artists, but I have my doubts about how far grotesque art can advance the state of the art or establish a durable tradition to work with. It’s definitely not accepted by everyone, and I suspect there is a prior history of the grotesque already written which will diminish the chances of reorganizing our current expectations of beauty. The overthrow of an established tradition in order to start something new is such a well established pattern that it could be called a tradition unto itself, in other words it’s the tradition of denying tradition.

I personally think that today the bigger picture is actually tradition versus tradition. I’ve picked up this idea from Alasdair MacIntyre who is a philosopher and I’ve been interested in applying it to art. If any artist reading this has encountered MacIntyre please write to me because in my little world I don’t know anyone else who is working on this.

If I saw a work of art that demonstrates ideas that were first articulated 100 years ago (for the sake of argument I’m saying this), I don’t ask myself “Is this new?”, instead I ask myself “Is this well done?” “Well done” being a standard coming from within the tradition the piece is operating within. To use your example, does the piece exemplify Constructivist ideas and does it add new words to the Constructivist vocabulary? At the very least is it a perfect example of the type? Is it a more perfect example of the tradition of Constructivism and hence represent an advancement, in other words is it state of the art? Regarding the bigger picture I mentioned above, could we ask if Constructivism answers all the other traditions out there? Can it encompass and refute the grotesque, for example? I’m just wondering aloud about this last one, I’m not even sure I know what it means, it’s just my way of trying out MacIntyre.

[shlomo]

I think that if the work has "truth" (whatever that is), it will have beauty. I don't know if I've made any sense to you or to myself for that matter.
Jeff
To me you made a lot of sense. The beauty emerges when you succeed to touch your inner truth - to be loyal to your soul – it is not so simple as it sounds, especially when you have complex and interesting personality – after all only than you can create something really stimulating , moving, and touching.

[rderr.com]

Quote Ironman "..."truth" (whatever that is), it will have beauty..." end quote

"... Beauty is truth and truth, beauty "...:Keats, Ode To A Grecian Urn

And all art is provocation or else it is decoration

Ardor

[ironman]

Hi Everyone, Yeah, Shlomo and rderr are right about that truth/beauty thing. That being said, I wanted to say a few words here about "how far grotesque art can advance the state of art or establish a durable tradition to work with". First of all, the word "advance" can be confusing because it's connotation is "better" and in art, that's not the case. In art "advanced" should read as "different" or as "reflecting the time in which we live". After all, one cannot say for certainty or prove beyond a doubt that Rodin is better than Michelangelo (which he isn't) or that Picasso is better than DaVinci (which he is). (The parenthetical remarks are only my opinions and not really germaine to the subject at hand). Their art is just different and reflects the times in which they lived.
There are no "durable traditions", but only the ones that you choose to work within. Now you might say that realism is a durable tradition and you would certainly have a point, but there isn't much of a connection between Duane Hanson's realistic fiberglass figures, Rodin's "Burghers" or Michelangelo's "David", is there?
The tradition of denying a tradition, AKA the "avant garde", is dead, at least for now.
We are ALL still working under the influence of Picasso, he changed art, from painting to sculpture to printmaking and ceramics in ways that are astounding! He not only changed the look and the way we look at art but he also changed the process in every medium that he touched. Without him, there would be no Smith, Pollock, deKooning, Rauschenburg, Johns, Serra, deSuvero, etc., etc.
We live in an age that is so different from anything that has come before and is changing so rapidly that we can't keep up with it, can't express it in traditional art techniques/styles/isms/whatever, because art is too slow moving for our times. Art as we know it is dying, having lost it's ability to impact the world in any significant way, so maybe you're right, maybe it is "tradition vs. tradition" as the only way to keep the boat afloat. but I don't think so, I think that we need a "new Picasso" to lead us back out into the light of the 21st century and that "new Picasso" will do it with or on a COMPUTER!
I for one have a nagging feeling that what I do (non objective welded steel sculpture,and I've had some success at it) is meaningless to most and that shortly after my death will be seen as relics of an ancient past. If I were a young man, (I'll be 58 this month) I'd immerse myself in the computer and create my art work with it. The computer is the future of art and is the "state of the art" TODAY!
Just as I, when younger, couldn't bring myself to do realistic work after having seen Pollocks "Lavendar Mist" and Smith's "Cubis", a child of today wont be picking up a paint brush or clay after having seen what a computer can do.
We live in the age of anxiety, anything goes, I hear the buzz about artists doing "sensationalist" works to try to grab the art publics attention and become the next new "hot" artist, etc., and that may be the case for some of those artists but I think that the underlying theme here is a desperate and futile attempt to find an "ism" that expresses how we feel and how we live, TODAY! I think that's also what drives this realism/non-objective debate, or as you put it, tradition vs. tradition. We're looking for a way or maybe it's a way out of the miasma that we find ourselves in. I know that all work done in the present is always achored in some respect to the works done in the past (tradition) but today we're traveling at the speed of light and those past works that give us an anchor are disappearing off the radar screen faster than you can say "Jeff Koons"!
I've never read MacIntyre, can you recommend any books by him?
Well, that's enough of my rambling on and on, at least for today.
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[shlomo]

Hi Jeff and everyone, I like your "rambling on and on" and off - your "rusty" writing about art (very sharp and polished thinking)
But
you took the sentence : "reflecting the time in which we live" very seriously more seriously then we should – in a way this kind of thinking is an old idée-fix. It belongs too to the past – it doesn't belong any more to our rapid and intensive time, as you said – it belongs to the "traditional" way of thinking. Not only art should bring something new, but the way we are thinking about art, about the task of art, is also waiting to a new Picasso.

