Web forum

[fritchie]

Let me start a new discussion with what I hope is a wider perspective than we have seen here in recent weeks. Ever since Araich criticized figurative sculptors a couple on months ago about being navel-focused and basically always complaining, the forum seems to me to have been mainly just a forum for basic “how-to” questions instead of “why”.

To be sure, there have been many significant issues, such as the Iraqi sculpture put up in the place of Saddam Hussein’s self-portrait only about 2 months after the U. S. invasion. But I’d like to pose the question here: “Do you think this forum contributes in a bigger way than simply answering practical ‘how to’ questions? And, clearly the corollary question “What’s the best thing about it, and where should it go from here?”

I’ll start with my own comment. I got involved because of the opportunity to share views with a (potentially) worldwide community of people who do sculpture or who care about sculpture, and who can comment intelligently on its purpose and its value in their own lives and its place in human society. It’s always useful to see one’s values shared and to see alternative thoughts about what one values.

Why do some of you others come here, and where should we be headed?

[obseq]

Fritchie,

Thanks for posting this.

I'll toss my comments into the fray.

I happened upon the forum by mistake after clicking an incorrect link. I used to frequent the list of artists avaialble on the main page and view as much work as possible--one cannot attend an exhibit or installation each day so the 'virtual museum' avaialbe here was (is) a wonderful tool.

From what I have read, the 'how-to' theme of certain threads, (per Fritchie's comment) often leave room for broader discussion. One of my first comments asked about favored produciton techniques. Of course, this was asking, "what works?" Given the artistic diversity among us, the initial foray begs the question, "why did you choose this to work?"

When I first registered on the forum, my first inclination was to treat this community as a serious extension of the classroom/critique experience.

The dialogue we manage to create here mirrors my desire for something beyond the cursory pleasantries often experienced in formal art education. Certainly, I am not expecting this forum to be part of any mass revolution but what I do think *is* critical is the shape of our individual experience here. I'd venture to say that nearly 1000 of us did not register here for meaningless banter. Ever notice that there has really never been a need to reinforce decorum here? We are serious about sculputre and its influnece in the rest of the arts--that is abundantly clear.

[fritchie]

obseq - Thanks for reminding me of the ISC's website (http://www.sculpture.org/main.htm) and its Portfolio (http://www.sculpture.org/redesign/port.htm) section. Usually I go straight to this web community forum instead of the main site. I first joined the ISC Portfolio as soon as it opened about 9 years ago.

It took Portfolio about 1 - 2 yeas to reach the first hundred entries, but a quick visit and estimate shows about 550 sculptors there now. When I first got my own web access outside of my employer (probably close to 10 - 11 years ago), I searched for my preferred form of sculpture, realistic figurative, regularly, but with little success. I got maybe 5 - 8 individuals’ sites over the first year that I considered worth visiting. Of course, then as probably now, maybe 80 % or more of active sculptors work abstractly or in nonrealistic figuration.

I’ll have to check the ISC Portfolio again, now that there are so many entries.

As far as the web overall, it has changed greatly since it first came up about 11 - 12 years ago. At first, people talked about it as a “virtual world”, with each sculptor, city, museum, public organization and so on having a web presence parallel to its own real-world existence. The Louvre had a great early presence and many other museums had smaller sites. However, over about 2 years, administrators realized that the web carries a real cost in publishing and maintaining sites, and I think museums decided that they lost more real visitors than they gained by putting images online. So everyone scaled back, except for the commercial people.

But it’s still a great place to learn, if you find the right approach.

[fritchie]

obseq - I want to express my gratitude again for your mentioning the ISC Portfolio site. I just looked, and found 252 sculptors listed under ‘figurative”, and since there were so many, I re-searched under “figurative bronze” and found 124. I quickly scanned 30 of these scattered across the alphabet.

The result is quite surprising in terms of variety, with quality generally good. Of course, probably many of the artists check as many categories as possible in an effort to gain viewers, but the single thumbnail image chosen by ISC staff helps in condensing a search. Overall, I’m impressed with this as a search tool, and I’ll have to look more closely as I have time

[obseq]

My pleasure, Fritchie


As I mentioned in my reply, I spent a tremendous amount of time scoruing the ISC portfolio registry before I even noticed the web forum.

The variety of media and artsists included is phenomenal. I urge anyone who has yet to have a look to do so.

[obseq]

"When I first got my own web access outside of my employer (probably close to 10 - 11 years ago), I searched for my preferred form of sculpture, realistic figurative, regularly, but with little success. I got maybe 5 - 8 individuals’ sites over the first year that I considered worth visiting. Of course, then as probably now, maybe 80 % or more of active sculptors work abstractly or in nonrealistic figuration."

