Richard:
The assumptions you question:
1. So, if I carve a figure (or something) in stone, am I still using the
material as 'neutral' carrier medium for forms? Or has it an in-built
nostalgia which you - as carver - have to take into account?
2. Whether stone is too traditional a material to offer any way of
experimentation.
3. The 'material alphabet' -- (that) every material has an inherent
significance in itself and a culturally imposed one. What, then, about
techniques? Carving has the inherent meaning, that it enables us to
bring out a certain form out of a given material. But does it
automatically have the culturally invested reference to the past? Is it
unavoidable or how can it be incorporated within a work of art?
Reply to #1: "Neutral " is a meaningless term -- neutral is a relative
quality within the context of our culture or our individual life
experiences -- we might use it in a similar way, but your neutral is not
my neutral. And yes, of course using stone as a material will tend to
evoke a nostalgia in the viewer and certainly, as a carver (even more so
as an artist and a sculptor), I must take that evocation into account in
making my expression material.
Reply to #2: No. I am constantly pushing the envelope in my work, and
encouraging it in my students. Though I myself work with partially
abstracted imagery, two of the best examples I can think of who work in
stone and who each in their own way are experimenting with our perception
of the medium are Andy Goldsworthy and Igor Mitoraj (though they
certainly not the only good examples).
Reply to #3: What about techniques? Do you mean to say you only carve
your material? You don't file, abrade, grind, polish, and you don't
drill and join or cement, adhere, mount, laminate, fill, inlay,
etcetera? I am sure all those processes have their own hierarchy within
your technique of manipulating the material in question (stone, right?).
Stone is old.
Stone is constant.
Stone is universal.
Stone turns into dust.
All those statements are true, but none of them are the whole truth.
Isamu Noguchi pointed out that if we go across space to other
places/other planets we will still find rock. He seemed to find that
comforting. I know I do.
Historians and archaeologists refer to the 'Stone Age' in human culture.
And we all know moss doesn't grow on a Rolling Stone -- though maybe
just a bit of gray hair does . . . :-)
Stone, as material, can be a link to many things. It IS unavoidable --
stone has references to the past and to many other things as well. All
those references can be incorporated within the art -- perhaps in as many
ways as there are sculptors working in stone, or even as many as there
are pieces of stone sculpture.
Brancusi said, "You cannot make out of marble what you would make out of
wood, or out of wood what you would make out of stone."
The important thing is that you make it.
You put it out there so others can see it and get what they can from it
and one more facet of the age-old dialog is revealed.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:02:20 +0000 (GMT) Richard Emmans writes:
>Carving has the inherent meaning, that it enables us to
>bring out a certain form out of a given material. But
>does it automatically have the culturally invested
>reference to the past? Is it unavoidable or how can it
>be incorporated within a work of art?
>
>I would be extremely thankful if any of you have thought
>along these lines and would drop me a couple of lines
>about your experiences with this problem.
...........................................
FAQ info and help on using this list is on
http://www.learningstone.net/lslstfaq.html