Jeff, you caused me to be curious about your work but I didn't find any of your works in the forum, could It be?

[rderr.com]

Quote Jeff"...The computer is the future of art and is the "state of the art" TODAY!..." end quote


And is just another tool, Jeff. Each time there are technical advances, and they come fast and furious, we have the same anxieties. Yes, Picasso taught us to see things in “real time” but he himself leaned that from African art. Where the 20th century left the rails was with confusion of materials and tools being the message, and not at the service of the message. The tool is man’s dialogue with materials and sculpture is the dance of tool and material.

Robert

[Araich]

Craft serves art. Absolutely.

It may now be impossible to take the kind of leap forward that Picasso et al did. Our modern world denies the kind of cultural shock available in the early 20th century. However within traditions there persists a number of artifical limitations, the worst I would say is 'truth to material'. For example, that steel should remain industrial in appearance, or glass a container. When we let go of these preconceptions, deny the tradition, there is hope for significance.

The other thing that I would add, is that in all of this, the journey of the artist is paramount. This personal journey makes a fool of art history, and in the end is the only path to true art.

[fritchie]

My principal take on the computer is that it frees a sculptor from gravity, and if you like, even material. Consider the reflective, twinned dog-monster on the cover of a recent “Sculpture”. That was presented as a slide at last year’s “Figuratively Speaking “ conference in New Jersey, and it was composed and I’m sure also executed using computer graphics.

With nonmaterial, computerized sculpture, one could produce at least 3D images of sculptures formed of large, solid blobs, or sharp, thin, angular wisps held in place or entwined with silk-thin fiber. And kinetic pieces are possible also, at least in principle. Computing power in personal machines is growing so rapidly, these possibilities should be real in not-too-many years.

At the same time, I’ve watched predictions of “next year’s computers” so often and seen them wrong so often, that I know to wait for reality before jumping into the water.

And, I don’t think Picasso changed realism by much at all. True, he was extraordinarily original and productive, but even his most realist works skipped the fact.

[rderr.com]

Quote Fritchie "...but even his most realist works skipped the fact...."end quote

Fritche

Have you ever seen nanny-goat more full of milk than Picasso's?

Robert

[fritchie]

Quote Fritchie "...but even his most realist works skipped the fact...."end quote

Fritche

Have you ever seen nanny-goat more full of milk than Picasso's?

Robert

You mean the one with bicycle horns and a bicycle seat-head? Or am I getting two pieces confused? I do recall the full mammaries.

[rderr.com]

Quote Fritchie "...Or am I getting two pieces confused? I do recall the full mammaries...."end quote

Fritchie

The handle-bars and seat are Toramachie, Piscasso's answer to Marcel Duchamp's pieces done with "found objects". Picasso was so not much an innovator, as he was a sponge. He soaked up every thing and spit it out as some thing very new and personnel. The Nanny-goat is a full size milk goat in bronze so very realistic that if you look under the hairs you will find ticks. Most people think they are casting vents but they are to well placed to be by chance.

Robert

[anne (bxl)]

Quote Fritchie "...Or am I getting two pieces confused? I do recall the full mammaries...."

[fritchie]

Bob and Anne - Thanks for clarifying this matter, but I doubt any living goat ever looked like this. I have seen only one in my life outside of zoos that I recall, and it was in a very country yard standing on top of a car or pickup truck. I’ve seen many in zoos and in photos or TV, but none like this.

He also did some rather naturalistic portraits early in his career, but without looking back to review them, I again say that I see no advance in realism. Realism, as any other art form, actually is full of artifice, because the artist him/herself is expressing life in a generally nonliving, more or less permanent medium. I see no contribution that Picasso made in this field, though I’m open to being persuaded.

[sculptor]

fritchie:
here is a good site for an overview of Pablo Picasso's works (http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/)

I agree about the realism thing-(not all that good really)-------Picasso was primarily a sketch artist, though known as a painter.......someone once claimed he had produced 40,000 works of art in his 84 productive years...????? ...maybe a definition of "art" is needed here----anyway he was darned prolific and when he left realism behind in early 1900s his annual output doubled from 120-130/yr to over 200, then almost 300 ---he liked it fast and dirty---and his changes make it hard to say anything about the works as they were different over the decades-----interesting that he revisited realism sketching at the end.....

on average, I actually like only about 10-20% of Pablo's works and consider only a handfull to be truely great-------if he was a great pivot point for art...I musta slept through that

Back to Ariach's work--------craft serves art absolutely, and in Robert's case, craft serves it well.

rod
sculptor (http://sculpture.alturl.com)

[obseq]

I don't think computer technology will prove itself as the foundation to a revolutionary art-movement.