Fricthie,

To what would you attribute the influx of abstract sculpture? It seems to me the the advent of installation art brought forth a tendency to divorce 'object-making' from realism.

[sculptorsam]

I don't want to distract from the conversation but I thought I'd add my two bits.

I continue to stop by in part to meet other sculptors, in part to learn something new, part to see how others think/work and part to escape the cultural backwater that is my home town. The reason I don't spend as much time here as I could is due to the other online communities I belong to as well. In particular, I moderate a general arts forum sponsored by the Walker Art Center and the McKnight Foundation in the Twin Cities: www.mnartists.org The ability to communicate with people across the globe brings with it the double edge of sprouting so many communities that my time can be stretched online, just as it is in "real" life.

As for the proliferation of "abstract" sculpture over figurative... I think the answer is as simple as lower expectations. Even the most ignorant among us knows what a person looks like, thus raising the bar for work that seeks to invoke this similarity. But who knows what an abstract piece should look like? It can be anything right? So it attracts more people due to the perceived ease of the discipline. Yet mere numbers dictate there is considerably more "bad" abstract work being done at the moment than figurative. Neither is superior to the other, though. Apples and oranges as they say. I like to think I'm living somewhere in the middle personally. The only real danger is dogmatism, on either side.

Sam

[fritchie]

Sam - Thanks for these very insightful comments. You are here for many of the same reasons I am, principally to learn through sharing. And thanks for being so honest about the issue of quality in abstract work. I think I can spot quality in almost any field, but most people just don’t look closely enough to make good judgements. Then again, quality is a judgement, which must be personal, and as they say - good men (and women) will differ reasonably.

I particularly like the “cultural backwater” comment. I’m sure many if not most of us feel something similar, and that’s one of the best things about a forum that is at least potentially worldwide. Thanks for the Minneapolis reference. I’ll check it as soon as I can.

And, I did visit the Twin Cities once, long ago, in my profession of crystal structural analysis. The American Crystallographic Society visited the two cities about 1962 - 1963 as part of its annual meetings program. That group generally hosts about 200 professionals, and your area was the perfect size. The Walker Art Center was part of the tour program, and has a fine presence. I think we also had a theater performance with the program. I’m sure things have grown quite a bit over the years.

[nero]

Perhaps a preponderance of 'how' discussions over 'why' is tied to the issues of the abstraction / figurative debate.
As a predominantly material based abstract sculptor my how is inseprable from the why. The techniques are part of the language of the meaning of the work (and curiously often the most concrete part of it!).
Are technique and material not part of the why in figurative sculpture? does the difference in light modulation between bronze and marble not mean anything? Is figurative sculpture only about form, style and narrative?

[fritchie]

Nero - Good points about material in abstraction. To me, material is a low second in my own figurative work, compared with form, but I settled on bronze, materialized from a clay original, essentially from the start because of its adaptability. Bronze is so old as a figurative medium (as is stone) that people sort of forget it is there and simply see the form.

As far as light modulation, you are quite right there also. My background is in physical chemistry and I am quite aware of the perception of light and color, both theoretically and as a practical matter. The human eye distinguishes shades of light and dark, or of color, best in a medium intensity range, so stone in particular, when white or very light in color, can be hard to see unless in subdued illumination. I choose a light to medium brown patina for my bronzes very much with these factors in mind.

Certainly there is figuration in other media - carved wood was very big in mediaeval Germany, for instance, and Italy also to some extent, largely because it was there and stone generally wasn’t, to the same extent as in Egypt, Greece, Rome and other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern societies. Bronze always has been more expensive and less common, until the industrial age, when stone often became the more expensive of the two.

With abstraction, the material has a much greater role, because each material lends itself readily to a range of forms and makes others nearly prohibitive. You can see I haven’t given abstraction much thought, except to express a feeling that I would favor minimalism if I went that route. I think form is more purely expressible in that arena.

[fritchie]

To what would you attribute the influx of abstract sculpture? It seems to me the the advent of installation art brought forth a tendency to divorce 'object-making' from realism.

Sorry, obseq, I didn't intend to skip this, but the last few days have very busy. I think several people here, most notably sculptorsam recently, have “hit the nail on the head”. Figurative work simply requires a higher level of performance because essentially everyone has his/her own expectations in figurative sculpture, but basically no one knows how to evaluate abstract work.