I see it as simply an enabler. Dynamically, art consists of mark-making in space, so an idea should and will exist regardless of what tool is available.

[rderr.com]

quote Rod",,,craft serves art absolutely, and in Robert's case, craft serves it well." end quote

Rod

Thank you, Sir. Even Picasso once said that there was only a smal part of his work that was "art".

Robert

[ironman]

Hi, First of all, I love ALL the thoughtful posts in this thread, it shows the diversity and intelligence and wide range of people who have joined this site and contribute to it.
As far as Picasso is concerned, he was a fantastic realist painter early in his career and ALWAYS kept humanity present in ALL his work. He hated non-objective work, hated Pollock, etc. He did realistic painting while in his TEENAGE years that was, although not breaking any new ground, quite well done, and I don't mean well done for a teenager. What the hell do you think cubism is, if not breaking new ground in realistic art and giving us a new way of seeing that got us out from under the domination of renaissance perspective! He was an innovator par excellence and we are still under his influence.
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[ExNihiloStudio]

The best insight I found into Cubism is found in T.J. Clark’s “Farewell to an Idea: Episodes in a History of Modernism”. With help from this author my ability to visually read and appreciate a cubist painting is much improved. Clark’s interesting thesis about Cubism is that it proposes a completely different way of presenting the world. If we assume two point perspective to be a system, then cubism is another system altogether. It’s an exciting proposal, though the fact that Cubism has remained an early 20th century art movement and not a universal method seems to undermine Clark’s thesis.

Picasso was something of a free agent who reinvented himself over and over again.

[ExNihiloStudio]

Jeff – For MacIntyre start with a Google search and when you’re ready for a book “Whose Justice Which Rationality” is the one that’s given me the most mileage.

The reason I’m interested in tradition vs. tradition is because it seems to allow a strong and convincing way to work without feeling compelled to conform to whatever the tastemakers in the biggest art market near you are calling “hot”.

Modernism gained the rhetorical high ground first by claiming a radical break with tradition was necessary and later that the groundwork for modernism could be found in the Western tradition, e.g. seeing the abstraction in Renaissance paintings. Greenburg was claiming a historic and necessary inevitability towards abstraction. Tough luck if you didn’t agree. The modernism argument was compelling for a long time but has since collapsed. So now we’re left with an ordinary capitalism that can’t seem to support more than frivolity and pornography. It’s a new gallery season and all the chatter is about the latest hot new fad, like the latest line of blue jeans or new car models.

A tradition is an argument extended over time.

[obseq]

Some of you brought up Cubism as an example which is in line with my point. Earlier in the thread, Fritchie mentioned that computer technology solves the problem of contending with gravity.

"My principal take on the computer is that it frees a sculptor from gravity, and if you like, even material."

If, in theory, something like Cubism or Futurism bypasses the problem of gravity, then why should a bit of technology be better equipped to lay the foundation for a new artistic movement? Essentially, a computer presents a linear/direct construct of an idea, while "limiting" disciplines appear circuitous in their offering of a new language by which we are to understand the same idea.

[Araich]

Are we not just talking about methodolgy, be it technical or theoretical? Methodolgy that exists simply to support the complex visual expression of an artist. That the artist remains primary?

I personally feel it is doubtful that a particular genre or class of art is better than another, or that the choice of one over another precludes greatness. We're simply not able to foresee the confluence of styles and perception that will produce important art.

The best we can do is to take an enquiring mind to the workbench, follow our hearts and not the fashion of the moment, work hard, and hope like hell for a discerning audience.

[rderr.com]

Quote Jeff"...if not breaking new ground in realistic art and giving us a new way of seeing that got us out from under the domination of renaissance perspective! He was an innovator par excellence and we are still under his influence." end quote.

There was in Avignon in the early 90ies an exhibit of African objects that had belonged to European Artist. Among the objects on view where a pair of mask of female heads that where worn, by men most likely, with the head of the female presented in profile. The observer would see the body coming forward full frontal with the head staying in profile. We now know that Picasso owned those mask while he was doing "Les Demoiselles d' Avignon". That in no way diminishes his “What If” moment. It in fact augments his perceptions and goes to Ariche’s "...The best we can do is to take an enquiring mind to the workbench, follow our hearts and not the fashion of the moment, work hard, and hope like hell for a discerning audience***************end quote

All art is provocation, if not, it is then decoration.

[fritchie]

Hi, ....... What the hell do you think cubism is, if not breaking new ground in realistic art and giving us a new way of seeing that got us out from under the domination of renaissance perspective!..........
Jeff

Jeff - I think we have quite different definitions of “realism” in art. I’ll have to admit I looked on the Web many months ago for accepted common classifications in art, and found in general a lot of overlap and confusion. Categories are not clear or mutually exclusive, to be sure.

By “realism” I meant the way thing look to the average person with good vision. More or less, that is perspective as it was developed in painting during the Renaissance. Sculptors have the advantage of working in 3D and of viewing their work from many direction, so this classical perspective isn’t so central in sculpture.

Outside of his very early “realist” or naturalistic paintings, which I haven’t reviewed in many years, it seems to me everything he did came through a strong personal, or if you will, idiosyncratic, filter. And I don’t recall that those early paintings advanced the art of realism.

[fritchie]

There was in Avignon in the early 90ies an exhibit of African objects that had belonged to European Artist. Among the objects on view where a pair of mask of female heads that where worn, by men most likely, with the head of the female presented in profile. The observer would see the body coming forward full frontal with the head staying in profile. We now know that Picasso owned those mask while he was doing "Les Demoiselles d' Avignon". ..........


Robert - I remember a TV program on Picasso from about a decade ago that said he made some 900 sketches of Demoiselles d’Avignon before or while painting it, and that he spent about a year in the process. His friends advised him not to exhibit it, and after he did the reaction was so fierce he put it in the closet for another year.

I’m no expert, so I take this as close to the truth. It was radically different, and such things take time to be accepted or even to be seen for what the artist intends.

[shlomo]

Picasso define for us a period of time , a century – he took objects , lot of non-objects, African mask, wards and color , concept and ideas and put them all together under the name Picasso, cubism
No one can erase his signature from the 20th century - He put the all century in a perspective.
not just giving us a way to see what we are looking at but to know were we are living, what we are doing - to see things in a context.
It is not a little discussion about figurative way or abstract, he did much more then this.

[obseq]

I agree, Araich.

The artist and the idea is primary, in my opinion.

I just have a problem with some new messianic widget being seen as the tool that will usher in a new movement in art only because it exists. To be fair, however, I've seen a few examples of some very original digital art.

Anyhow, if the gravity problem in art has been veritably conquered by the pixel, then what's next?

Are we not just talking about methodolgy, be it technical or theoretical? Methodolgy that exists simply to support the complex visual expression of an artist. That the artist remains primary?

[ExNihiloStudio]

3-D graphics are quite amazing. About 3 years ago a local university was showing a 3-D graphics system to the public. It was a screen about 8 feet tall and 10 feet wide. It was big enough encompass your peripheral vision. You put on 3-D goggles and held a control wand. The image was an invented landscape that you visually “flew” through. The control wand controlled the movement on the screen. At times my feet felt light as I watched the 3-D image in front of me. Just like fritchie claims, it completely subverted gravity.

The most vital part of sculpture is that it reminds us we have a body. Painting can behave as though we’re just brains floating in jars. Computer images are closer to painting than sculpture. A computer could be a tool to make an actual object, or if you want to ignore gravity it can be like an electric painting. You can experience sculpture by walking through the city on a rainy day and coming across public art. You can't do that with computers.

Robert makes an important point about the African masks Picasso was using. Picasso just saw the strange form and not the intended meaning behind it because he and his audience wasn’t in the tribal culture that produced them and would have provided context and norms for them. I know some claim some kind of ethical issue with Picasso doing this, but it certainly produced a thrill for the times.

[anne (bxl)]

The most vital part of sculpture is that it reminds us we have a body. Painting can behave as though we’re just brains floating in jars. well said! that's probably why we all (sculptors) tend to create balanced works like our own body is, and like nature is (a book to recommend: "Patterns in nature" by Peter S.Stevens)

For those who wants to know more about primitive/tribal art influences over modern art (not only Picasso!!!) I recommend another wonderful book (the bible in this matter) from William Rubin edited in collaboration with MOMA in 1984. Approximate title is tribal influences in the art of the 20°century (en français : le primitivisme dans l'art du 20° siècle- ed. flammarion)

[JAZ]

...For those who wants to know more about primitive/tribal art influences over modern art (not only Picasso!!!) I recommend another wonderful book (the bible in this matter) from William Rubin edited in collaboration with MOMA in 1984. Approximate title is tribal influences in the art of the 20°century (en français : le primitivisme dans l'art du 20° siècle- ed. flammarion)

Excellent recommendation, Anne! "Primitivism" in 20th Century Art is a 2 volume catalogue of a fabulous exhibit. At a time when I was doing paintings, not sculpture, I drove 250 miles to see this exhibit and then 250 miles home the same day and subsequently relived the exhibit in the catalogue. The cover of Volume 1 shows a detail of Picasso's painting "Girl before a Mirror", 1932, next to a painted wood Kwakiutl mask from British Columbia. Volume 2 has on the cover a Tusyan mask from the Upper Volta made of wood, fiber and seeds next to Max Ernst's Bird-Head 1934-35, which is bronze. The exhibit caused quite a stir in part because it paired many works by contemporary artists with works by supposedly "primitive" (translation: anonymous, in many cases because the works were "collected" without documenting the maker) artists. Notice that the word "Primitive" in the titled is in quotation marks? Those punctuation marks challeged previously held notions about that word. The sculptures exhibited side by side were in some cases documented to show that the contemporary or Western artist was familiar with the supposedly "primitive" work and thought enough of it to incorporate some of its ideas in his own work. In other cases it is thought that the artworks being paired were the result of the contemporary artist and the "primitive" one arriving at remarkably similar visual solutions without knowing of the existence of the other.