Couple that with the fact that commissioning bodies feel a need to be more reserved with figurative work, especially realistic, because of the greater impact it has on the average individual, plus the much higher relative cost of realistic figuration related to its greater labor-intensive nature, and I think you have the main explanation.

[obseq]

"I think several people here, most notably sculptorsam recently, have “hit the nail on the head”. "


I agree on this too, Fritchie.

Nero and Sam both made very valid points concerning the state of abstract art. It does seem that many people making abstract art are far too content to concern themselves with rampant bouts of correlative thought, acting as a substitute for something far more thoughtful and substantial in place of execution of craft and concept.

The random execution of 'marks' in space, whether it may be a brushstroke of paint or a steel rod jutting outward, seems to often represent some broad societal conundrum. All too often, I have listened to people making such art, often pantomining in large waves of the hand, pontificate about how that errant brushstroke represents the oppression of some marginalized population or **how we are all 'one.'**

**here hands pantomime in a large circle/globe upon explaination**

Beyond these suggestions, quite a bit of abstract art ignores its instrinsic dynamics, as Nero pointed out. Additonally,as Sam mentioned, it is far too easy for anyone to render some random object without thought and call it meaningful. The realist however, is bound to rules of craft and perception.

[jwebb]

I was overjoyed to find this site, as I've been away from the academic world a long time, and have avoided most groups and artsy ones in particular. The inevitable result is that much if not most of "minimalism" and "conceptual" art; and the world of installations and constructions and concretions and all the other "...tions" passed me by in the night. I find some of that stuff mildly interesting, but it's mostly not Visually appealing. Much of what is called sculpture today speaks with words, rather than with a truly sculptural vocabulary. I think it's the (hopefully not final) Conquest of The Art World By The Critics. There are leading "Art" magazines in this country which have nothing at all to look at in them, just a bunch of clever verbiage. This site, though, seemed to have a group of people who are visually oriented; who still - like me - define Sculpture as three dimensional form in relation to Space. It catches light. It casts a shadow. And people seem to be serious about what they're doing; open to input and willing to give it. On the other hand, I find this dichotomy between abstract and figurative sculpture that keeps popping up, to be pretty silly. I do both, and always have. Quite simply, for me, IT"S ALL ABSTRACT. Even when you do a "realistic" portrait or figure, you in fact don't try for a veritable life mask. (And if you do, it'll look like a death mask, instead.) And that's not Sculpture anyway, it's more like Taxidermy. Instead, you use a bag of tricks - like emphasis, exaggeration, foreshortening, high-lighting, simplification, composition, etc., etc., to create the "visual equivalent" of life. And those are all abstractions! Take any "realistic" landscape, and turn it upside down, and you'll see that it's still an interesting composition of shapes, lines, colors, tones. Again, those are all abstractions. Take a close look at Bernini's "St. Teresa", not at the figure, but at the incredible abstract composition that is carved into the folds of the figure's garments. Visual Art is not an either/or world. It's all one. And we are free to choose and use whatever elements of it serve our individual sensibilities.

[fritchie]

jwebb - You raise several serious issues. Somewhat like you, I had subscribed to one of the premier Art Magazines many years ago to keep abreast of happenings while I worked professionally as a university chem prof. After about 1 - 2 years, though, I decided that the magazine largely was just a huge collection of advertisements for the latest pseudo-art trends and hype for the “Masters” preselected by international galleries to continue the march of Art History. I concluded that almost nothing in them was substantial art. I dropped the subscription, but was able to continue looking with my university’s library, with regular reading of maybe 4 - 6 of these periodicals. After a couple of years, though, I stopped even that, for essentially the same reasons.

On the other hand, I think you minimize the distinction between (realistic) figuration and abstraction. It is true that all art, even photography, involves abstraction. A photographer manipulates timing, composition, light, and fleeting changes in his subject, to achieve a preconceived or predisposed result. You need only compare Edward Muybridge’s early stop-action photographs of human or animal motion with more carefully composed photographs to see the effect of artistic intent.

However, figuration is about humanity itself, and it strongly influences the way we see ourselves. No other subject does this to such an extent. It is for this reason of self-perception that I consider figuration to stand completely outside of “abstraction” as it usually is understood. No amount of clever, or genuinely good, manipulation of abstract visual symbols will have the power of the human figure, in my opinion.