I can't get the attachments to upload, so I'll post them in a few minutes.

[ironman]

Hi, I can't keep pounding this stuff about Picasso any more, my fingers are getting calloused from hitting the keyboard. BUT, and this is mainly directed to fritchie, Hi Fritchie, If a painting or sculpture has recognizable body parts, faces, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, fingers, feet, toes, torso, legs, etc. however they are arranged or rearranged, it is realistic! Picasso, borrowed, distorted, rearranged, etc. for visual effect and to add powerful feeling to his work. Look at GUERNICA, arguably the most powerful painting of the 20th century, there are recognizable human & animal imagery (realistic) although distorted in that piece. Almost caricaturish, yet visually stunning as a statement of & against the horrors of war. Fritchie, what's the difference between his distortions and your figures with truncated limbs & head? You're a good sculptor but I think you have a little tunnel vision and that opening yourself up to new ways of seeing, (and still staying a figurative sculptor) might do you some good. David Smith said, "everything imagined is reality, the mind cannot conceive of unreal things". I like that!
Hi Obseq, "dymamically, art consists of mark making in space". It does now, but who's to say what the future will bring? It may only appear on a computer screen in the future, sculpture that appears 3d on the screen & rotates, paintings that change colors as you look at them! I don't think that Rodin could ever imagine a deSuvero sculpture even existing let alone being considered great art, so although they both did "mark making in space", that too may change.
Hi Mark, Thanks for the Macintyre info.
True, cubism is an early 20th century "ism" and not really practiced today but it has been the jumping off point (along with surrealism) of a much of the art of the 20th century and even work being done today. Love your post (#30), "tough luck if you didn't agree". Oh, but I do agree, and really like that last paragraph, except I try not to be so pessimistic about what's new & being shown in the galleries. there is still quality work being shown out there and a lot of the crap, fortunately disappears in the blink of an eye anyway (and it makes the good work look even better).
Hi Araich, Yes I agree with you (post #32) but I see a lot of redundancy out there and have the nagging feeling that we're beating a dead horse. Maybe I feel that way because art has taken a back seat to movies, video, computer, etc., all 20th century inventions that past artists didn't have to compete against. Our (artists) impact has gotten smaller and smaller and that's what I'm reacting to.
Hi Shlomo, you are so right, (post #36) and we are still under his influence.
Hi Obseq, You said something about having a problem with a new messianic widget that will usher in a new movement in art only because it exists. Yes, of course, it's the person behind the widget who will change things, by his or her creative ability to see & explore new possibilities. Just as the invention of oil paint changed painting, the invention of photography changed art, (I don't think it's just a coincidence that once photography gained in popularity, that impressionism, post impressionism, etc. appeared on the horizon). Commercially available tube colors (1877) had something to do with it also. This box we've been communicating on will change art. It's already changed it and architecture as well. Frank Gehry said that he couldn't design & build those buildings of his without one!
One of the reasons that I keep harping redundantly on this "computer is the future of art" subject, is that I have a very bright & creative 10 yr. old nephew who does ALL his creative work on a computer, writes music, draws & illustrates stories & cartoons, etc., and I don't think he's all that different from any other bright, creative 10 yr. old. Young kids take to this stuff (computer) like a duck to water and they're the future of art.
Oh, I'm not all that interested in why Picasso used a take off on african masks, etc. for his work, the fact is that he did and to great effect. We all "appropriate" other work into our own, just not so obviously, most of the time. Again, he opened the door as far as it could go, in art, anything goes and anything & everything can & will be used to make art and express the human condition.
GO YANKEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a great day,
Jeff

[sculptor]

... If a painting or sculpture has recognizable body parts, faces, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, fingers, feet, toes, torso, legs, etc. however they are arranged or rearranged, it is realistic! David Smith said, "everything imagined is reality, the mind cannot conceive of unreal things". I like that!
Hi Obseq, "dymamically, art consists of mark making in space". It does now, but who's to say what the future will bring?
Hi Araich, Yes I agree with you (post #32) but I see a lot of redundancy out there and have the nagging feeling that we're beating a dead horse.
Jeff

Mermaid (http://www.sculpture.net/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=1118) arguably has several recognizable body parts but she aint real -----kinda sexy maybe(how do fishfolk have sex)---figurative fersure....but realistic? And as/re "everything imagined is reality..."Fancy new sportscoat with wrap arround sleeves and lotsa belts and buckles time?

photo-realism, sur-realism,... The lexicon expands as the art evolves...we all learn to balance our individual imaginings within learned constraints---Picasso and the modernists sought freedom from the old constraints, and created new ones.
reality itself is a non-real construct....just a series of quasi scientific pidgeon holes loosely arranged in a pseudo cabinet of observable phenomenon.

if all derives from the imagination,....what then is a "non-realistic" work

as Alice was created to say--------curiouser and curiouser....

whither hence?
rod
sculptor (http://sculpture.alturl.com)

[JAZ]

...Oh, I'm not all that interested in why Picasso used a take off on african masks, etc. ...Jeff

It was recognition of the very things you were talking about. He saw that the imagery of these "primitive" African, Northwest Coast, Maori, etc. works was more original and more attuned to the imagination than most "art" of time. It was, in essence better art, truer to the inner core reather than just being a mirror. There were usually "figurative" elements but they never borrowed slavishly from visual reality. They were inventive. They represented the soul of things. In experiencing Northwest Coast (British Columbia) original people's art was the first time I saw that certain artworks conveyed two beings exisiting in the same space. That is an amazing achievement that for the most part escapes European based artists. The economy of concept that can show two entities occupying the same space at the same time, yet being distinct from one another is a stunning achievement.
Picasso was right, though he copied and tried (only sometimes successfully) to work in that same philosophical vein.

[sculptorsam]

Computers can be a great tool to create work. I find myself using image programs often for manipulating sketches/compositions and the grunt work of scaling up/down for final patterns. But they are just that, a tool. I think people can get a little too caught up in the Brave New Virtual World and miss it's limitations.

All tools have their limitations, it's the other side of the coin of their having an application. One of the limitations of working Virtually is the difficulty in drawing on the physical intelligence your body has cultivated through creating works that exist independant of the mind. The act of molding clay, bending steel, weilding a brush informs the body and the mind about the world. Perhaps this is why most digital work feels cold and sterile to me. There isn't enough dirt in them. Witness the vast inferiority of the new Star Wars movies to the first. How much more advanced is their creation, yet how vastly superior are the original model-based effects? This is one criticism I have of Gehry's building as well. The one I've been in is an absolutely terrible use of space (the Weisman Art Building at the UofM). It reminds me of the derogatory tone the word Engineer is spoken of at metal shops. Aside from pure prejudice, what these metal workers have tapped into is the disconnect between the plans and the Real World. And in my opinion, Great/Trancendant Art informs and alters how we see the world because it is born in the world.

[ExNihiloStudio]

"One of the limitations of working Virtually is the difficulty in drawing on the physical intelligence your body has cultivated through creating works that exist independant of the mind. "

I was going to make this point but sculptorsam beat me to it and wrote it as well as I ever could. I would only add physical and mental.

In my own experience I have found the process of drawing something with paper and pencil to be the best way to learn about something. If you're looking at something and you want to figure it out, draw it. I have also found that by drawing something I get a much stronger memory of it embedded in my brain. This only helps later on. The computer can be used to bypass this mental excersize which means you can get work done without cultivating yourself at all.

I don't think anything has changed the programming adage "Garbage in, garbage out".

Any software comes with a built in set of assumptions made by the programmers and those assumptions may limit you without you even knowing what they are. In other words there are lots of strings attached when you use the computer. Besides, computers are about de-skilling labor and mass production. One theory I've heard about the booming 90's economy is that a massive increase in computer use increased worker productivity without adding employees.

[shlomo]

It is elementary that real artists will seek for change, for a deep change in the human condition. All the changes, especially in art, come from luck of satisfaction.( The changes from figurative to abstract to surrealistic to modernism and the come back to realisem….) Real artists lives in constant condition of non-satisfaction, and the real longing of their soul isn't only just to express it – but to change the whole situation they are living in . we are living in.
What Ironman meant ( excused me if I wrong and excused my english) was not that computer drawing, sketching, or using this kind of software or another, is better than another kind of art, but that the world of computers will completely change the world – it will change the way we think – it will change us – the human kind, and that kind of change will maybe take us out from the age of cubism.
Computer art will be something else, something so different that we can't even imagine.

[obseq]

if all derives from the imagination,....what then is a "non-realistic" work

as Alice was created to say--------curiouser and curiouser....

whither hence?
rod
sculptor (http://sculpture.alturl.com)


"The world is already there. Why repeat it?"

--Dziga Vertov

[Araich]

Real artists lives in constant condition of non-satisfaction, and the real longing of their soul isn't only just to express it – but to change the whole situation they are living in . we are living in.

I think this is overly idealistic. It is true that for some it is the dominant part of their art practice, but not for all. And it certainly is not a qualifier for being a 'Real' artist. I for one could care less about changing the world.
If you mean by non-satisfaction, the always distant final/perfect artwork, then I would agree. But for me, my art is a vehicle for my small steps forward as a human being. It challenges me to look harder and to step back from rushed judgement. These are qualities that would serve us well.

[obseq]

Hi Jeff,


I don't think the dynamic will change. Some of the things you speak of exist, already. One of the more (in)famous examples are owned by Bill Gates, who has digital wall paintings that change color/shape based on exothermic feedback provided by anyone walking by. You did mention that our way of thinking will change, which I completely glossed over while initially adding my thoughts to the thread. You are absolutely correct, here. I do think, however, that any significant evidence of change within digital art will stem from the role of the spectator. To borrow from digital artist, David Rokeby, "Interactivty as content." Digital art deviates from the classical relationship between spectator and art by allowing for certain real-time choices to be made that alter immediate content thereby allowing for equally immediate synthesis of information. Classically, we experience content in 2-D time, synthesize a momentary perspective, and likely move on, possibly reflecting away from the piece. The bridge between digital and classical art rests in the moment in which a spectator looks at a static painting or sculpture, and projects certain inclinations onto a given piece. S/he could imagine that a decidely horizontal landscape in a painting extends in that direction, beyond the frame, or that a decidedly vertical neck on one of Fritchie's sculptures continues towards the gallery ceiling,tapering off to a fine point--All a sort of mental intertia. Rigid point-and-click constructs do not constitute for interavity nor any subseqeuent synthesis of content.