[jwebb]

I strongly agree with some of what you say, as usual. But I think abstraction is closer to the essence of humanity than our physical image is. I'm not into symbolism, and I'm not too excited by geometric shapes in themselves. And I agree with the statements or implications, above, that a lot of very weak and stupid and phoney "Art" is allowed and even encouraged in an Art World where most people don't know the difference between what's good and what isn't unless it's got a huge price on it. What I look for and value is work that makes me think about, and maybe feel something about, what the person who made it thought and felt. It's that instant of human communication and recognition. And I get that from very ancient artifacts, as well as from some - but not all - modern abstract works, as well as from some - but not all - figuration. Henry Moore, for instance. His purely abstract work is every bit as powerful and as human, in my opinion, as his figurative work. And I see the continuity in it, not a dichotomy. (I know, Moore is not exactly "modern", but then, neither am I).
Regards.

[fritchie]

Of course, you're right about abstraction being a very human characteristic. In a way this is the "Santa Claus" question - is he real? Abstraction in art (again, with the generally understood meaning) reflects the “spiritual” or nonphysical side of humanity in a way. But this also is the screen behind which many lazy or weak abstractionists hide: “My art expresses motion, energy, love”, or whatever, when perhaps noone but the artist sees it that way.

Not to beat a dead and mummified horse, but I think it’s a general failure of abstractionists to succeed in communication with the public at large that has led to a great deal of public disillusion with contemporary art. Going back to the jokes and cartoons about “modern art” as early as the 50's or perhaps 30's, I think the public at large got the idea that abstract artists were scamming them, largely because they weren’t able to separate the good from the bad. And, many were.

In a way, this is the meat in the issue - abstract art generally still fails to reach the public at large, and it is the public which is buying most art today, through its representatives. I don’t think simple education in art will change this. I think it’s up to the artists to make their work meaningful.

And this is a problem for realist figuratists as well. How should the figure, and especially the nude, be presented as public art?

[obseq]

One critique of the nude and of classical figurative sculpture, per the Futurist Manifesto, suggests that its proliferation in the modern era (is) little more than an attempt to extract a synthetic vigor from an archaic devotion to the ideal of the human figure. By tirelessly repeating the formal traditions of figurative sculpture, an artist, can not only lend credibility to the work but also attach to it, a feigned modern sensibility once the proper 'fit' is made. I think, what keeps figurative art, more honest than abstract art, is that the standard, the human figure, is relatively static. The abstract art world has an endless supply of detritus to serve up; ready to attach a meaning on a moment's notice.

There is no standard of what to 'call' art--is it simply 'what it is,' or what we, as spectators, are told it is. Once proper thematic 'fit' is made, a mound of dirt can carry the suggestion that it is representational of 'world issues,' (etcetera, ad nauseum).

So, at what point should abstract art not need to rely on a title to relay what it is?

Is it reasonable to walk up to a lump of dirt and expect to realize that it represents any assortment of correlative meanings, that perhaps, are only convenient where the artist is concerned?

[Araich]

I'm not interested in joining what I consider to be an utterly meritless and ultimately harmful arguement.

Aside to say, that I am astounded by the ignorance and bias displayed in many of the previous comments.

And to say, sculptors take heart. Work for yourself. Waste no time in defending the 'honesty' in your work, or the stated 'failure to communicate' to a wider audience.

It is not our responsibility to inform anyone.
Our responsibility is to inform our work.

The onus remains firmly with the audience, public or otherwise, to bring their brains to the equation. And unfortunately, as with much in life, this can sometimes be depressingly uncommon.

[fritchie]

Araich - I'm sure Russ RuBert, the overall sponsor and empowerer of the forum, would agree with the widely quoted statement “Variety is the spice of life”, and would welcome, as I do, all responsible comments. This thread has covered a lot of ground, and I’m not sure just what you find objectionable. (I’m also not trying to put you in a position where you feel you need to respond beyond the level you wish.)

I do think the public at large has more difficulty evaluating “abstract” work than realistic, and has felt shortchanged overall as a result of this difficulty. I also think it is beyond doubt, at least in the U. S., that the national art community has lost touch to a great extent with the public, over closely related issues, if not specifically this one.

Funding for the main federal support group, the National Endowment for the Arts, was cut by about 50% some 2 - 3 years ago, for precisely this reason, and to the extent it has been restored, the funds have been directed to lower-level, more widely spread local arts groups. These are perceived as more responsive to public input, and they probably are. I can’t speak to any redirection of funding vis-a-vis figural or abstract sculpture, but sculpture in any case represents a small percentage of these funds. The NEA supports all arts: visual, performing, music, and any other.

I see these as serious issues, and I do think all artists need look at them and respond in one way or another, even if to say “The burden is on the viewer.” Certainly it is, to a great extent, but the public likely will discard work it finds infertile.

[obseq]

Araich,

I have to disagree with your evaluation of the thread. That said, I am really not sure what comments you find to be ignorant or without merit.