It is interesting that you mention today's youth. It's even more interesting to wonder that an economically polarizing technology like the computer will produce more artists than a lump of clay, or some paint. These kids like your nephew are clearly bright. I am just more taken by what they do with traditional materials.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"dymamically, art consists of mark making in space". It does now, but who's to say what the future will bring? It may only appear on a computer screen in the future, sculpture that appears 3d on the screen & rotates, paintings that change colors as you look at them! I don't think that Rodin could ever imagine a deSuvero sculpture even existing let alone being considered great art, so although they both did "mark making in space", that too may change.


You said something about having a problem with a new messianic widget that will usher in a new movement in art only because it exists. Yes, of course, it's the person behind the widget who will change things, by his or her creative ability to see & explore new possibilities. Just as the invention of oil paint changed painting, the invention of photography changed art, (I don't think it's just a coincidence that once photography gained in popularity, that impressionism, post impressionism, etc. appeared on the horizon). Commercially available tube colors (1877) had something to do with it also. This box we've been communicating on will change art. It's already changed it and architecture as well. Frank Gehry said that he couldn't design & build those buildings of his without one!
One of the reasons that I keep harping redundantly on this "computer is the future of art" subject, is that I have a very bright & creative 10 yr. old nephew who does ALL his creative work on a computer, writes music, draws & illustrates stories & cartoons, etc., and I don't think he's all that different from any other bright, creative 10 yr. old. Young kids take to this stuff (computer) like a duck to water and they're the future of art.

[shlomo]

But for me, my art is a vehicle for my small steps forward as a human being. .

Ariach we came back to the beginning. To the deep difference between us – yes I think that "real" art is a spouse of philosophy and ideology . it isn't only beautiful lines, curves or color – real art tried to touch something invisible, to touch our existence here in this world. "real art" is a need, A breath. it is not a vehicle.
but you are right i'm overly idealistic.

[fritchie]

Hi, I can't keep pounding this stuff about Picasso any more, my fingers are getting calloused from hitting the keyboard. BUT, and this is mainly directed to fritchie, Hi Fritchie, If a painting or sculpture has recognizable body parts, faces, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, fingers, feet, toes, torso, legs, etc. however they are arranged or rearranged, it is realistic! ............ ........... ........
Jeff

Jeff- Wow, you were busy with this! My fingers would be tired too. Put fingers on the head, eyes (3, 4 10, 100 ... ) on the belly, legs sticking out the back, and you still have realism? How about dinosaur “fingers”, legs, and so on, on a human?

I do appreciate your comments and take them as constructive, but we still disagree. Have a good day!

[Araich]

... it isn't only beautiful lines, curves or color.
Who said anything about art being just beautiful lines? Apparantly this is your analysis of my work, which is perfectly fine, but I would say that of our two viewpoints, you are the one seeking a polemic.

I do not hold that art is just a pretty trinket, nor do I agree that it is no more than a statement in effort of social change.

There are moments in my working life when a serendipitous change to a composition of basic shapes brings ringing to my ears. Heart in mouth, I feel as if I have touched some central tenet in our existence, come close to making sense of the world around and spoken loudly in a clear voice.
That this is not written out in plain text is not my concern.

Art is a vehicle for an artist. In it we are offered a profound and personal journey.

[shlomo]

Ariach, it is really hard for me to express myself right in any languish, even art is not my good side, and English is my worst - - -
you don't need any path mark from me, but I want to say loud and clear – no one can get from the iron the quality, the perfective, the so right "curves lines and color" without a big art soul – it is so clear and sharp -
But for me, it is clear and sharp too, that a man who can bent down steel so beautifully, who creates this curves and right lines from so many "similar" steel sculptures ( I can't find even one "mistake" in any of your sculptures) have much more to give - have the spirit -
I tried to write it before in my poor English - your successfully struggle with the hard steel cause you to forget or to neglect or to renounce the ather side of your strengs, the soul you definitely hade. OF COURSE IT IS YOUR PREVILAGE , you don't need any permit ion from any one to do what you want to do, but it is my privilege as a spectator , as a consumer of art to need more . to ask for more.
I need more from you. ( it is suppose to be a compliment)

I'm really sorry if you offended, it was not my intention not at all. I found in your works more talent and pure beauty than I found ever. thank you.

And I loved your last fury and full of passion thread.

[Araich]

Dear shlomo, you have not offended me at all, in fact you have paid me the greatest compliment. Taking the time to look critically at my work, you have given me more than any amount of "I love your work" commentary.

In fact, you have influenced my work directly this week, and the crazy results are truly disturbing for me. I have taken the new wall pieces, the 'Composition' series of brush painted works, and stretched them into the freestanding. I am only at the metalising stage, but here at 7.30am, I am about to head into the studio and begin the painting... pictures shortly.