I would rather not proceed with a response until I know where your concerns are.

Would you mind elaborating?

[fritchie]

(Hopefully, it will be clear to all that I composed this reply to obseq's earlier post offline, before reading the latest.)

And, obseq, I’m not sure what to make of the trend toward lexization of art. (Don’t bother looking up the word. I just invented it as a term to describe the trend of incorporating words or phrases into visual art. If someone has a better term, I’ll be glad to be informed.) It would seem that the people who insert words directly into their visual works, or who give such import to “Artist’s Statements” feel a need to supercharge the field of art.

They might feel that the visual means available to them are inadequate to express thoughts they have, and that a new and broader visual language must be created, in which words as carriers of specific concepts can play a part. I always have been a bit skeptical of this trend as a means of making visuals more powerful, as inclusion of verbal (technically, natural) language obscures the meaning of the piece for persons not knowing that particular language.

This is to put the best motive I can on the trend. A more caustic view would be that they are too impetuous or too lazy to find or create purely visual means of expressing the same concepts.

Back to the generous view of things - this trend may represent appropriate visual art for a multimedia world, a world where people expect and enjoy simultaneous input through many senses. Moving visual images, the spoken word and, increasingly, overlying music characterize much communication today. Here, of course, I am addressing incorporation of verbiage directly into the work of art, not the Artist’s Statement.

I think the Artist’s Statement is an attempt to address the main underlying theme here, the inability of artists to reach the viewer solely through visual language. And, of course, it feeds directly into media and advertizing desire by providing the abbreviated “sound byte” that frees both reviewer and audience from actually reading the art.

(I’ve skipped your reference to the Futurist Manifesto (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html). Broadly, it can be seen as a call to accelerate or intensify expression of art. That is consistent with the phenomenon I call lexization.) Also, I reject the critique of figuration you cite. I think realistic figuration stands and always will stand directly on its reflection of our physical existence, and as a provocation to reflect on that existence.

[obseq]

"(I’ve skipped your reference to the Futurist Manifesto. Broadly, it can be seen as a call to accelerate or intensify expression of art. That is consistent with the phenomenon I call lexization.) Also, I reject the critique of figuration you cite. I think realistic figuration stands and always will stand directly on its reflection of our physical existence, and as a provocation to reflect on that existence."


To clarify my end, the inclusion of the figuratist critique is not one I agree with. That reference, in my mind, mirrors the problems within abstract art more than anything.

I only thought the reference to serve as an interesting mirror to the focus on abstraction.

[Araich]

Let me clarify. It is this apparant desire to drive a wedge between the figurative/realist and abstract sculptors I find most repugnant.

Neither is better, more relevant or more meaningful.
All is dependant on the work, the era of viewing and an open mind.

[anne (bxl)]

As Araich said, I don't understand this obsession to separate art in opposite worlds, figurative versus abstraction (Are Anthony Gormley or Claes Oldenburg abstract?), now figurative versus multimedia,... and tomorrow??

Don't you think artists has constantly to open their mind to modernity, to explore new languages, to experience new worlds? instead of repeating again and again what the "public" is asking for....

I don't have a work accessible for large public (it's my choice), but when by chance someone says "discovering your work has open my mind to a new reflection" or "you express a feeling I couldn't point out, thank you".... makes me feel like I win a battle and it is good enough to persevere.

Nobody minds if it's figurative, abstract, video, installation, photography or whatever.... Only the quality of the meeting is meaningfull.

[obseq]

"I don't have a work accessible for large public (it's my choice), but when by chance someone says "discovering your work has open my mind to a new reflection" or "you express a feeling I couldn't point out, thank you".... makes me feel like I win a battle and it is good enough to persevere.Nobody minds if it's figurative, abstract, video, installation, photography or whatever.... Only the quality of the meeting is meaningfull."

As Anne said, the *qaulity* of the art is what is important.


I am not really sure why it is assumed that this thread is advocating a distinct seperation between realism and absrtaction or why, 'one is better than the other.' This is not the case.


The underlying issue is the fact that both disciplines have experienced periods where their respective yields have been diluted with uninspired art. For some reason 'abstraction' is continuing to attract laziness. As was stated earlier in the thread, there is a mentallity that abstract art is 'easy' to execute in craft and conception. We are mired an era where pop culture and kitsch dominate our visual world and literally anything can pass as art with just a simple assertion.

[YueLiang]

I think anne summed it up pretty well. "only the quality of the meeting is meaningful" it doesn't matter if it is abstract of figurative, just if it is good. and it think most people can tell the difference, if they can't, they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed.
now, this may sound random, but after reading this whole conversation, i have wondered why different people sculpt. not, because i can't help it, it's in me, that is not the answer i am looking for. some people have a talent. it is up to them what they do with it, i am religious, i know my talent comes from God, i also know i can lose that talent or discard it. i guess what i am getting at, is that if we thought more about why we do what we do, and make sure we are genuine, there would be a lot less bad art out there. when i do art, i pray, for help to make it good, to know what will mean something, to make it the way it should be made. i ask myself if what i am doing will give glory to God. this is why i make art, but everyone has a reason, and if they don't, maybe they should stop making art utill they get one. if there is no passion, no reason, then i don't think people put enough into the art to make it worthwhile, if there is no driving forse behind you, i doubt you will stick with it until you get it just right, it is too easy to cop out and say, good enough, when really it isn't good enough it all. if all of you is in it, it is much more likely that the quality of the meeting will be meaningful. not that is not to say that you don't have to have all the technical skill and such, i think the passion drives one to learn those things in order to make the sculpture right. anyway, i am not entirly sure i got my point accross, but it was worth a try. Yue Liang

[fritchie]

(Once again, posts have been made while I was composing my current comment offline, in this case by obseq and YueLiang. I agree with the sentiments expressed by both.)

I see by at least two posts that Araich and anne are happy working the way that they do, and don't want to be categorized. Dividing artists never was my intention. I said at the outset of this thread that my intent was to look into issues larger than those faced by individual artists. Specifically, I want right now to focus on the state of sculpture at large in developed countries, and of the U. S. in particular, and what might be done to improve the general state of the field.

This includes not only methods and freedom available to individual artists, but opportunities overall for public art, and opportunities for sculptural students. I did a little homework this afternoon on both the issue of sculptural language and the issue of current sculptural education. Unfortunately, the results are ambiguous.

First the matter of language. Art historians, presumably the arbiters of sculptural language, are ambiguous in defining the terms used here. Several people here, including me, have noted that all sculpture is abstract to some degree, so “abstract” is inappropriate as a classifying term. However, the common, more accurate alternatives, as I found in several web lexicons or glossaries, are nonfigurative, nonrepresentational, or nonobjective. That is, they define the field by what it is not, and the public at large rightly rejects these terms as inappropriate, preferring the term abstract. Thus, we are stuck for now with that poor term.

On the matters of substance, let’s look first at the current state of sculptural opportunities in the U. S., the issue of public as opposed to private commissions. These constitute the greatest opportunities for large scale works and for public recognition, I assume. I have no data on this. I described the major “disconnect” between public funding and artists’ presentation in a recent post. I was a bit vague earlier in describing the art which led to this problem, largely because of the uncertainty in language. As I just have said, there is no easy solution to this lexical problem.

The works which were troublesome to public authorities probably fit more into the category of conceptual than abstract, so let me clarify that. They generally include figurative elements, combined with symbolic elements, in ways the public at large found so objectionable that public representatives felt compelled to redirect and significantly reduce funding. I don’t want to say that artists must bow to the general public will or to public taste; in fact I have denigrated the level of this taste. However, I think responsible artists should actively look at these issues and then choose their personal responses.

On the matter of sculptural education, I took several approaches at factfinding, and as I said, the results are ambiguous. ISC, the “parent” organization in a way of this forum, uses three terms to characterize sculptors in its Portfolio database: abstract, conceptual, and figurative. Currently, 688 sculptors are present. Of these, 483 say they do abstract work, 309 say conceptual, and 255 say figurative. These numbers total 1047, so many artists choose multiple categories. Of course, a purpose of Portfolio for the artist is to attract attention and possible commissions, so many choose any term which might apply. In percentages, 70% describe at least some of their work as abstract, 45% say conceptual, and 37% say figurative. These figures, principally referring to the U. S., probably represent in general the present classification of working sculptors, and probably also the educational opportunities for sculptural students.

It is the relatively poor opportunities in figurative work available for sculptural students that first led me to express these overall concerns. To be anecdotal, when I first started sculpting in earnest some dozen years ago, I found no serious figurative opportunities in the local universities, and I turned to a non-degree institution for figural study. I searched the Web today for local references, and I find that the three largest universities all list casting facilities among others, but I know that figuration is secondary at best in all three. The situation is unchanged after these many years.

I could continue with this discussion, but it already is long. In brief, I think opportunities for figurative students are poor in general, though of course the determined student can meet his needs. The cause, I think, principally is the relative cheapness of techniques and materials used in abstract and conceptual sculpture, not any intrinsic desire of students or working sculptors to be “modern”. I expect rapidly developing computer technology to change this state in favor of figuration, and clearly, I am all for the development.