Indeed I might drag it in now and take a photo of it.

[Araich]

http://www.roberthague.com/sculpture/gallery/comp_vi.htm

8 hours later and I've at least made a start, completing the underpainting. Tomorrow the washes and tinted varnishes, and likely changes to the colours in an effort to make it work.

This image is what the pure zinc metal coating looks like before the grey primer.

[sculptorsam]

Don't forget to click on the arrow beneath the linked image, folks. Very nice. But now you give us Monday Morning quarterbacks the chance to pick a certain stage in it's coloring that we prefer... The second to the last shot works the best for me I think. But the final colors/design have a nice dynamic-Calder feel to them.

I think what it comes down to, to a certain extent, is a preference of style. I'm guessing shlomo prefers grittier, darker, assembled, more laborous/tortured work. And that the qualities that best appeal to shlomo, he considers truely artistic, truly the realm of high Art. But I will suggest that this limits what art can be and limits your experience of what art and life are. Personally in my own work, I probably strive for something darker. But there are more ways of seeing/creating than what we are personally inclined towards. I love Araich's work because it is different from my own. Because it is expressive in his way, it broadens my view of the world and of art. And I find his lyricism informing my own designs, making them more distinctive than stereotypical rusted steel constructions.

Anyway, just a couple thoughts before I've had my coffee.

[Araich]

7am, another day. That blue is all wrong, and I woke thinking that I have limited the transition into the 3rd dimension by just colouring the opposing planes, so in 30 minutes when I get to work I'll overpaint some of the black...

Sam, thank you.

Later: I've added another 5 hours painting, covered in 5 images.

[Araich]

I've finished it. Not bad for a week. In fact I really enjoyed sitting around with a paint brush for a change.

90cm or 35"

[god I love my new camera]

[ironman]

Hi, Just a word of caution here about multi-colored sculpture. What color to paint a sculpture is usually determined after the sculpture is constructed, and not part of the initial concept. At least that's true in my case, and I sit and look at my sculpture for a long time before IT tells me what color it needs to be.
When one decides to do a multi-colored paint job on a piece you have to be very careful how you go about it because in many cases multi-colors DESTROY FORM.
Most of us aren't painters, so that just creates other problems, that of bad color combinations and the use of unsophisticated and/or primary colors all of which can and in many cases does take away from an otherwise well constructed sculptural form.
Araich, Hi, this is in no way a critique of your work but just an observation of mine that I thought I'd pass along. Food for thought!!!!!!!!!!
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[Araich]

Funny, I went into this with the intention of breaking up the work with bright (primary) high contrasting colours... I have tried more muted and complex painterly effects on previous work, but there the paint really did rob from the sculpture.

[ironman]

Hi, I don't think it's so much the colors that one picks but HOW the painting is composed, where the color breaks occur in relation to the form that determines whether or not the form is destroyed or not. I personally like your piece better in the photo where it just has that monochrome coating on it, but hey, it's your work not mine. I'm curious though, why after working so hard on a well composed and well made piece of sculpture would you want to break up that hard won form?
As I write this, I keep going back and forth between the photos of the paint job and the one with the monochrome coating, I wish I could see the work in person, as I'm sure the photos don't do it justice.
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[Araich]

That is a million dollar question, right there. Why?
I would have to guess that the driving force is curiousity and experimentation. I have produced a great number of works where the focus is form and overall unity, and right now I am going through a patch of severe experimentation. Believe it or not, I am actually using text on a current work, and planning a mid-sized kinetic piece.
Also, I would say that I believe that the form and the surface can co-exist as independant compositions. The strength of sculpture is that it's actuality as a real object produces perspective without any intervention, and that messing around with these visual cues might be an area my work can expand into.
Simlutaneous to the making of that work I have laboured on with my core interest, and produced 4 new works. Here are two, which I see as possible maquettes for larger scale:

[Araich]

... and the other:

[sculptorsam]

I find the black square distracting on the second one. It looks like more of a necessity to keep the work from tipping over than an integral part of the design. If it's scaled up to large size, you'd be able to lose it. I think that'd look more natural. Perhaps a larger hemisphere, or even one flattened out a bit, would help anchor/compliment the dynamic symetry of the upper section a little better as well.

[Araich]

Yeah, it's just there for the maquette, in fact I just painted it white. Why I didn't think of that first off I'll never know. I think you're also right about the hemisphere, it could have been larger. In my head I can see it continue into the plate... not much help to anyone else however.

[ironman]

Hi, Nice work, as usual. I especially like the blue piece and agree about the black square. I like the negative spaces that piece has and while looking at it a thought occured to me. I wonder how it would look in a horizontal position, 3-4 ft. off the ground with those support bars changed to form a sort of inverse pyramid?
Have a nice day,
Jeff

TEXT, WHAT NEXT? :D

[obseq]

"Believe it or not, I am actually using text on a current work, and planning a mid-sized kinetic piece."



THIS, I am looking forward to! How are things progressing?

On your painted piece, I was envisioning a harsh light cast upon it, thereby breaking the segments up as you mentioned with resulting shadows.