[jwebb]

Aside from a few personal friends, no members of "the public" have ever bought my Art. I don't know that good Art has ever had the support of "the public", at any time in History. The Church or some other dominant clique or institution has always served as the main commissioner and collector of Artwork. In Roman dominated Europe it was the Cathedral building bishops and popes, and a few rich cogniscenti, like the Borgias. In Egypt and many other ancient societies, the dynastic rulers. Later, the Academies. "Art History" can be seen as a repetitive chain of rebellions against those successive dominant forces. Out with the old; in with something else. In my opinion some more modern "movements" have been so enrapt with their version of that rebellion that they never got around to producing much Art at all. Some artists seem to seek only to define themselves as enemies of whatever's "popular". But, beneath that scene, in most societies in which I've seen any glimpse beneath the surface, it seems to me there are traces of what the Artists did for, presumably, themselves. There were "realistic" portraits of real people being made on a small scale by the people who produced those formulaic images of the Pharaohs and their families, for instance, (and a lot of very "abstract" Art, too). Rembrandt produced racey, very explicit drawings and paintings, which were not done for the Bishops. The sculptors in the cathedrals carved very un-religious images on the bottom, hidden surfaces of the wooden "kneelers". Today, guess who the biggest buyers and collectors of Art are? Insurance Companies and Banks, at least in the U.S. Which strikes me as about right, they being our dynastic rulers. Public support for and interest in good Art is hardly worth worrying about.

[fritchie]

jwebb - You cover a lot of ground here, also. I like several of your ideas, but I have to think more about them before adding much. It’s true, as you say, that most community art prior to about 1870, to pick a date of serious turmoil in Europe, was done for powers of the day - pharaohs, kings, princes of the church, and so on.

Probably the first laymen to commission art were the merchant-burghers of the Netherlands (1500's, 1600's ?; I’m not sure about the dates). At that period, professional artists simply shifted their attention from potentates to the burghers and continued with similar art. The rapid changes in style or “school” really didn’t begin until about the 1870's or 1880's, and probably were driven by the same force that led to the Futurist Manifesto that obseq brought up - the Industrial Revolution. That gave most people non-farm employment for the first time in history, and also provided more “free time” for individuals, so probably many more people became artists. Great revolutionary spirit also was in the air, following the American Revolution of 1776 - 1781 and the French Revolution beginning shortly afterward.

On the matter of art chosen by the people, I’m decidedly split in my ideas. It’s a truism that good decisions rarely are made by a committee. Things are simpler and probably better esthetic decisions made under some authoritarian power, but the implications of that rule for the population at large rarely are good. And, would it help if democracies, for example, didn’t commission public art at all? That was a serious argument put forward during the U. S. sponsorship review of several years ago. I guess I feel that average or mediocre art is better than no art at all, and not everything chosen under this system fit those definitions. Much of it, to the contrary, is very good.

And, by the way, I have to make a minor correction in the numbers I quoted from the ISC Portfolio section. I had assumed that the great majority of artists there are from the U. S., and I’m still sure that is true, but there seem to be some minor problems with the categorizing software. Of the 688 artists listed, only 428 are categorized as U. S., but I can’t locate most of the missing. I think they also are U. S., and simply provided no nationality. Canada seems to be second in the listings, with 18. Of artists specifically described as U. S., the abstract, conceptual, and figurative percentages are 79, 50, and 43. The earlier numbers were 70, 45 and 37. No big difference, but I wanted to clear up the record.

[fritchie]

Just a modest update to my post of yesterday on laymen commissioning art. I did a little research with local resources, and the time period was about 1550 - 1680, so my guess was reasonable. Rembrandt, Van Dyke, Vermeer, and Rubens appeared as the most famous in the limited references I had. Rubens actually was more of a court painter, but he essentially organized a large school of assistants, and is known mainly for design of the art works and adding critical details such as faces, rather than for doing the work completely on his own, as most of the others.

So much has been written on the details of art that a broad perspective is hard to find. I had a copy of Kenneth Clark’s “The Nude in Art” or some similar title, but lost it in a flood a decade or so ago. He was very good with the overall view.

[anne (bxl)]

Fritchie, let me precise your information (Belgium was part of The Nederlands at that time).

Mid of the XVI emergence of the merchant-burgher is due to the extension of the numerous colonies (birth of the capitalism) and lead to major religious trouble (council of trento - 1563) "laïcisation" (? laymen?) of the north european society. Barocco style coming from Italy, only influenced north of Europe from the very end of the XVI. Rubens the older one get born in 1577. Van Dijck (born in 1599), Velasquez (born in 1599), Rembrandt (born in 1606) among others were all painters of those rich court and merchants. Vermeer is much younger (born in 1652) and announce the classisism of the XVIII.

Rubens was a prolific and exceptionnal figurative drawer/scketcher (I invite you to discover them if you don't have already), he was also a inventive technician (he"invented" an oil painting with a short time drying) and a respected ambassador. He had the biggest among of assistants of the art history (Van Dijck was one of them) and was what we call today the artistic director of his own studio... and still had energy to do many kids (he is one of my ancestor).

[fritchie]

Anne - Many thanks for clarifying all of this. Clearly, the enlargement from royal or religious patronage to include lay patronage was a great moment in art, and in human history overall. Although we are in a sculptural forum, art surveys show about 90 to 95 percent of works considered worthy to enter the history books are paintings, and we need to look at painting from time to time to capture the spirit of an age or place.

I neglected to say in my post that the artists I mentioned were listed under both Holland and Belgium in my references. And, what a great ancestor to have - Rubens!

[ExNihiloStudio]

Quoth Fritchie -
“Abstraction in art (again, with the generally understood meaning) reflects the “spiritual” or nonphysical side of humanity in a way.”

This raises the critical issue. It’s not money, it’s not skill (or lack thereof, as some have contested). It’s about the ideas. The spirituality of abstract art is iconoclasm. It’s a variation on the search for the Platonic Ideal, a thing that cannot be represented in material form. As a way of contrast, for Christians, the representational sculptural symbol par excellence is the Crucifix. Reaching back further, the Greek divinities were represented as figural sculpture.

Is anyone surprised that every single proposal for the World Trade Center memorial published by the NY Times a week or two ago was minimalist? Minimalism is the perfect art form for a diverse liberal democracy. It neatly avoids difficult issues of who is being represented, it reflects the nominal agnosticism of the state, and it supports an eglatarian sensibility. The content places a premium on experience. The individual experiences the work, the experience is private, leaving the individual to make of it what he can, and the work can be so non-specific that no one feels excluded. You see yourself reflected in it because it’s about the experience. The only symbol permitted to take its place on the public square is the flag.

Here in Boston MA U.S.A. we have lots of wonderful civic figural sculpture. Last year I attended a local workshop about public art, and one of the panelists complained bitterly, resentfully even, that there was too much history in Boston, and worst of all, too many dead white males represented in bronze in and around the city. The panelist was promoting more abstract and experiential modern art and felt that tradition and history creates problematic limitations that restrict what kind of public art gets made. The issue of who gets to be represented in bronze has been made into a political issue.

The best figural memorials are heroic, larger than life. We’re supposed to look up to them – literally, as well as metaphorically. This sentiment does not sit well with lots of people who desire egalitarianism. There is nothing equal about a hero on a pedestal. Compare this with the reflection of ourselves that an experiential work creates.

So, my point is that non-representational public art that fosters a private experience is simply a reflection of how we are governed in the USA. It’s not money, it’s not talent, it’s a reflection of our culture and political order. Figural art will persist, and I’m hoping beyond hope that public monuments in the figural style will continue to be built. In the U.S.A., I expect figural work will continue, most likely privately funded with permission to rest in the public square. The motivation will be dissatisfaction with the contemporary situation, not slavish devotion to tradition.

[fritchie]

I don't know if it comes as a surprise or not, but I agree with most of what you say, and I think you summarize the issue of public art in the U. S. very well. My remarks that you quote above were truly felt but expressed somewhat in regret, as I clearly prefer figurative work myself, even for public commissions.

The remarks about “dead white males” seem somewhat dated today, being the essence of deconstructive and “egalitarian” thinking of the 80's or so. We might usefully remember that it was those dead white males, or in the lingo of the day DWEM’s, Dead White European Males, or WASP’s, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who gave us the culture we value so highly today. They are responsible for our ideas about equality, and even for our form of government, probably the most highly respected today.

The problem, as I see it with abstract public sculpture, is that it is too “abstract” to have the immediacy of figurative work. On the other side of the issue, as you say, no one given figure is any longer generally accepted as representative of the public at large. To go back to your Christian example, a nearly nude male nailed to a cross probably is seen by most people as more powerful than the cross alone. (This irrespective of the time element, before or after the Christian Resurrection, and I apologize to non-Christians for using this example so exclusively.)

I hope figurative sculptors can resolve this problem, but the solution clearly is not easy.